Come on then Arne in your post 12:32AM 22 Dec 05 - why did you not quote the full transcript of the conversation including the date and the question asked:

Now this is what Arne and Mr. Olbermann would like all the anti-Bush sheep to believe what the Administration was stating as fact:

VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, what we now have that's developed since you and I last talked, Tim, of course, was that report that--it's been pretty well confirmed that he did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack.

Now take a look at the date and the question the Vice-President was responding to and more importantly what he did actually say:

From the December 9, 2001 Meet the Press:
RUSSERT: "Let me turn to Iraq. When you were last on this program, September 16, five days after the attack on our country, I asked you whether there was any evidence that Iraq was involved in the attack and you said no. Since that time, a couple articles have appeared which I want to get you to react to. The first: 'The Czech interior minister said today that an Iraqi intelligence officer met with Mohammed Atta, one of the ringleaders of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on the United States, just five months before the synchronized hijackings and mass killings were carried out.' And this from James Woolsey, former CIA director: 'We know that at Salman Pak, on the southern edge of Baghdad, five different eyewitnesses -- three Iraqi defectors and two American U.N. inspectors have said, and now there are aerial photographs to show it -- a Boeing 707 that was used for training of hijackers, including non-Iraqi hijackers trained very secretly to take over airplanes with knives.' And we have photographs. As you can see that little white speck -- and there it is, the plane on the ground in Iraq used to train non-Iraqi hijackers. Do you still believe there's no evidence that Iraq was involved in September 11?"
   
CHENEY: "Well, what we now have that's developed since you and I last talked, Tim, of course, was THAT REPORT THAT -- IT'S BEEN PRETTY WELL CONFIRMED THAT HE DID GO TO PRAGUE AND HE DID MEET WITH A SENIOR OFFICIAL OF THE IRAQI INTELLIGENCE SERVICE in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack. Now, what the purpose of that was, what transpired between them, we simply don't know at this point, but that's clearly an avenue that we want to pursue."

Point 1
Oh Dear the date of the "statement" and its transmission is before Ron Davies randomly self-selected period for the "Propaganda Campaign that never was"

Point 2
Russert establishes Cheney's view of 16th September (Iraq had nothing to do with 911) then asks the V-P for his reaction to two articles that have subsequently come to light.
- The first being the first regarding the Atta/Iraqi Security Official apparently coming from the Czech Interior Ministry
- The second relating to training based at Salman Pak

Point 3
Although Arne is adept at highlighting sections of text his ability when it comes to basic english comprehension are rather faulty. The one part of what the Vice-President says that stands out like a ball on a billiard table is:
"THAT REPORT THAT -- It's been pretty well confirmed that he did go to Prague and he did meet with a Senior Official of the Iraqi Intelligence Service in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack."
Arne he is stating what the subject matter of the report was not what he, or anyone else in the Bush Administration, believed to be the case.

Point 4
Having established what the report sourced from the Czech Interior Ministry claimed (i.e. Arne/Olbermann's quote) you get what Dick Cheney's reaction to that report (i.e. the second sentence that Arne/olbermann conveniently omit):
"Now, what the purpose of that was, what transpired between them, WE SIMPLY DON'T KNOW AT THIS POINT, but that's clearly an avenue that we want to pursue."

Point 5
The final part of Russert's question:
"Do you still believe there's no evidence that Iraq was involved in September 11?"
The second sentence quoted by me in point 4 above answers that. On 16th September Cheney stated that Iraq was not involved. On the 9th December, with the recently introduced reports relating to the Atta/Prague meeting and the training facilities at Salman Pak still under evaluation, Cheney clearly states that he does not know but that it is something that is being investigated.

Point 6
Where in that entire "Meet the Press" exchange/conversation does the Vice-President state, hint, infer that Iraq had something to do with 911.   

Sorry Arne, it simply does not wash, your continued use of selectively misleading soundbite clips to support your extremely shakey, unsupported opinions is not very effective.