Wednesday, May 31 2006.

He Reports, He Decides.

In Tuesday's Grapevine Jim Angle, Brit Hume's understudy, makes a rather odd interpretative claim:

White House Interference?

A British newspaper has accused Prime Minister Tony Blair of significantly changing his language on Iran in a policy address in Washington last week under pressure from the White House.

The London Telegraph reports that Blair planned to say, "change should not be imposed " on Iran. What he said instead was — "I am not saying we should impose change" on Iran.

Though the two versions are virtually indistinguishable, a source insisted to the paper that the White House asked for the different wording so as to keep the military option "on the table."

A British official calls the story, "categorically untrue."

But is the statement "change should not be imposed [on Iran]" really "virtually indistinguishable" from "I am not saying we should impose change on Iran"? Well, maybe if you're virtually illiterate. Consider the following analogous statements:

(1) The daquiri is not poisoned.
(2) I am not saying that the Margarita is poisoned.

So, would you feel more comfortable drinking the daquiri or the Margarita?

(1) The poodle does not have rabies.
(2) I'm not saying that the shitzu has rabies.

Which dog would you rather pet?

(1) The Honda Civic is not a flaming deathtrap.
(2) I'm not saying that the Pinto is a flaming deahtrap.

Which car would you rather drive?