HMMMMmmmmm, could it be because they DIDN'T HAVE the documents that Sandy Berger might have absconded with?
ooohhhh, they make me so mad......
Another option is that Al Quaeda, as with Saddam's nest of spies throughout the Middle East, were very cautious about how much was committed to paper. They also operated in "cells" ensuring the amount of information entrusted to any one individual was strictly limited.
I have read extensively on Saddam Hussein since the Gulf War, and taking into account his relentlessly ambitious nature and stubborn egomaniacal streak (We shall change the geography of the Middle East.") I have never entertained any doubts that there would be links between Saddam and Al Quaeda. How could they fail to make use of each other in pursuing their common aim?
See my previous post they use 'no evidence' several places where it means: The evidence we saw doesnt fit the conclusions we wanted to reach, so we will pretend it doesnt exist.
They did that in several places where THEY DELIBERATELY UNDERSTATED LINKS BETWEEN SADDAM AND AL QAEDA. One example is their whitewash of the question of whether Iraq was involved in the 1993 WTC attack.
http://freedomstruth.blogspot.com/2004/07/saddams-regime-and-al-qaeda.html