Actually, the truthfulness of your assertion depends on what the definition of "Is" is. Is "Is" some mythical place where a great and powerful fraud hoodwinks the poor inhabitants by using smoke and mirrors to deflect the truth? Then Bill is The Wizard of Is.
Or, does "Is" mean was, is and always will be? In that case maybe, or maybe not. He most certainly was the Wizard of Is on August 17. But presently he may no longer be such, in which case your assertion, though certainly at one point in time accurate, may no longer be such and it therefore cannot be stated with certainty that it is now true. In which case it must be false.
Or, does "Is" mean at this precise moment in time? If yes, then your statement is most likely false in accordance with the reasoning set forth above.
Which begs the question, if Clinton was the Wizard of Is but no longer can say he is the Wizard of Is, does that make him the Wizard of Was, or merely the former Wizard of Is?
To summarize: He was the Wizard of Is. He is the Wizard of was. He is not the Wizard of Is and he was never the Wizard of Was. But if he is not the Wizard of Is and was never the Wizard of Was, that must mean he is and was and will always be the Wizard of Nothing.
Hope that clears thing up for you!!
Unfortunately, alcohol is not involved. |
