When a man like Rumsfeld makes a public statement, it is not a demonstratrion of shades of meaning; he wants to move you. Seeing it in terms of logic is not as useful as seeing it in terms of propaganda and semantics.

Wasn't it Bush I that said his opponent was a card-carrying ACLU member? Whoever said it, he didn't mean it as a simple statement of fact (though it no doubt was). What he meant was "A leftist bleeding-heart pinko big-spending soft on crime (fill in your own cliche) liberal twit. And if you associated it with McCarthy's "card-carrying Communist" he wouldn't mind.

But his ass was covered, legally, because he could say it was "a simple statement of fact."

I heard Ari Fleischer, in answer to a question about the killing of innocent Iraqis, say that the real innocents are the victims of 911. Logically he's stated an opinion unrelated to the question; what he means you to think is "There are no innocent Iraquis; they all deserve killing because they're responsible for 911." And you know it.

But his ass is covered.

clint