http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh071503.shtml
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh071603.shtml
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh071703.shtml
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh071803.shtml
My attempt to summarize their argument:
1) There was documentation, proved fake, that Saddam tried to buy Uranium from Niger.
2) There was an unrelated report, from British intelligence, that Saddam was seeking Uranium from an African country. British intel and the Bush admin believed then and still believe now, that this report is correct.
3) In Bush's SotU address, he states the British inteligence had reported that Iraq was trying to obtain uranium from an African nation.
4) Given 2 & 3, it's clear that Bush's statement was not about the known-false document, and was citing real, believed-to-be-true, British inteligence, just as he said. In other words, not a lie.
5) The "Bush Lied!" claims ignore #2 (or assume #2 = #1), and distort #3 to imply Bush was presenting the known-false Niger story as fact.
6) They liken the media's consideration of only the facts that fit their pre-chosen story angle in this case with several cases of the media giving the same treatment to Al Gore during the 2000 election run-up, and Clinton before that:
"Sorry, kids. Bush has gotten absurdly favorable press, during his campaign and during his presidency. No one has pointed that out more than we have. But when he's been slimed, we've spoken up. And guess what? The same hapless people who slimed Bill and Al were spinning Bush this past Monday. Maybe you want to give these scribes to power to pick and choose their facts. But we think that would be very foolish. What happens when journalists are given that power? Review the past five years of work about the spinning of Clinton and Gore."
Taking a stand against something they think is wrong, even when it is suiting their political party? I have a lot of respect for that.
Anyway, I found it fairly convincing and haven't seen any Bush Lied articles that actually refute or even address the logic of point 4. I'm open to convincing that they're wrong, if someone here cares to point out the flaws in their argument (or facts *they've* missed/ignored), but as it stands, this seems to make it entirely clear that the whole "Bush's Niger hoax/lie" accusation has no merit.
-bryon
_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
