While I didn't intend it to be, this thread has proven to be an interesting psychological experiment, with different perspectives expressed:
1. Amazement that the White House would deny that the President bowed to a foreign monarch, when the bow was clearly videotaped (revealing a bow from the waste, before the President again stood more erect and shook the king's hand). The denial raises issues surrounding the President's credibility. If the President is willing to lie about relatively minor things, he will lie (or has lied) about more significant things. (See also the other video I posted above with similar "disparities" in word and deed). This is obviously my view.
2. Acknowledgement that the President did bow and that it was clearly stupid for the White House to deny that the President did so, as it just prolonged focus on a relatively minor issue that would have quickly blown over, with the denial creating its own problems. This is a kind of a pragmatic political perspective. This is, I believe, JLI Jesse's view.
3. Implicitly acknowledging that the President did bow and that the denial is false, but feeling it is no more significant than lying about the kind of undergarments one wears, and that at any rate this little lie is nothing compared to the prior Administration's big lie that "Iraq was developing weapons of mass destruction" (though whether this was a "lie" is a matter of opinion, not demonstrated fact, as none of us have the ability to watch a video tape of the American and British deliberations and private conversations and beliefs that led up to the invasion of Iraq). This is a "comparative lying" analysis used to minimize the significance of this breach of truth. This, I believe, is Cage's view.
4. The President didn't bow to the king at all. He "stumbled" or "bent down because he is tall" or "nodded his head," but he did not bow. This represents total denial. This is something that I really did not expect, that took me totally by surprise (since I did provide the link to the video, for everyone to see the events with their own eyes). This is the most interesting of the perspectives, revealing the extent to which what one wants to see can actually affect what one does see. Which, I believe, is what the White House is counting on, given that the President is still relatively popular. Several people expressed this viewpoint.
This is all very interesting. Several people, viewing the very same video, seeing the very same events, experience entirely different reactions and, for some, even see entirely different things. Makes one wonder, with regard to other issues, when one is dealing with controversial matters lacking clear documentary evidence, what prospect there ever is for concensus.
