Gentlemen, why not call them what they are: LIES

Why can't the press use the "L" word? Is it because John McCain was a POW and therefore gets a pass on being a baldfaced, craven, pandering liar? Because if that's not the reason, if they're just being too "delicate" to say that perhaps the Senator from Arizona is "confused" or "muddy in the memory", they might have to say he's too senile to be president.

But in today's New York Times, two of the papers hacks di tutti hacks, Michael Cooper and Jim Rutenberg, write about the "outcry" over the McCain campaign's "distortions" -- as if defending yourself against outright lies and attacks were, to use Phil Gramm's favorite word, "whining", while holding Sarah Palin up like a human shield the way Martin Sheen's Greg Stillson character in The Dead Zone held up a baby and screaming "SEXISM!!" any time anyone criticizes her for any of her ignorance and hypocrisy:

Harsh advertisements and negative attacks are a staple of presidential campaigns, but Senator John McCain has drawn an avalanche of criticism this week from Democrats, independent groups and even some Republicans for regularly stretching the truth in attacking Senator Barack Obama’s record and positions.

No, you morons, it's not "stretching the truth." Stretching the truth means there's a kernel of truth in there somewhere. It's called lying. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines "lie" as:

1: to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
2: to create a false or misleading impression

So, Messrs. Cooper, and Rutenberg, why is this so difficult for you to understand? And why not use the word?