Monday, October 11, 2004

One Man's Lie Is Another Man's Truth

One man's lie is another man's truth. This Relativist incantation is the "Father of All Lies." Sec. of Defense Donald Rumsfield dealt with this deception when he said, "Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but not to their own facts."

There is nothing more frustrating than being called a liar by a liar. A student tells his mom and dad that he didn't fail; that the grade on the report card is a lie. In a frustrating and accusation-filled conference in the principal's office, the teacher replies that the student did not do the needed assignments or attend the classes. "Are you calling my son a liar?" an angry parent demands, "my son says that he did do the work, and that you are a liar!" Out come the rolls and grade books and the real liar is revealed. In the liar/liar rants of the 2004 election campaign the books are available. Let's open them so we can judge.

John Kerry is calling President Bush a liar. It is the desperate tactic of the delinquent caught in his failure, his only hope is that ma and pa will believe. Let's look at some of Kerry's lies.

Speaking before the Senate, John Kerry described the memories, "seared into his mind!" of how President Nixon sent him on a secret mission into Cambodia on Christmas Eve 1968. In Unfit for Command, the Swift Vets point out two things: 1) Kerry was never within 50 miles of Cambodia, and 2) that Richard Nixon didn't become Presidnet until January 1969. John Kerry's response is to call the Swift Vets liars.

John Kerry continually claims that former Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki was forced to retire because he disagreed with President Bush on the number of troops needed on the ground in Iraq. The fact is that the general was due to retire. Claiming Shinseki was forced out is like Kerry claiming that Bill Clinton was forced to retire as President because he supported Al Gore. Kerry's response is to say that when Bush says he listens to his generals he is a liar. The fact is that the rest of the Chiefs and the commanders in the field recommended lower numbers of troops and Tommy Franks, the general who commanded and accomplished victory in Afghanistan and Iraq, flatly states that he was given everything he asked for.

John Kerry says over and over again that the war in Iraq has cost the American taxpayer $200 billion dollars. Those who add up the figures demonstrate that, to date, the facts are that the cost is closer to $120 billion. Kerry's response to being caught exaggerating for political purposes is to call the President a liar. It is interesting to note that while Kerry attacks Bush by misstating the cost at $200 billion, Kerry says that he would have spent more.

John Kerry says again and again that the US rushed to war without allies. He acts as if Britain, Spain, Italy, Bulgaria, Poland, Japan, the Netherlands, and Australia do not exist. He dismisses these nations as insignificant. I guess, to Kerry, Germany would have been a better ally than Italy, China than Japan, Russia than Great Britain. When Bush says we have a coalition, Kerry says he is lying. Count the countries - there are over thirty, weigh their value in the world, and then consider that France and Russia were taking hundreds of millions of dollars in blood money from Saddam to pull their punches and withhold their support in the UN and from the coalition.

That France and Russia didn't enter the war because they believed that diplomacy would "solve Saddam" is another Kerry lie. Kerry calls President Bush a liar when he says that his administration exhausted all diplomatic means by supporting over a dozen resolutions in the UN against Saddam's attrocities and deceptions. Open the books. The DuelferReport clearly shows that those nations that blocked the UN from fulfilling its obligations to the Iraqi people were being bribed by Saddam. They were not interested in diplomacy, they were on the take!

Kerry lies when he says he has a plan for victory in Iraq. Last week in a twenty-nine second rambling answer to a request for details on his much trumpeted plan, Kerry said: I have a plan, but I won't know what it is until I get in the White House and find out what kind of mess the Bush Administration has created; so I don't know what I will do but I have a a plan. If he says he has a plan and then that he doesn't, he is lying. Let's put things in Kerry speak: Kerry condemns Bush, claiming Bush said, "I'll win the war then figure out a way to win the peace," but Kerry says "I'll win the election then figure out a way to win the war." Don't his own words condemn him? What Kerry says is that President Bush lied when he told the American people that he had a plan to bring peace to Iraq. And yet we have all watched as the President's plan ended the tryannical regime of Saddam, put an interim Iraqi government into place, trained over 100,000 Iraqi forces to defend their own freedoms, and daily progresses toward free elections to be held in January. Kerry's only response to the "grade book's being opened" is to call it a lie.

