'Checks in the Mail!'

The always useless No Fact Just Pork, weighed in on the Bully Boy's 2003 State of the Union address. Since we're addressing Plamegate this edition, we thought we might Fact Check the lazy and stupid:

The famous "16 words" in President Bush’s Jan. 28, 2003 State of the Union address turn out to have a basis in fact after all, according to two recently released investigations in the US and Britain.
Bush said then, "The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa ." Some of his critics called that a lie, but the new evidence shows Bush had reason to say what he did.

A basis in fact? Only to the brain dead and right-wing leaning, supposed non-partisan No Facts Just Pork.

If one was going to defend the Bully Boy's lie, one might think of pointing to the Butler report or the Senate Intelligence Committee Report -- if one was really stupid. If one was stupid, dumb and right-leaning, one might point to both. No Facts Just Pork is all that more, they note both reports.

Why would only the stupid go for that? Both reports mention a possibility in 1999. 1999. Though we won't accuste No Facts Just Pork of being illiterate, we will note that they have severe comprehension problems.

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

That speech took place on Januaray 28, 2003. Was 1999 recent? Bully Boy wasn't even occupying the White House in 1999. Only the really stupid would let that pass. The whole lies to war were built upon scaring Americans. If Bully Boy had stated: "The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein may sought significant quantites of uranium from Africa in 1999" the general reaction would have been, "That's like four years ago!"

It didn't rise to the level of alarm. So the lie was sexed-up further. And only an idiot could 'fact check' the above and state that there was "no lie."

[Note: On the supposed findings of the Senate Intel Committee report, Robert Parry's "Smearing Joe Wilson, Again" notes it best: "The Post's accusation about Wilson "falsely" claiming to have debunked the yellowcake reports apparently is based on Wilson’s inclusion in his report of speculation from one Niger official who suspected that Iraq might be interested in buying yellowcake, although the Iraqi officials never mentioned yellowcake and made no effort to buy any. This irrelevant point has been a centerpiece of Republican attacks on Wilson and is now being recycled by the Washington Post."]