[NormsRevenge]

Yahoo is carrying article title as "9/11 Panel Disputes Iraq Link to Attacks"..

hmmmmm?

as in, there is some evidence but ... we choose not to accept or acknowledge it.. or ??

[NERep]

******Alert******

I have uncovered what I think may be behind this twisted story. I read the 2 reports released by the Commission Wednesday and neither included the phrase "no credible evidence" as used in the AP report.

Fact: The 9-11 Commission released two staff reports on Wednesday June 16 (Staff Reports No. 15 and 16). Staff Report No. 16 states: "We have examined the allegation that Atta met with an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague on April 9. Based on the evidence available — including investigation by Czech and U.S. authorities plus detainee reporting — we do not believe that such a meeting occurred."

Fact: On Thursday June 17, 2004, an Associated Press article ran with the headline "Panel finds no al-Qaida link to Iraq" The article included the following statement: "the commission investigating the 9/11 attacks reported Wednesday [June 16] that there was 'no credible evidence' that Saddam Hussein had ties with al-Qaida."

Fact: Searching all documents released by the commission to date, the only statement ever released by the commission that uses the phrase "no credible evidence" is a statement given by a witness testifying on July 9, 2003 in the Third Hearing. The witness stated: "There is no credible evidence of the Iraqi dictator Saddam or the Baghdad regime sponsoring Al Qaeda."

So you see, AP ran this story claiming the commission stated "no link" in their report released Wednesday, when in fact, the "no link" statement is pulled from an old witness statement. It is picked up by papers all over the US and reported as gospel.

Where is the outrage?

I just finished a letter to the editor of my local paper expressing my outrage and canceled my subscription.