I wasn't attempting to answer the question Cerulean, nor was I attempting to "sidestep" anything. I was illuminating 727lover's point because I recognized that you were patronizing him, and I wanted to make sure other readers here recognized the same thing. Furthermore, because you are not a moderator (to my knowledge) and are not entitled to control the discussion in this thread, I will politely ignore your authoritarian pretense and your narcissistic demand to humor your philosophical ejaculations.
Nonetheless, I will offer a response because I choose to...
Yes, of course I agree with your description of what a "lie" is and your assertion that all lies should be subjected to the same "standards of integrity."
THUS, and to your point, this leads to the bigger issue that 727lover was attempting to bring forth (perhaps in not so many words):
If all lies should be subjected to the same "standards of integrity," why DOES a lie like Mr. Bush's NOT garner the same amount of attention and outrage as Mr. Clinton's lie??
i.e.....Where in the HELL do our priorities lie (no pun intended) in this country??!??
THAT'S the real issue, in my opinion (and I think 727lover's and several other million people's as well).
An unexamined life isn't worth living.