QJBR didn't become a bona fide al-Qa'ida affiliate until AMZ decided to co-opt the terrorist movements in Iraq, cash in his reputation as being an Afghanistan trained AQ terrorist, and pledge allegiance to UBL. Prior to that, he was trying to run QJBR as his own outfit, but was able to get more attention (and in many ways challenge UBL for the leadership position) by going back to his AQ roots.
In a very vague and indirect way you can make the case that Saddam and al-Qa'ida had a relationship. Certainly no one senior in al-Qa'ida (AMZ was never of any great importance until after 2003). But most of the press reports on the subject were simply wrong, as wrong as the lions share of WMD claims turned out to be. Why we'd sit here all day and bash the MSM, and then trot out their articles as ironclad proof, is someone unusual.
UBL / AQSL (al-Qa'ida Senior Leadership) and Saddam simply didn't work together. They didn't plan 9/11 together, and there's no real evidence, as assessed by the national Intelligence Community, that credibly demonstrates a link. Other than incidental links inside Iraq relating to domestic issues, there's just no meat there.
Both guys are scum, and should be shot on sight, as far as I'm concerned (to include Saddam in his cell), but I don't understand the need to tie them together. There's more than enough dirt on them as it is. I don't like Kim Jong Il, Mugabe, or Ahmedinejad, but that doesn't make them partners. But the fact that they're not partners doesn't make them innocent one iota.
I suggest you read the link I provided and the book I sourced. Also, take a look at the extensive links provided in post #2. Yes, no direct evidence exists to suggest Bin Laden worked with Saddam on 9-11. But the evidence is substantial and undeniable they worked together in other ways to support one anothers anti-American, anti-Saudi, anti-Western efforts. You simply cannot look at the mountain of evidence I have and claim only a "vague and indirect" relationship. I'm sorry, but that's just not honest.
I have no need to believe these things anymore than I have a need to believe the sky is blue. I am simply responding to and forming a belief out of volumes of evidence available to any who will bother to look into it.
Finally, I would suggest you Freep mail Jveritas to receive his translations of Saddam's internal intelligence documents showing that indeed he did cultivate ties with Al Qaeda. This is not a figment of our imagination or something we conjoured out of a "need" to believe. It simply is what is.
I will pink JVeritas on this communication so he might provide you with some of the documents he has translated and articles from national publication pointing out Saddam's ties to Al Qaeda.
The fact is, the Senate was VERY sloppy to draw this conclusion. I can only conclude this was another silly attempt by Republicans to mollify their extremist Democratic colleaques out of some false notion of "Senate collegiality." No doubt the Democrats on the intelligence committee refused to vote out a concluding report until it was agreed to say Saddam had no ties to Al Qaeda and of course the spineless Republicans went along.
Certainly the committee did not have access to Saddam's intelligence files indicating his ties to Al Qaeda, files only now being released and translated in 2006. The committee concluded its work before the DoD released the documents. Frankly, I think the Democrats on the committee and their pre-conceived conclusions about Al Qaeda and Iraq's ties would have ignored the documents even if they had them.
Read Stephen HAyes' book to see that you're quite wrong about Ansar Al Islam having no common ties to both Al Qaeda and Saddam's regime.
(And here I thought liberals were the champions of 'nuance.')