Rand Simberg at Transterrestrial Musings catches the Associated Press (AP) perpetuating a long-standing media falsehood and erstwhile Democratic talking point.

In a phony hit piece on Lewis Libby, AP Writer Toni Locy repeats the irrefutably false claim that:

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.

Should it really be necessary to point out to a wire service reporter that making a sidebar reference to a background fact really needs to, um, factual? And is there any way to convince the AP that, despite what in their liberal left leaning hearts want to imagine, President Bush never said what they continue to insist he said? By God, there are recordings! Transcripts! No doubt their own reporting somewhere!

As an aside, if any of those so inclined to this point of view had actually listened to the 2003 State of the Union, they might have their own recollection to keep them from repeating this falsehood. I have heard from so many of this persuasion that they can’t even stand to listen to President Bush. Which of course doesn’t affect in any way how badly they so frequently misreport what he has said or done.

Rand instructs for the factually challenged:

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."

Okay, one last crank before I go. For the unwise and uninitiated. Call it unconstitutional, call it illegal, but stop calling it “wiretapping.” It may qualify as “surveillance,” but there are no wires, and they aren’t being “tapped.” Using “wiretapping” just reinforces that you know nothing about modern telecommunications technology, nor modern intelligence operations.

On second thought, those who want to, keep up the stories on wiretapping. Sounds quaint.

(Via Instapundit)