Neptun
Citatet fra Det Hvide Hus’ hjemmeside er meget klart:

> Q I want to be clear because I’ve heard you say this,
> and I’ve heard the President say it, but I want you
> to say it for my listeners, which is that the White
> House has never argued that Saddam was directly
> involved in September 11th, correct?
>
> THE VICE PRESIDENT: That’s correct. We had one report
> early on from another intelligence service that
> suggested that the lead hijacker, Mohamed Atta, had met
> with Iraqi intelligence officials in Prague,
> Czechoslovakia. And that reporting waxed and waned
> where the degree of confidence in it, and so forth, has
> been pretty well knocked down now at this stage, that
> that meeting ever took place. So we’ve never made the
> case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden [sic]
> was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never
> been forthcoming. But there — that’s a separate
> proposition from the question of whether or not there
> was some kind of a relationship between the Iraqi
> government, Iraqi intelligence services and the al Qaeda
> organization.

Spørgsmålet handler om Saddam Hussein. Svaret henviser derfor til Saddam Hussein, men Dick Cheney kommer til at sige Osama bin Laden. Helt tydeligt en talefejl, hvilket også er angivet direkte i referatet, ved at indsætte ‘[sic]’ (hvilket er latin, og kan oversættes nogenlunde til ‘således var det skrevet/sagt’, og bruges til at indikere en viderebragt fejl i kilden.

At angrebet d. 11. september 2001 ikke fremgår af FBI’s efterlysningsplakat, kan måske hænge sammen med, at teksten er fra juni 1999, med en ikke-specificeret revidering i november 2001. Desuden står der at han er mistænkt for øvrige terrorangreb. I øvrigt kan FBI vel kun efterlyse ham for angrebet 11. september 2001, hvis de rent faktisk står for efterlysningen.

Din manglende kildevurdering er skræmmende.