JOHN LEO'S BLOG

Olbermann showed a video clip from the 2003 State of the Union address, with Bush saying this: "Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda." Hello, Keith. What in that sentence do you think is untrue? Saddam did aid and protect many terrorists, including some members of al Qaeda. No "gotcha!" moment there.

Trying to nail down his point, Olbermann said: "Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda in the same sentence separated by seven words. September 11th and Saddam Hussein–two sentences later, separated by six words. In a moment, Craig Crawford [of Congressional Quarterly] joins me to discuss the fundamental remaining question: Who does the president think he's f'n kidding?"

Playing his assigned role, Crawford said: "This is presidential prevarication at its best."

Goodness. A proximity of seven words, with no mention of 9/11 in sight, amounts to evidence that Bush lied? Now it's true that the administration often talked about al Qaeda and Saddam as part of the same mixed bag of threats, but the alleged "gotcha!" moment doesn't work, and bringing in a journalist hostile to Bush doesn't prove the point. Bush said in Cleveland he knows he never claimed a direct connection between 9/11 and Saddam.

Where is the evidence to show that was a lie? Vice President Cheney claimed "overwhelming" evidence of a Saddam tie to 9/11, but Bush contradicted him, saying, "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September 11th."

It's fair to say that the administration often wasn't exactly scrupulous about making that point as clearly as Bush did that day and after the Cleveland speech. The administration can be faulted for leaving the impression of a Saddam-9/11 tie, just as the left can be faulted here for leaving the impression of a Bush lie, when none really existed.