Well I am going to assume for a minute that you are of the opinion that Iraq "had' weapons of mass destruction (15 year old un-operational weapons right?) and that Saddam/Iraq had ties to Al-Qaeda that required our invasion. correct?
You are correct, he did still have the WMD's that he used in the Iran-Iraq War, against the Kurds in northern Iraq, and against his own people during a futile resistance against the Iraqi government. That's not why we went to war, and everyone knows it. We thought that he was developing newer more lethal WMDs including nukes.
We know he had a nuclear power plant that was almost unquestionably working on building nuclear weapons, until Israel destroyed it (in one of the greatest aviation missions of all time) and we thought he had once again continued to pursue nuclear weapons.
We have yet to find these weapons, but that doesn't mean that he didn't have them. A number of high ranking officials in Saddam's former air force claim that he had them transported to Syria in 2002, before the U.S. landed in Iraq.
The title of the thread was a question. The article that accompanies is just more declassified information showing this administration's desire to go to war. This desire was backed by manipulated intelligence, in this case fellow PNAC member Feith.
What I'm trying to get at is that Saddam does not equal Iraq. There are unquestionably Iraq/al Qaedaties, but the Saddam/al Qaeda ties are less clear (though there certainly is some evidence, nothing too convincing). Saddam did give support to certain Sunni terrorists (abu Nidal), though not necessarily al Qaeda (although Osama bin Laden, Zarqawi, and Zawhiri are all Sunni terrorists).
Furthermore, it has become more and more clear that Iraq supplied how-to manuals for Arab operatives working throughout Afghanistan before 9/11, and provided military assistance to the Taliban and Al Qaeda.
No one knows for sure...