Satellites don't hover, but there are satellites in geostationary orbit (always above the same point, but above the equator. Regardless, do you think the US has only 1 satellite passing over Iraq?
We have more than one satellite, each of them being as limited by inclement weather as the other. Even in the absence of inclement weather, we do not have the capability to monitor a particular geographical region 24/7 without committing an inordinate number of satellites to the same thing, and even then I am not sure we can perform 24/7 surveillence.
While Iraq has been among our priorities, it has not been THE ONLY priority to which we commit every 'pass-over' of every satellite every day for the last several years. There are going to be 'gaps' or 'holes' in the time line; hours and often days every week.
Clouds block the visible spectrum of light. Many other wavelengths aren't hindered by clouds, and there are many many other things to be monitored/ other observations.
Sure, like wild fires or surface temperatures. You cannot monitor a cargo truck and its whereabouts through an overcast.
Also... I'm not sure, but did the US *ever* present any real evidence of Bin Laden's involvement before we invaded Afghanistan? (and we didn't catch Bin Laden either, but we did get out the Taliban who wouldn't let us build are oil pipeline)
We could not and did not "prove" that Al Capone was directing a leading crime syndicate in the Chicago area, either. We couldn't build a concrete criminal case against his involvement in organized crime. Capone was convicted on tax fraud and evasion. Do you understand why?
Because these people are shrouded in protection, they don't call it 'organized' crime for nothing. The leader has others to do all the dirty work, they hold up in secretive places to plot, plan, and give directives. Do you think there's a Polaroid somewhere of Bin Laden handing the hijackers their plane tickets? Maybe Bin Laden's Visa showing the purchase of plane tickets?
Nobody seriously doubts Bin Laden's involvement, except for perhaps an inordinately uneducated portion of the Arab world who have been treated since birth to daily indoctrination by their state-run media or mosques. All evidence, numerous but singularly circumstantial until taken together, pointed towards Al Qaeda and to nobody else.
Perhaps you believe that Bin Laden is the leader of the Boy Scouts, but the intelligence and antiterrorist agencies of every nation on the planet is in agreement that Bin Laden is the leader of Al Qaeda.
Now, what's Iraq going to do to the US with WMD? Give them to the Al Quaida?? Not in a million years.
First, that is speculation on your part. Pretty cozy position for speculation that you occupy there, being responsible for the safety and security of nothing and no one, eh? If you're wrong, it will not be you who gets the blame, nor will you probably even obligate yourself to feel any sort of regret if you're wrong. You get to wash your hands of it all, walk away, and probably make comments to your friends or co-workers like "Yeah, I've been saying all along we should take Hussein out."
Our decision and policy makers don't have that luxury.
Although you are correct that we know of no active relationship between Hussein and Al Qaeda, that may reflect on little more than the extent of our knowledge, not the extent of the relationship. As you know, our intelligence has not always been the greatest and we have had particular trouble infiltrating terrorist organizations like Al Qaeda.
The one thing Saddam and Al Quaida have in common is a hate for the US. That doesn't make them team mates, as Al Quaida is opposed to what Saddam stands for. But, there are Al Quaida members in Iraq... There are Al Quaida members in Britain and the US also. That doesn't mean that they're in contact with Tony Blair or George Bush though.
It is true that sharing this in common doesn't make them 'team mates', but it does substantially increase the risk and plausibility.
The goal is to eliminate potential sources of WMD capability that reside in the hands of rogue states like Iraq, which an organization such as Al Qaeda may try to woo precisely because they share something substantial in common. Hussein isn't particularly fond of Al Qaeda or their religious extremism, I give you that, but Al Qaeda's western hatred resonates strongly with Hussein, perhaps enough to eventually make him more receptive to them.
But we need not have a 'terrorist link' to deal with Iraq, this can be justified solely on the merits of Iraq's disarmament obligations to the world community via the United Nations. A terrorist link would be icing on the cake, a big bonus, but it is not necessary.