The headline is technically incorrect IMO, but i understand why they used it.

The Senator implied through her phrasing that the events (a) occurred in the US, (b) under Biden's admin and (c) were preventable by our government.

None of these things were true.

The question is... when you imply things, can they be an "out and out lie"?

I do think that if your partner lied to you like this you'd call it an out and out lie...I don't think you'd give them a pass because they implied instead of stated.

Ultimately, I think we should hold politicians to a higher standard.

Every politician takes liberties, sure.

I mean..."taking liberties" was her directly accusing Biden of causing something that has been going on for decades, particularly when her party killed the strongest bipartisan border deal seen in decades for pure political points.

THAT is taking liberties.

Telling a Dubya era story to try to attack Biden is just bullshit and dishonest, it's not taking liberties.

Seems some are being overly critical of Britt because it was the Republican response.

And some are being overly defensive because it was the Republican response too.

That point is kind of irrelevant when everyone, including both you and I, have biases.