"The Sixteen Words" Were False

So, Darth Cheney is back from the grave to settle some scores. One of the propositions it makes him happy to assert is that the infamous "sixteen words" in Bush's 2002 SoTU speech were true.

This doesn't matter all that much. The administration lied and mislead and spun and dissembled throughout the entire lead-up to the invasion of Iraq. It was, in effect, one big lie, even if they were willing to say true things on occasion if they absolutely had to, and tried to avoid outright lies when other forms of deception would do. It was irresponsibility of the highest order, and it is not clear when--or, indeed, whether--the U.S. will ever stop paying the price.

But, just for the record, so far as we can tell, the "sixteen words" were, in fact, a lie. Those words were:

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

Again: this dispute doesn't really matter. It's a drop in the bucket...or in the ocean...of deception. But, so far as we know, the CIA had, at the time of the speech, concluded that the British government was wrong. And the administration knew this--that's why they appealed to the beliefs of the British government rather than those of the CIA. Consequently, it was false to say that the Brits had "learned" that Saddam had sought the uranium. It would have been true--though in effect a lie--to have said that the Brits believed or had concluded that Saddam sought the uranium. But to say that they had learned that he sought it was an outright lie.

In case you have any doubts about this, consider the following analogous case. You need your insulin, and you need it right now. You send Smith and Jones to find it. Jones thinks he sees it locked in your car, and says so. Smith simultaneously discovers that Jones is wrong, and that the insulin is, in fact, in your house. But what he says to you is: "Jones has recently learned that your insulin is in your car." Now, Smith would be in effect a liar even if he had uttered the highly misleading truth "Jones thinks your insulin is in your car." But if he says "Jones has learned that your insulin is in your car," then he is not only the moral equivalent of a liar, he is, in fact, a liar. He said what he knew to be false. He knew damn good and well that Jones had not learned the location of your insulin. 'Learn' is a success term, like 'know.' Jones does not know the location of your insulin, and he has not learned it, because he is wrong about it. And Smith knows this. And Bush knew this, as did Cheney and the rest of them.

And, one more time: the very fact that the phrase was crafted in the way it was is evidence of consciousness of guilt. They tried to craft a phrase that would be technically true, but misleading--that was their m.o. during the extended campaign of deception leading up to the invasion. They could have easily done it if they'd just have been content with "the British have evidence that Saddam tried to purchase uranium"...  But they just couldn't help themselves--they pushed it over the line into outright lies. Again, the distinction between an outright lie and the deceptive use of truth is not an important one. But they want to try to hold the line at we didn't technically lie. As it turns out, however, that is not true.