Richie, it seems nearly impossible that Saddam and bin Laden would deliberately team up. Saddam's biggest internal threat is the Islamic fundamentalists within his own country -- Saddam is a staunch secular ruler. On the other hand, I think the nicest thing bin Laden has called Saddam is "infidel." They have huge incompatibilities in their goals, beliefs and outlook on the world, and fundamentalist Muslims save their bitterest epithets and threats for non-fundamentalist regimes.

It's certainly possible that terrorists of Al Qaeda or other organizations are operating out of Iraq without Saddam's support or even explicit knowledge -- I'd say it's damn likely, really, since they appear to operate out of every other country, including the US, most of Europe, all of Africa and the mid-East, etc. And large portions or Iraq are under the control of the Kurdish rebels, protected by US and UK military forces. Said Kurdish rebels are fond of terrorist tacitcs themselves, so if Al Qaeda *is* operating out of Iraq, I'd personally start looking there first.

Postulating a link between is based on really ridiculous evidence -- namely one Al Qaeda member who may have received medical treatment in Iraq. You know, that's what doctors do; they heal people. If the same guy walked into a hospital in NYC, he'd be helped first and asked questions later if he was asked questions at all. If there were better evidence, we'd have heard it by now. GWB & crew are desperate to make the link to garner public support. They just don't have it.

So, I don't buy it. Saddam is a ruthless despotic ruler, but he's not stupid enough to hand weapons or information to fundamentalist enemies that would probably turn around and use them on HIM first.