I agree entirely about the politics here. I think that politically misleading the public in the SOTU, like misleading the house, should be a resignable offence. There's no doubt that the statement was misleading, and little doubt that this was intentional, and they should be the talking points. (Perhaps backed up by some quotes from the major parties during the Clinton 'scandals'.)
Still, some of us get paid to make sure all the details are in order, so we can't help being pedantic sometimes. Crooked Timber is not Meet the Press after all.
Yes yes, don't stop being pedantic! I quite liked your post, and wanted people to know about it. I was referring solely to the politics of using "factive."
hurray! everyone agrees! But now the trap is set, and, optimist that I am, I hope that Bush, or Rumsfeld, or Rice, will fall into it by giving us a soundbite akin to "it depends on what the meaning of 'is' is" or "no controlling legal authority" or...I know, I know, this won't have the effect I'm hoping for, because the Bush narrative is so different from the Clinton narrative, but it will satisfice nonetheless.