There's a reason for that. To a competent intelligence analyst and intelligence agency, it's clear that there's no links of any major significance between Saddam and AQ. He's not going out on a limb claiming flimsy, circumstantial evidence that no real analyst would sign his name to.
I don't believe that the Pentagon manipulated intelligence in the way that this article is alleging. What we thought we knew about the WMDs was pretty solid. This Saddam/AQ fluff isn't. That's why the you won't see the President or anyone in the Administration try and sell it.
Ansar al Islam and Salman Pak were flimsy evidence?
Abdul Rahman Yasin (convicted 93 WTC bomb-maker) living in Baghdad and collecting a government paycheck for a decade is flimsy?
The 1998 Grand Jury indictment citing a working relationship between OBL and Saddam was based on flimsy evidence?
The 1999 offer of asylum to OBL is flimsy evidence?
The IIS envoys to the Sudan and Afghanistan to meet with OBL are flimsy?
The al-Ani/Atta meeting in Prague is flimsy? Why, because an anonymous FBI source told the New York Times they placed Atta in Virginia at the time (and we all know the FBI had such a great handle on Atta in 2001).
Using the Simpson Jury standard for reasonable doubt, there is no such thing as actionable intelligence.
Just for the record, do you personally believe there was a connection between al Qaeda and Saddam? Don't tell me your personal beliefs don't matter, I already know that. I'm asking anyway, in the interest of putting our cards on the table here.
So James Woolsey is incompetent? Because he not only believes there was, he testified to it in district court to it (and the judge agreed).