|
I didn't see a single "fact" in that entire article. There was a lot of "here's our reaction to something they did" but no simple statements of fact. You can read the "looking under the desks" sketch a lot of ways. To me, it looked like, "Hey, I was wrong. And I'm big enough to admit it and even make fun of myself." To them, it's "he lied" but there's been no real proof or determination that anyone ever "lied".
And, I thought the article was about this book? If so, I'm certain that there is no way that this whole Richard Clarke thing is in the book - it happened to recently. So, they've told us he's accused of lying in this book, but they haven't told us even one lie the book accuses him of. (And the looking under the desk thing was only about 10 days ago, too, so that's not going to be in the book either).
Feelings are not facts, gang. They are emotions. Pure and simple.
G.
|