No matter how it's rationalized, a recent Jim Davis political mailer yet again made a purposely misleading claim detailing Mr. John Snow's statements (and remarks he never made) as “attacks.”
Mr. Davis’ current letter writing defender, suggested he only “characterized this criticism as an attack.” Somehow “characterization” makes it acceptable to claim the “information” printed in the recent mailer is an “attack.” This is a disingenuous rationalization. A mistake? doubtful. Twisted rhetoric? A fib? No let's just call it what it is, - just another lie. Choosing another word, which changes the concept, intent and actual meaning, is indeed, lying.
The writer’s next statement attempts to demean and diminish Mr. Snow's valid response as “silly” and declares their choice of the descriptive word “attack” as “simply a subjective term.” Oh? Simply? How does this compute?