Bush didn't say it was true, you see -- he just said the Brits said it. This is a contemptible argument in any event. But to descend to the administration's level of nitpickery, the argument simply doesn't work. Bush didn't say that the Brits "said" this Africa business -- he said they "learned" it. The difference between "said" and "learned" is that "learned" clearly means there is some pre-existing basis for believing whatever it is, apart from the fact that someone said it.

Talk about a contemptible argument. Only a true Clintonite "meaning of 'is'" follower could participate in this kind of sophistry. McKinsey asks us to believe that since Bush used the word "learned" that the information was guaranteed 100% gospel truth, and that since it turned out not to be true (although British intelligence still stands by their claim), this implies that Bush lied. Not only is Bush responsible for disseminating false information, he is responsible for the information itself, because he said he "learned" it. Ok, I'll give you a few minutes to stop your head from spinning from that dizzying logic. Well, Michael, if you believe that, then you have to believe that anyone who passes on misinformation, even if they and the people who gave them that information believe it to be true, you are not only wrong, you are lying!

I'm with Megan on this one, the more liberals run with this non-story, the more they make themselves look foolish.

UPDATE: Max Boot has a more apt Clinton comparison.