So when the DEmocrats like something from the CIA, they cite it as fact. Zarkawi was in Iraq in 2002, a year before we invaded, he led the AlQaeda presencence Iraq, and BinLaden called him by name as the AlQaeda leader in Iraq. That "Senate report" is revisionist history and creative writing and the Democrats trying to redo something years after the fact before an election. There were ties between Hussein's government and Iraq. He knew they were there, he allowed them to be there, and there was no ignorance about it. Period.
AMZ was in Iraq in 2002 and before, but he was lone wolfing it at the time. He wanted to use his knowledge and training to set up his own group, and do things his way. There's lots of evidence (such as intercepted letters, many of which have been declassified) that show that AMZ and AQ senior leadership did not agree at all on how to do business.
AMZ did lead the AQI movement, but it was QJBR before that, his own group. He pledged allegiance to UBL during the insurgency, and re-flagged his group to be an al-Qa'ida wing. AMZ had the street credibility to pull it off, at that point, but it was his own tactical decision, not a master plan by bin Laden.
There were ties between Hussein's government and Iraq.
?
He knew they were there, he allowed them to be there, and there was no ignorance about it.
Yes to 1 and 3, sort of to 2. Using state sponsored terrorists to harass your enemies is common practice from, well, Libya to Pakistan and everywhere in between. The fact that Saddam had some low level terrorists running around to shoot up the Kurds isn't surprising; it would be more surprising if he didn't. That some of them were al-Qa'ida trained in the Afghan camps isn't really as significant a link (or as uncommon in the Middle East) as people are making it out to be.
Again, this shouldn't have any bearing on why we took out Saddam, or why we need to kill bin Laden.