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?I cannot, for the life of me, understand why, with all the technological advances the United States possess, we cannot find one man? Let me get this right. We can find distant planets using a leviathan sized telescope orbiting the earth, read a license plate anywhere in the world using satellites, and get this, clone human organs! We can even track immigrants coming across the US-Mexican border using infrared imagery.
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. (emphasis mine - JR) 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.
Yet we cannot find Osama.
Interesting, don't you agree?
So if bin Laden wasn’t involved, why were we led to believe he was involved? Could this be why the US military have not found him yet? Could it be that our government was never looking for bin Laden in the first place?
Perhaps. Maybe. What do you think?