Islamic fundementalists are differant, they are not bound by any sort of logic, much like the extreme end of the Republican party, they would rather be idologically pure than relevant, they would never get in bed with Saddam.
Saddam just sent about 40 of these guys to their 72 virgins a few weeks ago,
One of the reasons the Clinton administration was uncomfortable getting to close to the Iraqi opposition, is because they have alot of hardcore islamic fanatics who want to make Iraq into another Afghanistan. A sane Saddam is probably less dangerous than an insane Mulla.
Saddam is a stalinist bastard, and he has to go, but trying to implicate him in terrorism, will only hurt the administrations credibility when the time comes to go after Iraq.
I suppose that you no longer pursue the line "they have no reason to work together". Now you argue that Saddam is better than any opposition leaders in exile because they are fundamentalist fanatics. Not all of them is. That is why they are recruiting former republican guard general of secular background, even though he is classified as a Sunni. It is my view that U.S. keeps this Sunni dominated secular ruling elite with Saddam and his loyalist removed.
So, you do not believe this info in the article. So what information are you going to believe ? You do not believe any previous information about Iraq's involvement, either, I think. Such as terrorist training at Salman Pak. Atta's meeting with Iraqi operatives, to name two.
You're forgetting, Saddam has anthrax, and it's here. Through his agent, Mohammed Atta, he told us this already:
What this letter tells the United States, accompanied as it was by a sample of weapons grade, aerosolizable anthrax, is: point the finger at me, and New York City is history. Saddam's question for Bush is, Do you feel lucky, punk? It remains to be seen if Bush is willing to call his bluff.