GW, it is NOT a corny website. It is CNN's own website. It is their own article. It is one of their leading journalists. (The link is in the title...did you notice the different color?) In any case here it is again: http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/02/12/terror.meeting/index.html
How in the world can you just simply dismiss this?
There are a couple of arguments going around:
1. There were no Saddam/bin Laden ties.
2. There were no Saddam/Al Qaeda ties.
3. There were no Iraq/Al Qaeda ties.
You've got to admit that this proves that #3 is definitely wrong. Especially so, since Iraq knowingly harbored Zarqawi at the Salmon Pak training/poison/wmd center.
It's hard to imagine that Saddam didn't know his own agents were coordinating with Al Qaeda at the Beirut Conference, so #2 is suspect.
How likely is it that Saddam & Bin Laden communicated? Who knows. But I do know that #1 is worthy of discussion given that #2 is suspect and #3 is proven false.