Veritas wrote:I don’t know

[SK in CV]

[quote=Veritas]I don’t know which is worse, his lying or his defenders lying for him.

“You cannot face what will happen, so you lie. You are afraid of the consequences for telling the truth, such as these:

* Your status may suffer
* You may be punished
* You will look stupid
* Someone will get angry
* You would have to admit you were wrong”.

“Lies are told because one is afraid of the consequences* should one tell the truth.” — L. Ron Hubbard (*consequences = effects, results)

http://tipsforsuccessblog.blogspot.com/2009/06/tipsforsuccess-consequences-of-lying.html

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/oct/17/review-obama-hasnt-implicitly-acknowledged-terrori/?page=2

Good to know the new talking points have made the rounds.[/quote]

Ok, I read the washington times link. Not a single lie even implied there. Though I do find it kind of funny that they quote the administration saying it was a terrorist attack, and then apparently criticize the administration for not admitting that it was a terrorist attack.

A related question. What is the difference between a terrorist attack and a non-terrorist attack? Is the difference the least bit important in this situation? Was the theater shooting in Aurora a terrorist attack? If it had been a crazy Arab doing the shooting, would it have been a terrorist attack?