It's ok, he wasn't under oath!

The Washington Post catches Bush in a blatant lie.

Bush said the CIA‘s doubts about the charge—that Iraq sought to buy “yellowcake” uranium ore in Africa—were “subsequent” to the Jan. 28 State of the Union speech in which Bush made the allegation. []

Bush’s position was at odds with those of his own aides, who acknowledged over the weekend that the CIA raised doubts that Iraq sought to buy uranium from Niger more than four months before Bush’s speech.

The public record on this is crystal clear. Bush is wrong, and there is no way, no way, that he does not know that he’s wrong. Two of his closest aides were all over the airwaves yesterday explaining how the CIA objected to these claims in October of 2002. To argue that this is just an innocent mistake, one would have to believe that the President was not consulted on and had no say in or knowledge of how his own administration planned to respond to what has become its largest political scandal.

Once again, I’m waiting for all of those Republicans who excoriated Clinton for lying about where he stuck his doodle to come forth and at least be a bit annoyed that their guy has now clearly and undeniable lied on the record about this issue. Maybe the Niger uranium wasn’t the heart of the case for war—I don’t know. But lying about matters of national security and war, tangential or not, can’t be any less serious than lying about a blowjob. So? . Didn’t think so.

Filed under: politics/war