Kerry lies when he positions words to encourage misconceptions. Kerry and his talking heads parrot Mike Moore's lies that American troops are brutal ravaging the nations of Iraq and Afganistan; like the armies of Ghengis Kahn. The United States did not attack the people of Afghanistan or Iraq. The US attacked the monster tyrants that held these people in brutal slavery. Moore, Kerry, and company are chanting a lie. It is as bogus as saying that the police officer that risks his life to enter a house ravaged by a murderer is attacking the terrified victims whom he has come to save.

Half Truths Are Lies!!! Kerry has this trick up his sleeve too.

He says that Paul Bremer, former administrator in Iraq, has said that he does not think that there were enough troops on the ground to secure the peace. But Kerry does not tell us that Bremer went on to say that military leaders fighting and securing Iraq did believe that there were enough troops, and that he (Bremer) believes that President Bush is handling the liberation of Iraq properly. Thus Kerry gives us a half truth - he is lying.

Kerry said in the October 8th debate that there were no terrorist attacks on the US between the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center and 9/11. There were no attacks on the World Trade Center, but he does not say anything about our heros in Mogadishu, our embassies in Africa, and our ships at sea. When Kerry only tells us half the turth, he is lying.

Kerry says he takes the threat of terrorism seriously and that when Bush says he is doing all he can to fight terror, Bush is lying. Yet, Kerry shows that he does not take the war against terror seriously when he says, as he is quoted in Sunday's New York Times (The New York Times Magazine/ October 10, 2004, pg. 45) that, "We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance. As a former law-enforcement person, I know we're never going to end prostitution. We're never going to end illegal gambling. But we're going to reduce it, organized crime, to a level where it isn't on the rise. It isn't threatening people's lives every day, and fundamentally, it's something that you continue to fight, but it's not threatening the fabric of your life." Is Kerry in Lahlah Land; is he just stupid? No, he is a liar. When he says he is qualified to lead the war against Islamic terror and then equates it to prostitution; when he demonstrates that he does not see the difference between "seedy back room clubs," (Kerry's own words to describe organized crime) and terrorists sworn to die in destroying America with weapons of mass destruction and holy war, he is lying. And he lies again when he disembles like this in a New York Times interview and then claims on the campain stump that he can, AND WILL, win the war on terror. If he says it can't be won and he will win it - he is lying.

Kerry is a liar on domestic issues.

With a straight face Kerry says that President Bush has done nothing for health care in the US. It is as if the Medicare Reform bill that Bush pushed through - legislation that Clinton was afraid to even attempt since the Hillary-care disaster, had never happened. When Bush says that his reforms make it possible for seniors to buy medicine that will reduce catastrophic illnesses and thus reduce care costs, Kerry ignores the facts. Ignoring the fact to make a contradictory claim is lying.

Kerry's lies when he promises to reduce taxes, reduce deficits, and promises endless give-a-aways to bribe votes. This past weekend John Edwards said on the This Week program, that if a Kerry administration, "can't afford all the programs they promise they will cut some." But he still kept making the promises even though his own campaign's math - as well as the figures worked out by honest examiners - flatly state that there is no way to afford Kerry's promised programs while keeping his in-the-camera promise not to raise taxes on anyone who makes less that $200,000.00 a year. To make promises that you know you can't keep makes you a liar.

This past weekend, I forced myself to sit through two plus hours of Mike Moore's Fahrenheit 911. It was the Kerry campaign in miniature. Now, More is running about the country offering free underwear and raman noodles to the people he thinks are most likely to vote for John Kerry, the "slacker students" of America. Mike Moore and John Kerry have much in common with this new base they are reaching out to; a group who are ready to have their opinions crafted because they have no facts of their own.

When the grades come out, and their failures are revealed, their only defense is to call the teacher a liar. Let the record show . . .

7 comments:

Dan Simpson said...

I loved this post. I have to say after the debate this last friday if anyone is actually still undecided they must be a fool. There are clear lines drawn between the two candidates.

