Quote Originally Posted by Gunny View Post
You would be incorrect. Lies of omission are still lies. Presenting only half the facts to support a political agenda is dishonest; which, still is lying. Playing semantics with it is called "yellow journalism." Just because it is accepted because it literally contains no lie, just half the truth, doesn't make it any less a lie.

One does not have to completely fabricate something for it to be a lie. A statement such as that is in and of itself dishonest because I know you possess at least the raw intelligence to know better.
If they are facts, then they are not lies. Depends if you can prove the other side of the case adn that they wilfully omitted it. Even then, you are stretching it to call it a lie. As an aside (and this is for Pale too), I've never considered 20/20, 60 Minutes/ Larry King, Hannity and Colmes as straight news anyway. They are op-ed pieces...

As for lies of omission, the right has constantly said that Bush never lied about WMDs. When I went down the "lies of omission" route, they would have none of it. They insisted he didn't lie...