It depends on what the meaning of is is

Frank Rich's War - November 28, 2005 - The New York Sun - NY Newspaper:

Mr. Rich's New York Times column yesterday refers to Mr. Bush's 2003 State of the Union address with the 'bogus 16 words about Saddam's fictitious African uranium.' Those words were, 'The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.' But those 16 words are neither bogus nor fictitious. They were and are true.

The Sun, a conservative rag if ever there was one, is parsing words here. yes, the words were and are true, to the extent that they are interpreted literally. However, the White House, none-the-less, retracted those very words when they were found to be a) quite disingenuous and b) misleading since the adminisration had also learned that the claim was debunked, despite the attempt of the editors to undebunk the claims.

However, they completely miss the point that the wrds were placed in the SOTU for a reason... to scare the bejeezus out of us all into believing that Saddam was minutes away from pushing the button and incinerating New York or Washington D.C. so that we would back his war of choice on a sovereign nation that was, in fact, no threat to us what so ever.

The words were chosen carefully so as not to be untrue but to convey a sense of dire and urgent threat which did not exist.

That is misleading.

The wingnuts are grasping at straws at this stage.

We were mislead. Anyone who was not brainwashed by FauxNews knew this then, and even some of the brainwashed know this to be true now that the flood of news only reinforces the argument that we were mislead.

Bush and Cheney and co may not have outright lied, but they were exceedingly selective with what they did tell us, all to scare the pants off anyone listening.