AP continues to promulgate the myth:

Wilson’s revelations cast doubt on President Bush’s claim in his 2003 State of the Union address that Niger had sold uranium to Iraq to develop a nuclear weapon as one of the administration’s key justifications for going to war in Iraq.

Of course, it wasn’t possible for Joe Wilson to cast doubt on such a claim, because President Bush never made such a claim, in the SOTU or elsewhere, but that never seems to stop these people. Why do they continue to think they can get away with this, when anyone can go read that speech?

We’ve been over this many times, but apparently, it’s necessary to do so again. Here are the sixteen words:

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

That’s it. It doesn’t say that uranium was sold to Iraq, it doesn’t say Niger. It says that the British government has learned about attempts to purchase uranium from Africa. Africa is a big place. Nowhere in the speech does it claim that the attempts were successful, and nowhere in the speech is Niger mentioned. The sentence, as written in the AP story, is completely false, but many persist in believing it, because apparently it confirms their prejudices. In their minds, it’s “fake but accurate.”

We need to call out Ms. Locy and her editor on this.

As to the story about Libby testifying that Cheney told him to release classified info, I’ll wait for some actual facts to come out, rather than rumors from unnamed sources.

[Update in the afternoon]

Powerline says that the story about Libby leaks of classified info is much ado about not much:

The NIE has been declassified since the summer of 2003, and we have quoted from it many times since then. These proceedings from the House of Representatives show that the NIE had been declassified no later than July 21, 2003. So it’s not exactly a mystery whether “that happened in this instance.” There are only two alternatives here: either AP reporters are too lazy to spend 30 seconds on Google to educate themselves as to what happened during the ancient history of 2003, or they write articles that are deliberately misleading.

Or outright false, as demonstrated above.

[Saturday morning update]

I’ve still received no response from the AP on this matter.

[Monday update]

They’ve redirected that URL to a new version of the story, absent the misstatements.

NBC Brian Williams couldn’t tell the difference between Barack Obama and Harold Ford.

In States of Confusion in today’s New York Times, we find the following paragraph:

Abortion-rights states would undoubtedly respond in kind [if other states made out of state abortion a crime]. For example, Rhode Island, where 63 percent of residents favor abortion rights, has rebuffed efforts at regulation in the past. Just as Utah could make it a crime for a resident to go to Rhode Island for an abortion, Rhode Island could forbid Utah’s law-enforcement officials from interfering with her decision to get one. Similarly, if an anti-abortion state places a fetus in protective custody, an abortion-rights state might do the same for the woman. And so on.

How does putting a woman in protective custody help her?

In States of Confusion in today’s New York Times, we find the following paragraph:

Abortion-rights states would undoubtedly respond in kind [if other states made out of state abortion a crime]. For example, Rhode Island, where 63 percent of residents favor abortion rights, has rebuffed efforts at regulation in the past. Just as Utah could make it a crime for a resident to go to Rhode Island for an abortion, Rhode Island could forbid Utah’s law-enforcement officials from interfering with her decision to get one. Similarly, if an anti-abortion state places a fetus in protective custody, an abortion-rights state might do the same for the woman. And so on.

How does putting a woman in protective custody help her?

In States of Confusion in today’s New York Times, we find the following paragraph:

Abortion-rights states would undoubtedly respond in kind [if other states made out of state abortion a crime]. For example, Rhode Island, where 63 percent of residents favor abortion rights, has rebuffed efforts at regulation in the past. Just as Utah could make it a crime for a resident to go to Rhode Island for an abortion, Rhode Island could forbid Utah’s law-enforcement officials from interfering with her decision to get one. Similarly, if an anti-abortion state places a fetus in protective custody, an abortion-rights state might do the same for the woman. And so on.

How does putting a woman in protective custody help her?

Not really. Cathy Young says that the American Thinker piece that I linked the other day gave the New York Times treatment to the New York Times:

It’s true that liberals who accuse Bush of ushering in a police state forget that it was the Clinton administration that first pushed for a rather dramatic expansion of surveillance and other government powers in order to combat the threat of terrorism. (Conservatives are prone to forget it as well.) But that’s a far cry from the blatant double standard Tate claims to have detected. So the bloggers might want to hold off on the gloating about hypocrisy and media bias; all that’s exposed here is a very shoddy attempt at an expos

Not really. Cathy Young says that the American Thinker piece that I linked the other day gave the New York Times treatment to the New York Times:

It’s true that liberals who accuse Bush of ushering in a police state forget that it was the Clinton administration that first pushed for a rather dramatic expansion of surveillance and other government powers in order to combat the threat of terrorism. (Conservatives are prone to forget it as well.) But that’s a far cry from the blatant double standard Tate claims to have detected. So the bloggers might want to hold off on the gloating about hypocrisy and media bias; all that’s exposed here is a very shoddy attempt at an expos

Not really. Cathy Young says that the American Thinker piece that I linked the other day gave the New York Times treatment to the New York Times:

It’s true that liberals who accuse Bush of ushering in a police state forget that it was the Clinton administration that first pushed for a rather dramatic expansion of surveillance and other government powers in order to combat the threat of terrorism. (Conservatives are prone to forget it as well.) But that’s a far cry from the blatant double standard Tate claims to have detected. So the bloggers might want to hold off on the gloating about hypocrisy and media bias; all that’s exposed here is a very shoddy attempt at an expos

…goes to Fox. FNC has finally picked up Rudi (link slightly work unsafe). The smart folks at CNN can read the handwriting on the wall.

Apparently, the NYT is fine with unwarranted domestic spying, as long as there’s a Democrat in the White House, and we aren’t at war.

Speaking of which, I wonder if there’s any relationship between the Times’ unilateral (though they had accomplices, if not allies) decision a few weeks ago to tell the enemy how we’re tracking their communications, and this:

Federal agents have launched an investigation into a surge in the purchase of large quantities of disposable cell phones by individuals from the Middle East and Pakistan, ABC News has learned.

The phones