BARACK OBAMA KNOWS WHAT WORDS MEAN. JAKE TAPPER, NOT SO MUCH.

ABC's Jake Tapper has a blog post up in which he demonstrates either that (a) he can't understand the meaning of plain English words or (b) he knows he'll get more hits from furious right-wingers if he tweaks the truth:

President Obama: Not Much Difference Between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi

President Obama argued yesterday that there is little different [sic] between Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and challenger Mir-Hossein Mousavi on policies critical to the U.S.

"It's important to understand that although there is amazing ferment taking place in Iran, that the difference between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi in terms of their actual policies may not be as great as has been advertised," the president told CNBC. "Either way, we were going to be dealing with an Iranian regime that has historically been hostile to the United States, that has caused some problems in the neighborhood and is pursuing nuclear weapons. And so we've got long-term interests in having them not weaponize nuclear power and stop funding organizations like Hezbollah and Hamas. And that would be true whoever came out on top in this election."

Did Obama actually say there's not much difference (or different) between the two? No. Here's what he said:

* "...the difference between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi in terms of their actual policies may not be as great as has been advertised." If we make the reasonable assumption that "as has been advertised" means "as has been suggested or implied by some who've taken the side of the demonstrators," he's absolutely right -- the difference isn't night and day. As Tapper points out, Mousavi supports the nuclear program; he also doesn't recognize Israel. But Obama doesn't say how much difference there is between the two -- he just says it's been exaggerated.

* "Either way, we were going to be dealing with an Iranian regime that has historically been hostile to the United States... that has caused some problems in the neighborhood and is pursuing nuclear weapons." That's true. Obama carefully limits himself to the past ("historically been hostile ... has caused") in the first two instances -- he doesn't know what kind of government Iran will end up with, and he's predicting nothing. He talks about the future only with regard to nukes. So maybe there'll be a big difference in relations in the region and with the U.S. if Mousavi triumphs. Obama isn't offering an opinion.

* "And so we've got long-term interests in having them not weaponize nuclear power and stop funding organizations like Hezbollah and Hamas. And that would be true whoever came out on top in this election." Again, Obama's careful -- he's predicting nothing. Our long-term interests with regard to these issues don't change; Iran's choices might. He's not saying.

So no, Jake, he didn't say what you said he said. He chose his words with extreme care. And either out of ignorance or a desire for online eyeballs, you distorted what he said.