Words really mean something. If you have even been deposed, cross examined at a trial, or written an expert report, you should have a somewhat sharpened sense of words. In the NY Times today as they discussed the Libya disaster the Times states:
Months of investigation by The New York Times, centered on extensive
interviews with Libyans in Benghazi who had direct knowledge of the
attack there and its context, turned up no evidence that Al Qaeda or
other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault.
Now read this carefully. They say that the Times could not turn up any evidence, NOT that the allegation was false. All they could say was that they could not say one way or the other, that is what turned up no evidence means in plain English. Now I do not want to take a position one way or the other but I do want to deal with the use of English. Words mean something. Thus there must have been dozens of edits of this sentence. Just look at how convolved it is, except the four words they use are clear. Whether they did a good job or bad, they could not find anything.
Yet again why would anyone even suspect that they could. They are New York reporters trying to gather information in a war zone amongst people who not only hate Americans but I suspect do not like the Times either.
Yet reporters, or "news readers", on the media have stated that the Times unequivocally said there was no relationship. That is not what these words mean. This is the very definition of equivocation.
One wonders if anyone can read in today's world.