Letter from a confused Chicago Tribune reader.

I wrote them a letter in response:
Writer Terry Barnich doesn't get the complaints about Bush's "evidence" because he has fallen prey to a game of semantics played by the administration and the Blair government.

Let's play "pretend" for a moment. Let's pretend my friend "Bob" says that "2+2=5." If I go on to tell my friends "Lois" and "Howard" that "Bob told me that 2+2=5," then I am indeed telling the truth: Bob uttered these words. However, that does not say anything about the accuracy of Bob's claim. If I am trying to convince Lois and Howard that 2+2 does indeed equal 5, when I personally know that Bob's math is faulty, and then catch hell from Lois and Howard when they flunk the math test, it is no defense to say "Well, of course I told you the truth: Bob DID say that."
So it is not the fact that Bush was accurate when he says "well the British said it" that is the problem. The problem is that Bush is shifting the blame to the British when our own intelligence agencies were telling him (and Condoleeza and Dick Cheney) that the British were wrong while the administration busily went about spreading the Niger uranium story as if it were gospel truth.