Embryonic stem cell research, abortion, incredibly high government programs, government health insurance, the war on terror. Completely different stances on all of these issues. One is on one side the other on the other.

If Kerry is elected as our next president, in my opinion, it will show that the people of our country have abandoned what is good. I know that may seem extreme, but the stances Kerry takes, I feel, are morally abhorrant.

Silver Lining said...

The quote at the beginning of Lysis' statement was also said by former New York Senator Patrick Moynihan. I don't know who said it first, so I won't attempt to correct on this. It is, by the way, the quote that is the theme if you will for the website factcheck.org.

It is true that many of Kerry's inconsistencies came out during Friday night's debate. I understand Lysis' contention using Kerry's definition of lie to call Kerry a liar. I think it is important to note that on many of these issues that Kerry is "lying" about, he likely believes what he is saying. We can go back to debating whether that makes it true. It certainly doesn't work with Bush and weapons of mass destruction does it? I point that out only to show even more poignantly, if possible, the difficulty of some of these positions.

Why does Kerry and the Kerry camp continue to throw around the term liar? It is because they hope if they say it enough, it will stick.

I would like to add, if I might be so bold, that many, especially John Kerry, have been quite adamant about scolding the President for not taking more responsibility for many things regarding Iraq. I choose to focus on the issue of WMDs. Kerry says that if he were President that the buck would stop with him and that he wouldn't blame others etc. Well, he lives something differently. When the original vote for authorization came up, they all believed Sadaam had weapons of mass destruction. Now, that there is evidence to the contrary, Kerry has changed his reason for that vote. He now says it was right to give the President that authority because he is the President. Rather than letting the buck stop with him and owning his decision, he has pushed the blame to Bush stating at times that Bush mislead the congress and the American people regarding the threat posed by Iraq. Given the information at the time, there was no reason to view Sadaam Hussein as anything other than a threat. (We can save the argument about whether his threat was real or not for a different issue) There is no shame in this. However, Kerry has dodged his decision and tried to use the Duelfer report as stinging evidence against the rashness of Bush's decision. That is anything but taking responsibility.

Bryan Hickman said...

Kudos to Lysis for the post. I don't have many comments to add that I have not already addressed on my own blog (which is awesome http://bwwa.blogspot.com).

I am no big fan of George W. Bush. However, given Kerry's recent statements on the war on terror, I have, for the first time in my life donated to a political campaign. This morning I donated $25 to the Bush campaign because it is clear to me that the security of this country would be at risk if John Kerry were to be elected.

All politicians lie...it's a fact, not a justification. However, to politically equivocate on such serious issues as Iraq and the War on Terror is a new low for American politics. And I hate to say it...the Democrats are almost alone on this one.

Carrotsnapper said...

Well said Lysis!!!

Layton Lancer said...

I find it poor logic to be calling someone a liar without backing up the statement with the facts of why the person you're calling a liar is a liar. Bush backs up his jabs at Kerry with facts, and yet ... Kerry doesn't back up his jabs with facts. Is this where the right of free speach is headed? I'd rather cut off my ears then hear all of the lies ... but then ... lieing runs wild amoung the uneducated and those who think they are wise.

Draricul said...

Although I am a Layton Lancer myself, I'm going to have to disagree with Layton Lancer. Lies may be a horrible thing, however, lies separate the honest with the dishonest. Fortunately most honest people can spot a lie in the act. Freedom of speech is a wonderful thing and it allows people to speak their minds, whether their mind is coorupt or pure. It, like I said earlier, also allows us to separate people with integrity and those with none. Lies may be horrible, but only if one will accept the lie and believe it. Those people who will are usually liars themselves. Take Kerry and all of his supporters for example. They attack anyone they can to make themselves look good, even if that attack is a lie. What I don't understand is why they would do that, don't they understand that it only makes them look worse except to all the other liars in the world? An honest person will see a lie for what it is, and they will not accept it. If that is where freedom of speech is going, then let it continue. It can only reveal more dishonest and more honest people. It's what allows us to know who to listen to, who to vote for BUSH, and will keep this country alive and keep this country running by those who are the rightful rulers; the honest and true.

Dr. Health said...

The fact is that the general
was due to retire.