Boy, I just find that statement rather vacuous. You support Bush which has said far worse things and don't hold him to the same standard.

However right you are, I just can't see this as anything but rabid partisanship.

Fine for you to do it. Just don't think that you're being in anyway fair.

The Bush situation is different, as it is a wholly different thing to argue for a position based on information one believes to be true, and then find out you were wrong (and I won't get into arguments at this point about what was right, what waas wrong, and what was debatable).

I would point out, the WMD intelligence was the same information used by Bill Clinton to make similar charges against Iraq (not to mention all those UN Resolutions). The only difference was willingness to act, not about the charges themselves.

Regardless, I still see how the Bush WMD situation will be a political negative--if one looks past one's desire to defend Gore and/or Kerry, one will note that my goal has been to discuss, primarily, the political ramifications of such utterances.

I do think, however, that Gore has a serious problem with the truth. If anything he has a profound need to exaggerate, which bespeaks of insecurity at the minimum, and a messed-up view of reality at the worst.

You say that
I would note that once one finds oneself with the reputation of an exaggerator, little things like that tend to be amplified

However, your commentators have demonstrated convincingly that pretty well every story about Gore 'exaggerating' that you can come up with is itself a distortion of the truth. Isn't there a simple and obvious conclusion to be drawn - Gore's 'reputation of an exaggerator' is a partisan smear? And you've swallowed it hook, line and sinker? You're still claiming that "Gore has a serious problem with the truth" - but all the 'evidence' that you've provided to date points the other way. Come on.

And, precisely, which statement do you find vacuous?

First, how are the Boston Globe, the Washington Post and Newsweek partisan in this case?

Second, there is an imporatant distinction to be made between the ability to defend specific charges and the prepoderance of instances. My main point was not, as I noted in the post, is that a reputation for exaggeration will damage you. Hardly profound, I will grant.

Third, to say that there is no evidence of a substantial pattern of exaggeration is to be willfully blind. Did you read the list I posted yesterday?

So call me a simpleton....

Did Gore "create" the internet?

Come on people, drop the Bill Clinton spin.

Did he or didn't he?

I'll give 2:1 odds we won't get a yes or no answer from the Goreons.

Paul