smc33 said:
Did you just come in on the middle of all this? Did you bother to read what I wrote? I neither wrote nor even remotely implied any of what you posted. What I wrote DID go over your head.
You made the argument - and I quoted it - that Bush needs to 'admit he was wrong', and that he still hadn't done this. And I thought I made it so crystal clear that every fool in the universe would see, people don't admit they are wrong when they ARE NOT WRONG.
The argument to ask *YOU* to admit you're wrong and to apologize is the *same* argument made against Bush - that he admit he's wrong or apologize over something he is NOT wrong about, and needs not apologize. You *don't* need to apologize, just as Bush does NOT need to admit he's wrong. Because he isn't.
Now you didn't say what I'm about to cover, but it's the same line of reasoning - I've heard too many claim that Bush lies when he says something they disagree with. Recently Terry McAulifee was calling Bush a liar because he said he cares about the elderly. He said he does not because of some policy blah blah blah. Well, that doesn't prove anything - that's a disagreement over the efficacy of *policy*, not *TRUTH*.
That kind of reasoning is playground logic - "Johnny lied when he said the Ravens were better than the Redskins - anh-ahhhhh! They are sooooo not!". A lie is a *deliberate* misrepresentation of fact, not a disagreement of opinion.
I really wish SOME politician would come out and tell the world - "All this stuff - it's theatrics. It's drama and soap opera, and has nothing to do with being a President or Senator. Our job is pushing papers and reading reports and casting votes. Campaigns have nothing to do with reality". But they won't.
