Lying About Lying In The SOTU Speech

Misrepresenting What Bush Actually Said In The SOTU Speech: There sure are a lot of people out there playing fast & loose with the truth about what Bush actually said in his State of the Union Speech. Again here’s the controversial line from the speech…

“The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”

That line was absolutely, totally, 100% accurate then & now. To this day, the British government still says Saddam tried to acquire “significant quantities of uranium from Africa” and they have made it clear that the forged Niger document has nothing to do with their conclusion.

Despite the fact that what he said in SOTU was true and approved by the CIA before his speech, Bush decided to withdraw the claim because the CIA didn’t have enough evidence to support it without the forgery (although the forgery wasn’t their only evidence) & because we don’t have access to all the Brits intelligence to confirm what they’re saying.

If anything, the Bush administration is getting in trouble for being TOO HONEST here. In retrospect, the Bush administration should have just stood behind what Bush said in the SOTU since it was 100% correct.

So let’s see how a variety of pundits on the left are misleading their readers about what actually happened in an effort to drum up a “scandal”…

Let’s lead off with Maureen Dowd

“When the president attributed the information about Iraq trying to get Niger yellowcake to British intelligence, it was a Clintonian bit of flim-flam.”

Bush never said anything about “yellowcake” or “Niger” in his speech and British intelligence wasn’t based on that forged document. However, I am glad to see more liberals talking about what a liar Clinton was even if they’re trying to smear Bush at the same time.

Eleanor Clift joins in…

“The revelation that Bush relied on a forged document to make his case for war has emboldened critics. Claiming that Iraq tried to buy uranium from the African country of Niger wasn’t a judgment call. By the White House’s own admission, it was a fraud, a lie.”

I haven’t heard the White House say their claim was a “fraud, a lie”. They’re saying it’s true & the British are standing by their intelligence as well. Moreover, Bush didn’t claim “Iraq tried to buy uranium from the African country of Niger” in his SOTU. Do these people think Niger is the only country in Africa for some reason?

Robert Scheer calls for impeachment over Bush’s true statement in the SOTU…

“Those questions arise because of the White House admission that the charge that Iraq tried to buy uranium from Niger was excised from a Bush speech in October 2002 after the CIA and State Department insisted it was unfounded. Bizarrely, however, three months later — without any additional evidence emerging — that outrageous lie was inserted into the State of the Union speech to justify the president’s case for bypassing the United Nations Security Council, for chasing U.N. inspectors out of Iraq and for invading and occupying an oil-rich country.”

And of course, Bush never claimed that Saddam tried to buy “uranium” from “Niger” in his SOTU speech.

Nicolas Kristoff makes things up about the SOTU speech…

“After I wrote a month ago about the Niger uranium hoax in the State of the Union address, a senior White House official chided me gently and explained that there was more to the story that I didn’t know.

Yup. And now it’s coming out.

Based on conversations with people in the intelligence community, this picture is emerging: the White House, eager to spice up the State of the Union address, recklessly resurrected the discredited Niger tidbit. The Central Intelligence Agency objected, and then it and the National Security Council negotiated a new wording, attributing it all to the Brits. It felt less dishonest pinning the falsehood on the cousins.

There are more countries in Africa than Niger and again, the Brit’s intelligence is not based on the forgery.

There are plenty of other left-wing pundits I could have quoted, but you get the idea. Given that these people are pitching a hissy fit over the accuracy of one piece of minutiae from a year long case Bush made for war, you’d think that they’d at least try to be accurate in what they said themselves. But I guess “getting Bush” is more important than the truth to these people.

Share this!

Enjoy reading? Share it with your friends!

Send this to a friend