Quote:
Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
And when you ltwist facts by conveniently leaving out the preceding words "Great Britain has learned that..." which, in light of still unrefuted British intelligence and later confirmed by Lord Butler's report, makes Bush's statement true, is this also akin to lying?
|
I was just posing a hypothetical.
Here's another hypothetical. Suppose that the President's speechwriters propose the language I quoted, and his policy people say, "You can't say that -- it's not true." So someone suggests, "well, we know the British got the same bogus report that we did, so why don't we say that 'Great Britain has learned' the other stuff." That gives us some sort of plausible deniability if it comes out that we know it's not true." I would say that that is misleading, akin to lying. I would further submit that if President Clinton had tried a ruse like that in a deposition concerning alleged sexual abuse, you would be ready to convict him for perjury on that basis alone.
