I still get so angry reading media accounts of this type of thing.
“There is no evidence PROVING Saddam was involved in 911”
“Cheneys says there was no evidence Saddam was involved in 911.”
They have to lie everytime they report anything from a Conservative. They cannot speak straight because they so adore mass murdering Dictators who rejoiced at the slaughter in 911 and who used WMD as “human insecticides” to wipe out thousands of Kurds.
It does not matter because on the moral compass of Bush haters there is nothing more evil than a Dick Cheney defending the good and wellbeing of a great nation known as America.
And while we are at it the Duelfer report indicates more than 500 illegal WMD were found by the end of the reporting period. But alas, we have to pretend that the relentless lies of the media constitute facts.
Another similar case was CIA's denial, repeated several times that Atta had met with Iraqi intel in Prague. Three times the Czechs said it was so, and three times CIA denied it within minutes of the Czech statement.
But when you dug into it closely, all CIA was saying was that they were unable to confirm such a meeting took place. And so on the basis of their "unable to confirm" the official story became that Czech intel had made it up.
I take the opposite view. If Czech intel made the claim and reiterated again and again that they were certain, even if CIA did not view the meeting themselves, it nevertheless stands confirmed by Czech intel. In other words, it happened. They knew who Atta was. And shortly thereafter they expelled the Iraqi contact.