It always interests me to see the way political arguments drift and how certain questionable "facts" get established in some minds. Critics of George W. Bush have lately been saying that he lied to America that there was an imminent threat to us from Iraq. Ergo, we had to go to war promptly and not wait for those weapons inspectors to inspect further for weapons. If true, that would be a pretty serious charge, so Bush defenders are arguing back that their president never said the threat was "imminent" and they haul out quotes where his precise words seem to say the opposite.
In a strict sense, they're probably right. And in another sense, it may not matter. Al Gore never said he found Love Canal or that he was the model for Love Story, but his detractors did a good job of convincing a lot of "swing" voters that he did, and therefore nothing he said could be believed. If Bush's foes can work the same full court press on him, the "liar" portrait will stick. In political discourse, we are well past the stage where what someone says really matters. Of much greater importance is how their opponents can spin it, and the Democrats haven't been that good at taking an ambiguous statement or gaffe and running with it. Then again, the Bush administration has given them so much raw material, they may just pull it off.