A very important article with the very odd title -- "Bush Officials Deny Money Was Diverted for Iraq War"

includes the following passages so why wasn't it entitled "Bush Officials Confirm Money Was Diverted for Iraq War" ?

"..., administration officials said Gen. Tommy R. Franks, then the top American military commander in the region, had submitted a list to the Pentagon in July 2002 of $750 million worth of contingency planning and preparatory work he wanted to do in the region.

But they said the Pentagon approved only a portion of the money at first. During August and September 2002, they said, the Pentagon released $178 million for projects..."

and

"Over several months after Congress adopted a resolution on Oct. 11, 2002, authorizing the use of force in Iraq, the Pentagon approved $800 million worth of projects intended to help plan and prepare for a possible invasion, the officials said."

Note that the resolution did not include the appropriation of funds as is clearly required for spending in the US Constitution "Clause 7: No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law"

[update]

Now I'e read the Washington Post article that could have been entitled "Bush Officials Confirm Money Was Diverted for Iraq War" but had the odd title "Powell Says He Was 'Committed' to Iraq War ". I guess Colin Powell's state of mind is more important than the constitution.