Compare these two quotes:

From the above NYT article:

Dr. Kay said there was also no conclusive evidence that Iraq had moved any unconventional weapons to Syria, as some Bush administration officials have suggested. He said there had been persistent reports from Iraqis saying they or someone they knew had see cargo being moved across the border, but there is no proof that such movements involved weapons materials.

Now, from the Telegraph interview:

"We are not talking about a large stockpile of weapons," he said. "But we know from some of the interrogations of former Iraqi officials that a lot of material went to Syria before the war, including some components of Saddam's WMD programme. Precisely what went to Syria, and what has happened to it, is a major issue that needs to be resolved."

Okay, which is it? I would like to see more clarification on this. However, one is a direct quote. The other is a newswriter's interpretation. And we have more than enough precedent for the media taking a statement like "not absolutely certain" or "I don't know" and morphing it into phrases like "no conclusive evidence" or "no proof." In point of fact, the same statements can also be interpreted as meaning there is no proof that there weren't weapons materials shifted out of Iraq, but that would be no less deceptive.