Saddam...bin Laden...WMD's...9/11? Nothing to see!

From ABC News:

Following are the ABC News Investigative Unit's summaries of four of the nine Iraqi documents from Saddam Hussein's government, which were released by the U.S. government Wednesday.

The documents discuss Osama bin Laden, weapons of mass destruction, al Qaeda and more.

The full documents can be found on the U.S. Army Foreign Military Studies Office Web site: http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/products-docex.htm.

Note: Document titles were added by ABC News.

"Osama bin Laden and the Taliban"

Document dated Sept. 15, 2001

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.

At the end, the writer recommends informing "the committee of intentions" about the above-mentioned items. The signature on the document is unclear.

IF true, it seems pretty damning, wouldn't you say? So what's ABC's take on this?

(Editor's Note: 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.)

Oh, so now we the news-consuming public are supposed to take "unnamed sources" with a grain of salt? The MSM injects information from "unnamed sources" every day, and they expect us to accept their reporting as gospel...often denigrating us for having the temerity to question their "unnamed sources"! Hell, the MSM's "unnamed sources" wind up being partisan hacks who photoshop and forge (using Microsoft Word, no less), yet they tell us how their sources are "unimpeachable", right?

But now that these documents may contain information that shoots their whole "Bush lied" mantra to Hell? Why, it's imperative that we take "unnamed sources" less than seriously! I mean, I'll bet Bushrove McHitlerburton himself pounded these out with Word 2003 (Arabic edition)!

Nope...no liberal media bias!