Teribus trots out the same lame stuff and pretends that it is a "clear" statement that Saddam Hussein was not involved in 9/11:

Example 1
"RUSSERT on the September 16, 2001 Meet the Press: "Do we have any evidence linking Saddam Hussein or Iraqis to this operation?"
CHENEY (Vice-President of the United States of America): "No."

Ummm, we've pointed this out before, but here Cheney denies that there's any evidence known to the maladministration linking Saddam to 9/11. Cheney says (amazingly enough, truthfully): "No." He denies that there's known evidence in support for such a link. He doesn't say that there's no such link (which, I should remind Teribus, is what Teribus was tasked with producing), nor does he say that the maladministration is in possession of evidence tending to refute such a link.

Example 2
RUSSERT 8th September,2002 show: "Has anything changed, in your mind?"
CHENEY: "Well, I want to be very careful about how I say this. I'm not here today to make a specific allegation that Iraq was somehow responsible for 9/11. I can't say that.

He's simply saying he can't (or won't) assert positively that Saddam was involved in 9/11. But that's once again hardly a positive assertion that Saddam wasn't at all involved. Then, as pointed out above, Teribus hypocritically leaves out the follow-up, the 'rest of the story':

"On the other hand, since we did that interview, new information has come to light. And we spent time looking at that relationship between Iraq on the one hand and the al-Queda organization on the other. And there has been reporting that suggests that there have been a number of contacts over the years, We've seen, in connection with the hijackers, of course, Mohammed Atta, who was the lead hijacker, did apparently travel to Prague on a number of occasions. And on at least one occasion we have reporting that places him in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official a few months before the attack on the World Trade Center..."

IOW, now he's saying there is "new information", new evidence (which turns out to be just as wrong as most of the "intelligence" on Iraq) about a meeting of Mohammed Atta (the lead hijacker in 9/11) with Iraqi security. Teribus wants us all to believe that this statement is (in combination with the preceding words) a "clear" statement that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. And he has a bridge for sale, too, if you have some spare cash. Still for sale, too, as no one's buying it.....

Cheers,