The president's statement in the state of the union was incorrect because it was based on forged documents from the African nation of Niger, White House spokesperson Ari Fleischer said yesterday.
"The president's statement was based on the predicate of the yellow cake" uranium "from Niger," Fleischer told reporters. "So given the fact that the report on the yellow cake did not turn out to be accurate, that is reflective of the president's broader statement."
Well, let's parse this.
Suppose Bush's "broader statement" is "It rained." And Bush's statement is predicated on evidence that "the streets are wet." Of course, knowing Bush as I do, I look out the window and see that the streets are not wet. But Bush still insists -- in the absence, now, of any evidence -- that his statement is still true. "Who you gonna believe? Me or your lyin' eyes?"
So, now that we know that Bush's State of The Union speech contained, well, "broader statements" made in the absence of evidence (ha ha ha), our question becomes: What did he know and when did he know it? Did Bush make these "incorrect" "broader statements" knowing they were not true? And if someone other than our CEO president is to blame, who is it?
"And up through the ground came a 'bubblin' crude." Forgeries, that is. Broader statements...
UPDATE: The LA Times editorializes:
This is not some minor dispute over a footnote to history but rather raises the possibility of one of the most egregious misrepresentations by a U.S. administration. What could be more cynical and impeachable than fabricating a threat of rogue nations or terrorists acquiring nuclear weapons and using that to sell a war?