Actually, you should write: The President has made clear there is no direct link that has been uncovered between Saddam and 9.11.
You cannot prove a negative statement, and lack of evidence should never be mistaken for proof of lack.
There have been plenty of circumstantial links: AQ people in contact with Iraqi regime officials, the Salman Pak airliner assault course, Saddam's documented financial support of other radical terrorist groups who have close ties to AQ, etc. But there has been no eyewitness or documentary evidence that the 19 hijackers are directly linked to Iraq. Yet.
But, so what? This isn't a military effort to eliminate just AQ, but to eliminate the state-sponsored support base for all radical terrorists. Iraq was clearly one of these support bases.
He's made clear there's no link they can prove, yes.
That being said, nobody was suggesting your straw man in the first place. What the thread is about, is links to AL QAEDA not to "9.11".
Why some people keep switching back and forth between those two things is beyond me.
Let's refine it a bit more. The president has made clear that there was no "hard evidence" of a link between Saddam and 9/11. This does not rule out raw intelligence making such a link, nor does it rule out anything that may come out subsequent to the president making that comment.