Bin Laden expert Peter Bergen slams Saddam-al-Qaida theory

Read Peter Bergen's new piece in the New York Times, Enemy of My Enemy. He asserts that the "overwhelming evidence" leaders like Cheney used to justify the invasion of Iraq is essentially "nothing". Recently, the US Military released documents they "captured in Iraq", which includes some Afghan heresay about a connection. Here is their disclaimer, which kind of made me laugh:

The US Government has made no determination regarding the authenticity of the documents, validity or factual accuracy of the information contained therein, or the quality of any translations....

What I don't find shocking is that, even with the strategically timed release of these documents, many of which are likely forged anyways, we end up with, well, nothing to back up this Saddam-Qaida assertion. Yet why do people still cling onto it? I think it is clear that three years into the Iraq War, the supporters of this war have very little to go on. George Tenet's WMD "slam-dunk" got rejected like Denham Brown's three-point shot against George Mason last Sunday. And spreading freedom and democracy by building an Islamic State? Even your most "patriotic" war-supporter is probably aware that the role of women has been knocked back about 100 years since we took out Saddam. Perhaps the return to "Saddam was connected to al-Qaida" is due to the war-supporters (like Jay Ambrose and a little fly who buzzes around my comments section) coming full circle. With no clear mission in Iraq, they must keep us blind, frightened and confused in the smokescreen of false intelligence and hearsay. Then, over the next ten years, the US will be able to finish its real mission: building 14 long-term American Military bases in Iraq to be used for future attacks against oil-rich nations in the Middle East. Dick Cheney can't say it out loud, but that's been the real mission all along.