Here is the relevant portion of the SOTU address that has the Democrats so upset. I have bolded the part that they claim is a lie (even though the British still claim it is true):
Twelve years ago, Saddam Hussein faced the prospect of being the last casualty in a war he had started and lost. To spare himself, he agreed to disarm of all weapons of mass destruction. For the next 12 years, he systematically violated that agreement. He pursued chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, even while inspectors were in his country. Nothing to date has restrained him from his pursuit of these weapons — not economic sanctions, not isolation from the civilized world, not even cruise missile strikes on his military facilities.
Almost three months ago, the United Nations Security Council gave Saddam Hussein his final chance to disarm. He has shown instead utter contempt for the United Nations, and for the opinion of the world. The 108 U.N. inspectors were sent to conduct — were not sent to conduct a scavenger hunt for hidden materials across a country the size of California. The job of the inspectors is to verify that Iraq’s regime is disarming. It is up to Iraq to show exactly where it is hiding its banned weapons, lay those weapons out for the world to see, and destroy them as directed. Nothing like this has happened.
The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax — enough doses to kill several million people. He hasn’t accounted for that material. He’s given no evidence that he has destroyed it.
The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin — enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure. He hadn’t accounted for that material. He’s given no evidence that he has destroyed it.
Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He’s not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.
U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them — despite Iraq’s recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He’s given no evidence that he has destroyed them.
From three Iraqi defectors we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs. These are designed to produce germ warfare agents, and can be moved from place to a place to evade inspectors. Saddam Hussein has not disclosed these facilities. He’s given no evidence that he has destroyed them.
The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide.
The dictator of Iraq is not disarming. To the contrary; he is deceiving. From intelligence sources we know, for instance, that thousands of Iraqi security personnel are at work hiding documents and materials from the U.N. inspectors, sanitizing inspection sites and monitoring the inspectors themselves. Iraqi officials accompany the inspectors in order to intimidate witnesses.
Iraq is blocking U-2 surveillance flights requested by the United Nations. Iraqi intelligence officers are posing as the scientists inspectors are supposed to interview. Real scientists have been coached by Iraqi officials on what to say. Intelligence sources indicate that Saddam Hussein has ordered that scientists who cooperate with U.N. inspectors in disarming Iraq will be killed, along with their families.
Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks to build and keep weapons of mass destruction. But why? The only possible explanation, the only possible use he could have for those weapons, is to dominate, intimidate, or attack.
With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region. And this Congress and the America people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.
Aren’t you glad I bolded it- otherwise you may not have found it. Clearly, that line was the ENTIRE case for going to war with Iraq (even though it is true- despite Democrat claims that Bush lied). Everything else in the SOTU was just filler and fluff- but that one line- well, it made the case.
Here is what the Democrats want you to believe:
1.) Bush lied.
2.) The lie was the central focus of the entire case for war.
3.) Bush knew the information was false, yet he is such a warmongerer that he went against EVERYONE and included the line anyway.
4.) The British are wrong (remember, they still contend that they have multiple sources for the same information).
5.) There have never been cases in the past where the CIA and the White House were not in sync (Go to google and type Sudan + Clinton + Aspirin).
6.) Because one of the sources for the uranium/Africa story may have been forged, Bush is a liar about everything.
7.) Bush is a Republican. All Republicans are liars.
8.) Democrats are not Republicans, therefore they are not liars. Vote Kerry (Or Dean, or Edwards or one of the nine dwarves).
And if any of you think that it isn’t ALL about #8, you are a fool.
*** Update ***
Pejman has more.
Barney Gumble
I’d like to add that the sentence just before you one bolded is misleading:
“The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear…” This refers to the pre-1991 program, halted by GW1. So it is misleading to say “in the 1990’s..”
Objection! Barney Gumble’s remark is not about the Niger uranium.
“Judge, it goes to establishing a PATTERN OF DECEPTION.”
Over-ruled.
Thank You, Your Honor.
HH
Objection… if the program was going in 1990 and 1991, it was in the 1990s.
Sustained.
Dean
Ah, the sentence parsing.
Funny thing, though. It turns out that Saddam was withholding centrifuges, in order to reconstitute a nuclear weapons program. (Where have I heard that phrase before?)
Centrifuges that, by ALL UNSCR’s, 1441 and 687, he was supposed to give up.
Yet, not a word about that from the Left.
Were they on the verge of being found? Was Saddam on his way to surrender them? At the end of the day, was he violating efforts to disarm him or not? Or doesn’t that matter?
barney gumble
You are quite correct–just like when our own intel said the Niger documentation was bogus, we can claim it’s based on British intelligence. Both misleading, no?
Funny how Cynthia McKinney can’t such a broad and favorable interpretation of her sentences.
M. Scott Eiland
“Funny how Cynthia McKinney can’t such a broad and favorable interpretation of her sentences.”
Yeah, it’s rough when paranoid racist airheads can’t catch an even break.
Gary Farber
Um, no. This is mostly wildly untrue. That is, it is surely true of certain amount of people, but it is, to be sure, a straw man, an easilly agreed-upon nonsensical arguement anyone with a brain agrees doesn’t work.
But, y’know, it’s easy to argue the case for people you disagree with by nonsenically making their case, and then point out that it’s nonsenical. It saves endless time in actually listening to actual real, smart, hard, disagreements.