Now that some of the commercial media has finally become critical of some aspects of Bush policy, a number of conservative apologists have begun stepping up their rhetoric. The following from National Review Online's Clifford D. May exemplifies their responses:
|The president's critics are lying. Mr. Bush never claimed that Saddam Hussein had purchased uranium from Niger. It is not true — as USA Today reported on page one Friday morning — that "tainted evidence made it into the President's State of the Union address." For the record, here's what President Bush actually said in his SOTU: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." (source)|
Ah, that clears everything up. George Bush technically did not claim that Saddam sought uranium, just like Bill Clinton technically "did not have sex with that woman." Whatever the minute differences in wording, it was irresponsible to include such a statement in the State of the Union address, clearly in order to manipulate the public. And what about Powell's "Iraq is trying to procure uranium" assertion to the UN? (yes, this distortion even from the man who said "This is bullshit" of some of the Bushie evidence)
But one shouldn't get distracted from the other issues. An excellent TomPaine.com post today notes other false statements by the Bushies: the cost of the war was not supposed to surpass $60 billion, for instance - if you clicked the cost of war link up at the top of the page, you'd see that the cost is now well beyond that. More troops are needed in Iraq than was previously asserted, and the Iraq-Al-Queda link is still known to be entirely unfounded. But where's the mainstream media on that?
-Ben | Comments