So the first document that the excerpt they have titled "Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban," and it's dated September 15th, 2001. For those of you in Rio Linda that's four days after the 9/11 attacks. "An Iraqi intelligence service document saying that their Afghani informant, who's only identified by a number, told them that the Afghani Consul Ahmed Dahastani claimed the following in front of him: That OBL and the Taliban are in contact with Iraq and that a group of Taliban and bin Laden group members visited Iraq. That the U.S. has proof the Iraqi government and 'bin Laden's group' agreed to cooperate to attack targets inside America. That in case the Taliban and bin Laden's group turn out to be involved in 'these destructive operations,' the U.S. may strike Iraq and Afghanistan. That the Afghani consul heard about the issue of Iraq's relationship with 'bin Laden's group' while he was in Iran."

That's in the document dated September 15th, 2001.

The editor's note that ABC writes to accompany this excerpt says this: "The controversial claim that Osama bin Laden was cooperating with Saddam Hussein is an ongoing matter of intense debate. While the assertions contained in this document clearly support the claim, the sourcing is questionable -- i.e. an unnamed Afghan 'informant' reporting on a conversation with another Afghan 'consul.' The date of the document -- four days after 9/11 -- is worth noting but without further corroboration, this document is of limited evidentiary value."

Okay, so forget it. We're going to publish what the note says; we're going to publish the excerpt, but the hell with it! The hell with what's in it because we can't corroborate it. These people have not exactly -- I'm talking about the mainstream press themselves -- have not distinguished themselves with sourcing in recent years, ladies and gentlemen. So now they question everything that's in this thing. If this is true, and if these things can be substantiated, this is going to be a death of a thousand cuts to the Democratic Party. It is.

Here's the next note, document dated July-August, 1999: "Correspondence Regarding Election Campaigns in France. This includes a document from the Iraqi intelligence service classified as secret, ordering the translation of important parts of a 1997 report about campaign financing laws in France. It also includes a document from the foreign minister's office indicating the report was attached. The attached translated report included very detailed information about the all the regulations regarding financing of election campaigns in France.

"The translation was done by somebody called Salaam Abdul Kareem Mohammed. Editor's note: This is an intriguing document which suggests that Saddam's regime had a strong interest in the mechanics and legalities of financial contributions to French politicians. Several former French politicians are implicated in receiving oil vouchers from Iraq under the UN oil-for-food program." Well, we knew that. Hell, the whole world -- the only people's names not on the list of bribes in the oil-for-food program were Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Bush and Halliburton. Everybody else was on the take.

Document dated March 23, 1997: "Hiding Documents from the UN Team. A letter from the Iraqi intelligence service to directors and managers advising them to follow certain procedures in case of a search by the UN team including removing correspondence with the atomic energy and military industry departments concerning the prohibited weapons. Removing prohibited materials and equipment, including documents and catalogs, making sure to clear labs and storages of any traces of chemicals or biological materials that were previously used or stored. Doing so through a committee which will decide whether to destroy the documents, and removing files from computers. Editor's note…"

The ABC editors -- because we're too stupid -- we don't have the brain power, we don't have the ability, ladies and gentlemen, to read these documents and understand their relevance. No, ABC has to add an editor's note to each one, and here's this one. "This document is consistent with the report of the special advisor to the Director of Central Intelligence which described a pattern of deception and concealment on the part of Saddam's government towards the UN inspectors in the mid- to late nineties. Hussein halted all cooperation with those inspectors and expelled them in October 1998." Okay. So we can believe that one and we can believe that Saddam was trying to monkey around in the French electoral process; but we can't believe, we don't have enough evidence to believe the first note about Saddam's ties with Al-Qaeda and the Taliban and Osama bin Laden.

Here's the final one. "Al-Qaeda presence in Iraq," document dated August 2002. "Another correspondences to check rumors that some members of Al-Qaeda organization have entered Iraq, three letters say that this information can't be confirmed. The letter on page seven, however, says that information coming from a trustworthy source indicates that subjects who are interested in dealing with Al-Qaeda are in Iraq and have several passports. The letter seems to be coming from or going to Treble, a town on the Iraqi Jordanian border. There's more to it." The editor's note says, "This document indicates the Iraqis were aware of and interested in reports that members of Al-Qaeda were present in Iraq in 2002. The document does not support allegations that Iraq was colluding with Al-Qaeda."

No, of course they why would they be cooperating! Why, it's impossible to imagine that. Isn't it? Al-Qaeda is in Iraq? They wouldn't be colluding. Oh, nooooo! Why, what lamebrain would ever form that conclusion? What kind of warped brain process, neurological process must someone have to assume that? You've got Al-Qaeda that hates America. You have Saddam that hated America, and they're in the same country? The fact that they would be colluding? Ha-ha-ha! Don't make me laugh, folks.

Actually I have a thought, folks. These Saddam Iraq documents are fascinating and all that, but I think we need to change the focus. Let's change the focus to Iran and the Democrats, and let's start asking the Democrats what their plans are. No, I don't care what their answer is. We need to ask the question. We know what the answer is going to be. Get them on the record: "What are we going to do about Iran? Does Iran has nuclear weapons. How do you know? Yes or no? What are you willing to do about it? What happens if you are wrong?" Because the Democrats, they hope for a replay of Iraq on Iran. I think, you know, Iraq is what it is. Iran's the future. We need to put some pressure on these people and ask them: "What would you do about that? You guys want to run the country. What do you think is going on with Iran, how should we deal with it?"