Come on, all politicians make errors in their speeches, when they're minor like this who really gives a rat's ass? Now, on the other hand if someone goes to war because of the inaccuracies then that's a problem.
But I guess if you want to quibble about every little inaccuracy, then peruse factcheck.org a little closer and see what kind of ridiculous lies people, mostly on the right, make up.
This isn't about just any politician he , and these aren't ridiculous lies people on one side or the other are making up. This is about a speech the president made to a joint session of Congress on his budget and the economy. If he won't pay attention and get the facts right in as you call it "minor" errors what would lead the American people to hope he will pay attention to any facts in anything he says?
And what is so minor about his misleading statements like,,
' when he says "Obama: We have known for decades that our survival depends on finding new sources of energy, yet we import more oil today than ever before." when the fact is "
" We?re importing less than we were just a few years ago."
"Obama: And for that same reason, we must also address the crushing cost of health care. This is a cost that now causes a bankruptcy in America every 30 seconds." when "That's at least double the true figure"
"Obama continued his recent habit of asserting projections as fact."
Obama said that "there are 57 police officers who are still on the streets of Minneapolis tonight because this plan prevented the layoffs their department was about to make." But that's a dubious claim.
It's true that Mayor R.T. Rybak (an early Obama supporter) said Feb. 23 that cuts in state aid "would have led to the elimination of 57 sworn police officer positions and 19 non sworn employees" and that the stimulus bill "will keep 57 police officers working on the streets of Minneapolis." But there's more to it than that.
For one thing, the mayor's 57-cop figure is hypothetical. No layoffs were actually proposed. "
Even the 'historical facts" that he is in error on should be taken as his lack of attention to detail.