Um, did I miss the part where the declassified document was a damnation of Saddam? Because, ya know, this AP article I read seems to say that Saddam was sending scary men out to find Al-Zarqawi here:
However, one of the documents translated by The Associated Press, a letter from an Iraqi intelligence official, dated Aug. 17, 2002, asked agents in the country to be on the lookout for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and another unnamed man whose picture was attached.

(Article at http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=politics&id=3998761)

AH-ha! You’ve fallen into the GOP’s little trap:

the right is so fucking meta i never know if someone is making an argument about the perception of an argument, or is arguing about the perception of others\u2019 reactions to that perception of the argument. it\u2019s ultimately an empty way to debate. you lose sight of meaning about three layers in.

it’s not about what’s a fact, it’s about finding someone somewhere who said something that you can use.
That’s why torture is so effective – you can get anyone to say whatever you want. Then, you can say “a source told us that…”
Whether or not what the source said is true or not is beside the point.
But, of course, you knew that already.

Yeah, it’s nice to see how teh 1nt3rw3b’z right wing trumped Jane’s Intelligence and the CIA fact book, both of which listed Iraq as one of the few countries in the world in which al Qaeda was not operative.

Huzzah, Freepi!

First declassified Iraq documents released

Iraqi documents collected by U.S. intelligence during the Iraq war and released by the Bush administ

Condi was right. You’ve got to be on mushrooms to see the smoking gun. Didn’t she say something like that?

1. That Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban in Afghanistan are in contact with Iraq and it that previously a group from Taliban and Osama Bin Laden group visited Iraq.

2. That America has proof that the government of Iraq and Osama Bin Laden group have shown cooperation to hit target within America.

OK, so there’s the whole “heard it from a friend who… heard it from a friend who…” aspect to this, right? And the Freepers and their cousins with teeth at the NRO want to ignore that and read Statement #1 as pure gospel truth, instead of multiple hearsay.

But then they have to take Statement #2 as gospel also, which would mean that America really had proof in September 2001 that Iraq and Al Qaeda cooperated in the 9/11 attacks. Yet no such proof has ever been offered by the Administration. No such proof was forthcoming in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 (when proof that the Taliban was sheltering Osama justified invading Afghanistan), nor in the run-up to the Iraq War. (And despite Vice-Shotgunner Dick Cheney’s tenacious attempts to keep hope alive, even the “Mohammad Atta met an Iraqi agent in Prague” story has gone by the wayside.)

So which is it to be, Vast Right Wing Blogosphere? Are Statements #1 and #2 statements of fact? If so, where is the proof the Americans had in September 2001? And if Statement #2 is just hearsay, then isn’t Statement #1 equally so?

Cocknobs. That is all I can say. Back to chernobyl I go.

Such willful, careful, studied delusion. It’s terrifying…I’m terrified.

Well, not really, but the re-education costs are going to be astronomical. My advice? “Truth and Reconciliation Commission”, right after, or parallel to the Bush/Cheney War Crimes Tribunal. Have CourtTV cover it.

The funniest thing about this document is that it’s supposedly an Iraqi intelligence document about an interview with a source in Afghanistan, telling the Iraqis what relationship they have with Iraq. Am I the only person who finds that odd? Does the CIA interview British sources to find out if they are cooperating with the Americans? Or do they just, you know, cooperate?