Heh! ;-D

3 things are fairly clear here to me.

1. The Bush administration was delighted that a lot of people in the USA would be dumb enough or ill informed enough to think that Saddam had something to do with 911, so they implied it in various ways, but...

2. They were not stupid enough to directly say it in a literal and undeniable statement, they just helped create a convenient sort of general rhetorical climate so that a lot of ill-informed people would imagine that it was the case, and...

3. Olberman, for his part, was eager to attack and damage Bush and Cheney in any way he possibly could and was probably willing to be quite unscrupulous and manipulative in doing so, just as Bush and Cheney were willing to be quite unscrupulous and manipulative in doing and saying things that would get the public onside for an invasion of Iraq.

Look...most politicians are lawyers. And they have lawyers to advise them. Media people have lawyers to advise them too. So the rhetoric they both use is usually fashioned to create an impression in the minds of people, while not stating anything that can literally be found later to be a 100% out and out lie. (but occasionally even lawyers and media people slip up)

Bush and Cheney would have been happy to create the false impression in the minds of a lot of people that Saddam was connected with 911. Olberman would have been happy to create the false impression in the minds of another set of people that Bush and Cheney lied about Saddam, and also that they drink blood, sacrifice children on altars, and practice Satanic rituals afterhours in the Green Room at the White House....and probably kick their dogs too.

In other words...there are partisan scoundrels on both sides of the line, eager to make hay with whatever propaganda and innuendo suits their chosen cause. What else is new? ;-)

Bush, Cheney, and Olberman probably ALL overstated their case many times if they are anything like most of their colleagues and peers.