[chudogg]

One is Mr. Ani, who was captured and taken into American custody after the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Under questioning, he has denied that the meeting ever happened, American officials have said.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe U.S. officials have been mute about this and that the original media reports cited "unnamed intelligence agents". It's amusing how the media can always get that "unnamed" source to get the story they want, and after sitting on it for awhile, just report it as "American officials" thereby adding legitamacy to a totally non-legitamate report.

[Shermy]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe U.S. officials have been mute about this and that the original media reports cited "unnamed intelligence agents".

You are correct.

Guess who was the first to report Al-Ani's denial??

Iraqi Agent Denies He Met 9/11 Hijacker in Prague Before Attacks on the U.S. New York Times ^ | December 14, 2003 | James Risen

Actually, Risen adds this:

American officials caution that Mr. Ani may have been lying to American interrogators, but the only other person reported to have attended the meeting was Mr. Atta, who died in the crash of his hijacked plane into the World Trade Center.

Well, obviously he could be lying, but Risen doesn't offer this same caution in the new article.

[swilhelm73]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe U.S. officials have been mute about this and that the original media reports cited "unnamed intelligence agents". It's amusing how the media can always get that "unnamed" source to get the story they want, and after sitting on it for awhile, just report it as "American officials" thereby adding legitamacy to a totally non-legitamate report.

It seems to me that there is a gigantic press scandal that no one wants to talk about revolving around the fact the journalists routinely exaggerate, make up, or allow themselves to be deceived by unnamed sources.

There is no way the public can legitmately gauge the value of unnamed sources, and as such they simply should not be used by a good journalist.

And consider some of the recent specific scandals. At the BBC one of their reporters completely misstated what his source said and lied about who his source was.

Or look at Capital Hill Blue, where another reporter who found his "unnamed source" exposed as a liar claimed that his source had suddenly disappeared, but had been giving him good info for 20 years...