ican, you quote wrong chapters the 9/11 commission report, and in the wrong chronology.
In Chapter 2.4 the 9/11 commission goes on and on speculating about Bin Ladin, Turabi, Saddam and Ansar al Islam and indications that the Iraqi regime tolerated and may even have helped Ansar, etc, etc.
Later, in Chapter 2.
5 the commission reduces its speculative claims about Bin Ladin and Saddam to a series of friendly contacts and indications that there are some common themes in both sides' hatred of the US, and then proceed to say that there was no evidence of a collaborative operational relationship. Note how there is no mention of an exception of a collaborative harboring relationship in their dismissal, contrary to your hallucinogenic claims thereof.
The commission was spinning a yarn based upon self-admittedly unreliable reports and allegations in Chapter 2.4, and then in Chapter 2.
5 dismiss it all by denying any evidence of a collaborative operational relationship, no qualifiers added, between al Qaeda--this would include, by
your own working definition of "al Qaeda," Abu Musab al-Zarqawi--and Saddam.
The 9/11 commission renders it's own twiddlings in Chapter 2.4 irrelevant by its denial in Chapter 2.5; it repudiates Powell's UN speech, and it's made chumps out of Saddam/al Qaeda conspiricists.