See, here's how it works. Over here, Atrios reproduces some total swill from CNN flunky Lou Dobbs:
For the record about a third of the money from Jack Abramoff and his clients did in fact go to Democrats and 2/3 to Republicans. That's the reality. Don't blog me! It's the fact.
Now, as we all know by now, Jack Abramoff never gave a cent of his personal money to a single Democrat. And that's a fact.
But notice how cleverly Dobbs words his claim -- that the money is coming from "Jack Abramoff and his clients." So, technically, Dobbs is correct -- as long as you understand that all of that money came from the clients, and none from Abramoff himself. But if Dobbs conflates the two, well, it's your fault if you happen to conclude that Abramoff actually contributed any of that.
Using a similar rhetorical device, I could justifiably claim that, between the combination of them, Dobbs and a local white supremacist group have gang-raped a total of five black teenaged girls. Of course, I'll cleverly omit the fact that Dobbs had nothing to do with it but, technically, I would of course be entirely accurate as long as I refer only to the total package of perpetrators. (The whole gang rape thing is entirely hypothetical but I could, of course, just scan the local papers to find something equally heinous and it would work just as well.)
Aren't semantics fun? Now, about Bill O'Reilly and al Qaeda being personally responsible for thousands of American deaths on 9/11 ...