Sarah Palin lies

Did the RNC Insult Troops and Veterans?

And that brings me to the last point. Speaker after speaker told the convention that the "surge worked" and we were on our way to "victory."

Except not so much. Bob Woodward, in his new book, explains what those of us in the military always knew - commanders on the ground were against the surge, and knew it would not work strategically. And, in fact, it hasn't worked in stabilizing Iraq's internal political problems, hasn't aided our global strategy, or helped strengthen our military.

But, as the President explained to General Abizaid, and others, success wasn't the point of the surge - the APPEARANCE of success was the purpose.

[DECEIVING THE PUBLIC; NOW WHERE HAVE WE HEARD THAT BEFORE]

Quoting Woodward's finding, "A surge would "also help here at home, since for many the measure of success is reduction in violence," Bush said [to Abizaid]."

In short, BUSH KNEW that since less than one-percent of America had served in the wars, and most commentators were ignorant about what constitutes true military and strategic success, a reduction of violence could be sold as "success," even if it was not.

No only the troops but the American public.

No only the troops but the American public.

Quote:

And that brings me to the last point. Speaker after speaker told the convention that the "surge worked" and we were on our way to "victory."

Except not so much. Bob Woodward, in his new book, explains what those of us in the military always knew - commanders on the ground were against the surge, and knew it would not work strategically. And, in fact, it hasn't worked in stabilizing Iraq's internal political problems, hasn't aided our global strategy, or helped strengthen our military.

But, as the President explained to General Abizaid, and others, success wasn't the point of the surge - the APPEARANCE of success was the purpose.

[DECEIVING THE PUBLIC; NOW WHERE HAVE WE HEARD THAT BEFORE]

Quoting Woodward's finding, "A surge would "also help here at home, since for many the measure of success is reduction in violence," Bush said [to Abizaid]."

In short, BUSH KNEW that since less than one-percent of America had served in the wars, and most commentators were ignorant about what constitutes true military and strategic success, a reduction of violence could be sold as "success," even if it was not.

MAKING A STORY 'STICK'.... CNN had a segment this morning about Sarah Palin lying on her opposition to the Bridge to Nowhere, but instead of delving into the McCain campaign's apparent inability to tell the truth, CNN's John Roberts asked why Barack Obama is having trouble making the truth "stick."

It was an unusually inane question, which Paul Begala handled very, very well.

Quote:

"Because the press won't do its job, John..... It is the media's job when a politician flat out lies like she's doing on this bridge to nowhere so call her on it. Or this matter of earmarks where she's attacking Barack Obama for having earmarks, when she was the mayor of little Wasilla, Alaska, 6,000 people, she hired a lobbyist who was connected to Jack Abramoff, who is a criminal, and they brought home $27 million in earmarks. She carried so much pork home she got trichinosis. But we in the media are letting her tell lies about her record."

At that point, Roberts did what CNN tends to do -- turn to a Republican to offer a competing side to the truth. In this case, Alex Castellanos said the media should be "a little gentle" with Sarah Palin's obviously false claims. "The amazing thing about Sarah Palin is when she became governor she actually stood up and said no" to federal pork, he said.

So, again, Begala tried to set the record straight.

Quote:

"That's just not true. You know, John, the facts matter. There's lots of things that are debatable who is more qualified or less experienced or more this or more passionate, whatever. It is a fact that she campaigned and supported that bridge to nowhere. It is a fact that she hired lobbyists to get earmarks. It is a fact that as governor she lobbies for earmarks. Her state is essentially a welfare state taking money from the federal government."

Roberts wrapped up the segment, concluding, "We still have 56 days to talk about this back and forth."

But therein lies the point. The nation doesn't need 56 days of "back and forth." We don't need 56 seconds of "back and forth." There's an objective truth here, and CNN, as a neutral, independent news source, is supposed to tell viewers what the facts are.

But CNN can't do that, because reality has a well known liberal bias. If Roberts conceded that Begala was telling the truth about demonstrable facts, then he'd be "taking sides." For a media figure to acknowledge that a candidate for national office is lying shamelessly would be wholly unacceptable -- it would break with the "balance" between competing arguments.

The viewer at home hears one side, then the other. Who's right? That's not CNN's problem. If viewers wants to hear an argument, they can turn to CNN. If viewers wants to know which side of the argument is right, they can look elsewhere.

Which is precisely why candidates for national office feel comfortable lying shamelessly in the first place.

And which is why the candidate telling the truth can't get the story to "stick."

This is the problem. The playing field is not level.

CNN is actually a news organization and therefore they at least try to be objective.

On the other hand, Fox News is a propaganda arm of the government masquerading as news, so they have no such ethics to worry about.

Even Obama has conceded that the surge has worked. Get over it.

LANCASTER, Pa. - Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama said Thursday that the escalation of U.S. troops in Iraq, which he had opposed, has succeeded in reducing violence "beyond our wildest dreams."

But Iraq still has failed to achieve the political reconciliation and self-sufficiency that is required, he said, and he vowed to withdraw American troops and end the war.

Earlier Thursday, in taping a segment for Fox's "O'Reilly Factor," Obama said the surge of U.S. troops has "succeeded beyond our wildest dreams."

Meanwhile, new lies (Palin or McCain? Not clear who lied more but will put it here since it's ABOUT Palin):

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/09/she-lied-about.html

History Quiz

This is not the most consequential answer Sarah Palin has given Charlie Gibson so far, but it's indicative:

Quote:

GIBSON: Have you ever met a foreign head of state?

PALIN: I have not and I think if you go back in history and you ask that question of many vice presidents, they may have the same answer.

If you look back at the 10 vice presidents since 1960 -- Johnson, Humphrey, Agnew, Ford, Rockefeller, Mondale, Bush, Quayle, Gore and Cheney -- which of those would not have met a head of state before becoming VP?

Based on their pre-veep resumes, only Agnew jumps out as a possible candidate for Palin-level isolation. But I'm curious about this. Would Palin be the only veep in the last half century to have had no contact with a foreign head of state before taking office? [..]

Late Update: On it already, ABC News' Lisa Chinn reports every veep in the last 32 years has met a head of state before taking office.