Smells like a leak to me

This story on the findings of the 9/11 Commission is all over the press today. It's from the AP and it stinks of a partisan leak, with the headline "Sept. 11 panel: Bin Laden sought Saddam's help but Iraq rebuffed him" Kind of wordy for a headline, no? It also has Democrat written over it. It reads a lot like the "questions" Richard Ben Veniste took so long to "ask" during the public hearings.

More than that, it misrepresents why we went to war to overthrow Saddam. It pounces on a quote from Dick Cheney that says "that Saddam had 'long-established ties' with al-Qaida," which it hardly disproves. All it proves is that Saddam didn't give them training camps and weapons. He probably recognized that bin Laden would have been dangerous to his own regime, but it hardly proves that there were no ties between them.

The story reports other findings:

�No convincing evidence shows that al-Qaida received state-sponsored financial support, although some governments such as Saudi Arabia may have "turned a blind eye" to the group's fund-raising activities.

�Bin Laden decided he wanted to attack the United States by 1992, and worked meticulously in building an organizational structure of senior operatives and a broader Islamic army from terror groups throughout Africa and the Mideast.

Why isn't the headline, "CLINTON FAILED TO RECOGNIZE, CONFRONT AL QAEDA FOR 8 YEARS"?

Update: OK, it wasn't a leak, but the press report was spun more than cotton candy. Andrew McCarthy provides clarification from the commission transcripts.