Teribus:

Now for what Arne says, in his post of 13 Dec 05 - 09:15 PM, to hold water Russert's questions, down to the exact wording of the those questions, would have to have been supplied by Dick Cheney. I don't see MSNBC and "Meet the Press" operating that way, does anybody else.

No. But I can't be held responsible for your difficulties in logic.
You're quite right that it was Russert that framed the question. But it was Cheney that answered that question. You may argue that Cheney intended to answer a different question, but the facts, as they are, are that the question he asnwered was the one asked.

I'd be glad to agree that Cheney didn't answer a different question: "... was [there] any linkage between Saddam Hussein/Iraq to the 911 attacks?" And the answer to this, never being asked, was not "an unequivocal no" (which, BTW, means that you're a lying sack'o'shite'). You're back to square one, Teribus (which, to be honest, you've been at for weeks now): You haven't provided a single quote where the maladministration has denied the existence of any links between Saddam and al Qaeda (or even between Saddam and 9/11).

... what we were reliabley informed by Ron Davies was that no statement was made by GWB, Dick Cheney, or any member of the Bush Administration in the period mid summer 2002 to March 2003, to the effect that there was no link between Saddam Hussein/Iraq and the Al-Qaeda attacks of 911 - I have clearly shown that two such statements were broadcast during that period - That is Fact, learn to live with it.

Nope. Zero. Zilch. Nada. When you find such a quote, feel free to proffer it. But keep in mind my previous point: Even if they had done such (which they haven't), it still doesn't refute the charge that they did indeed attempt to link Saddam and al Qaeda (and even the 9/11 attacks). As I pointed out (and as you also ignored), there's no requirement (unfortunately) that the maladministration act honestly, consistently, or logically; they are quite capable of talking out of both sides of their mouths, and even the quotes that you have posted from Cheney, talking about the alleged meeting between Atta and the senior Iraqi official, did precisely that (not to mention the repeated conflating of 9/11 and Iraq, and terrorism and Iraq). And as we now are finding out, the maladministration's claims of Saddam running a training camp for terrorists was another pile'o'crap, and known to be so by the intelligence community, which was ignored by the maladministration as studiously as you're ignoring obvious facts here yourself.

Neither yourself or Ron have explained why in the period selected by Ron that the US Administration would have to mount a propaganda campaign.

Yes, we have. To "sell" the friggin' war. See, e.g., Andrew Card's unintentionally revelaing comment about bringing out new "products" in August.

The remains of your tripe is the SOS rewarmed -- what is it up to now? -- a fifth time? Not to mention an example of precisely the type of "quote mining" you accuse others of doing, when you so carefully leave off what Cheney said right after that denial of intent to make "specific" accusations.....

Cheers,