Hamilton, a former Democratic congressman from Indiana, told FOX News on Wednesday that if Atta's name had been mentioned in the October 2003 briefing, it would have jumped out at staffers.
Maybe I'm not reading this closely enough but don't these two statements contradict each other? The first statement speaks to the information about Atta's travel records. I would presume that means that his name was mentioned in the briefings.
Yes, Hamilton and Felzenberg have contradicted each other - one denies Atta was ever mentioned in this context, while the other claims the info was heard but dismissed because supposedly Atta was not yet in the country in late 1999. fwiw, just because "travel records" show him entering the US in the summer of 2000 does not mean he could not have been here previously - especially since terrorists often have multiple identities, false passports, etc.