Here's a crack at it:
Bush during the campaign: "I'm pro-life."
Bush also during the campaign: "...except in the case of rape and incest ... and RU486."
Those statements are mutually exclusive.
Those statements are mutually exclusive.
I would disagree with you here. As my good friend Torie reminds me now and again when I get a bit too strident, the abortion issue is a continuum from your absolutist pro life position to the Clinton pro abortion position of a baby being a fetus whose mother could "choose" to kill it even after birth.
Not only is it a continuum but people shift along that continuum through out there lives. Whereas at one point in my life I weakly supported the pro choice view, I am now pro life with the understanding that even children conceived from rape and incest are not guilty of anything and therefore should not be the recipient of a death penalty for somebody elses crimes.
But I also understand that there are many views along that continuum and the way to keep the flow moving from pro choice to pro life is incrementally. I know lots of folks who would vote to ban PBA but would not vote to ban first trimester abortion. Should my position towards them be, well OK, go away you're no friend of mine? How does that do any good for the thousands of near full term babies who will be killed this year while they are almost born? All or none?
I see no lie. You see a lie only because you have an extreme trick definition of "pro-life" that applies only to people who agree 100% with you.
Show me the statement Bush made during the campaign about RU486 that was a lie.
Under your definition of pro-life, a woman who was on birth control pills would be lying if she said she was pro-life.
It's a good thing that we havw adults running the Executive branch now instead of those vanity idiot candidates and their whacko devotees.