OK then take a look again at the second example given:
Example 2
RUSSERT 8th September,2002 show: "Has anything changed, in your mind?" (As to whether Saddam or the Iraqi Government had anything to do with the 911 attacks)
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.

Examination of Example 2, against governing criteria:
1. Satisfies, statement made by serving Vice-President.
2. Satisfies, this interview was "aired" and heard by the US public on 8th September, 2002.
3. Satisfies, this was a broadcast by a major TV Network on what could be considered a popular current affairs programme.
4. Satisfies, clear and direct question, clear answer.
5. Satisfies, widely reported and discussed.

Your trouble, Ron, appears to be that you cannot understand plain english. You are so wrapped up in inventing conspiracy and plot regarding the current administration that you completely fail to see the wood for the trees.

Bobert, don't confuse the issue:

"...explain how 70% of Americans came to the conclusion that Saddam was linked with Al Qeada"

Is not the same thing at all to -

"Saddam/Iraqi Government having anything to do with the attacks of 911"

By the way Bobert if you want the link explained go and read what the President of the United States said in the State of the Union Address in January 2002. Sorry Ron and Bobert but once again that will require the ability to read and understand plain english, so in both your cases it will in all probability prove to be a pointless exercise.