As is typical in many of these threads, the subject starts out saying one thing, responses come along which misrepresent the point.
Interestingly enough, the
original article I quoted stated, quite explicitly: "
Peter Osnos of Public Affairs Books said Mr McClellan was not suggesting Mr Bush deliberately lied."
NOWHERE in the article I quoted does it say Bush "lied".
Stated false info? Yes.
And that is a PROVEN fact.
But then we get "this" response...
Quote:
Originally Posted by cnredd
It ended up being false...
|
And what "it" supposedly ended up being "false"?
Nothing that was actually stated in this thread.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by cnredd
What happened was typical in today's news outlets...They took a quote, read into it, changed the context, and created their own interpretation...
|
And what was ACTUALLY STATED which is false?
Never mind. I don't expect a response...
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by cnredd
|
Nobody said "Bush lied".
But once again, somebody has responded with a strawman to ignore the bigger issue.
Bush's administration had a hand in this, and BUSH WAS CLUELESS.
So some people can complain that "Bush didn't lie" in order to overlook the bigger issue. Bush has CORRUPTION IN HIS CAMP and is IGNORANT cause he cannot even run the people that work closest to him...
That direct enough for you?
