ABC News has written a brief summary and analysis of four of the documents released thus far that were captured in Iraq. ABC News includes the summary of a document that discusses a possible relationship between the Iraqi government and Osama bin Laden. The problem is, I can’t find that referenced document in the ones that have been released. Even so, ABC News notes the document used intelligence that was garnered from a source from an Afghan Counsul, therefore it’s passed through at least a couple of ears before it was written down.

ABC News’ editorial comment concludes:

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.

Sounds extremely reasonable to me. Not so to Lorie Byrd of Polipundit.

I have stated before that I can’t imagine what it would take now to convince the media and Democrats that they could have been premature (and frankly, dead wrong) about their declarations that Saddam had no WMD and no terrorist connections. Already, in this first batch of documents, there are some pretty amazing revelations. ABC isn’t buying it, though.

But we all should be skeptical of what comes out of these documents. Those that agree with the war should even be more skeptical of the documents and the conclusions made from them. Those against the war will look for what they want to see, much like those for the war, but whether those who support the war like it or not, the burden of proof is on our side. We must either demonstrate why the documents are important and should be in the national debate or refute the documents when there are inconsistencies.

Another example is the document on financial contributions to French elections. ABC News states in a summary:

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 all the regulations regarding financing of election campaigns in France. Translation was done by someone called “Salam Abdul Karim Mohammed.”

Indeed this one is certainly interesting, but thus far there has been no rock solid proof Saddam Hussein purchased France’s United Nations Security Council vote. This document is hardly the proof needed, but it is just one more piece to the puzzle. It certainly is a mystery why Iraq would be concerned with financing French politicians in the wake to the other misguided aide France afforded Iraq, including selling satellite phone codes to Hussein so the Coalition had to find another communication method during invasion, but nations make political contributions to politicians from every nation. If we as Americans were deeply interested in what nations contribute to our political candidates, we would question the Saudi role with the Bush White House and the Iranian role with Senator John Kerry’s campaign in 2004. We haven’t questioned either seriously, yet we are ready to condemn the Saddam-era Iraq for at least looking into to contributing to sympathetic French politicians. That is not the evidence needed to conclude the French UN Security Council vote was purchased.

In all intelligence matters, there rarely ever is that smoking gun that gives everything away. Instead what we will likely get from the documents is more supporting or refuting evidence to reinforce our preconceived beliefs on the Iraq conflict. What has defined the way intelligence agencies operate in times of war is how they piece together the information. Prior to the attack on Pearl Habor, there were warnings that were acknowledged by U.S. intelligence, but we did not act. There were warnings that Hitler would attack France, but no one acted and instead decided to appease rather than confront. We as a society must decide what level of intelligence and how many of these smaller pieces of intelligence must exist before waging war.

These documents are more of these small pieces of intelligence, though from the Saddam Hussein side. We don’t even know if U.S. intelligence knew what is in the Saddam documents prior to the invasion.

Matt Margolis writes at Blogs for Bush:

Remember, this just the tip of the iceberg… I am sure we’ll find plenty of evidence to corroborate the aforementioned Iraqi intelligence service document.

Indeed these documents, and the specific OBL connection, might only be the tip of the iceberg, but the question remains if we will ever actually uncover the entire iceberg. If that iceberg is uncovered, will we believe it?

It is though human nature to want to be right and prove the opposition wrong. It is part of a competitive society; the part I particularly love. These documents will never prove anyone was right because Iraq’s intelligence, much like the intelligence of the United States, is prone to and able to make errors because it must document serious allegations. These allegations though do not mean they are correct. As much as I would love to find the smoking gun document to justify my beliefs, I don’t think I need to find the document to reinforce my opinion on the Iraq conflict. I continue to believe it is better to confront in the face of several small pieces of intelligence rather than throw these out and regret it years later. The Duelfer Report has already concluded Iraq was ready to restart WMD capability following the removal of UN sanctions. What more do we really need?

UPDATE: Omar at Iraq the Model has translated the entire document that details a connection between OBL and Iraq.