If Kerry lied, would it matter?

I'm as yet unconvinced Kerry matters, other than as entertainment.

There is also this:



Source

Well the Navy was satisfied that Kerry was entitled to his medals and I'm not going to criticize the record of a man who signed up and served.

But if the alleged story breaks and it turns out Kerry lied about throwing those medals away, that would be a pretty blatant lie. Would anybody care?

Bubbling along just under the surface of media attention is some controversy surrounding the dating and signatures on some of Kerry's citation recommendations and actual citations, too. That may be, and likely is, nothing, but if it turns out to be something, that might be inconvenient at the very least for Kerry.

Then there is the matter of his wife's tax returns ... opposition to releasing them has already hurt, and continued reticence will serve only to inflict further damage. Of course, the reluctance might well be predicated on concern over revelation of elitist, if not downright dubious, tax-management practices and potentially embarrasing charitable contributions. Allowing speculation in that regard to continue is a huge drag on Kerry's prospects ... and he may be in a no-win situation there; damned if he does, damned if he doesn't.

It shouldn't be too long before notice is taken of his having continued to receive his Senator's salary, and perqs and benefits, while having missed over 90% of his Senatorial duties in the past year or so ... something specifically and officially prohibited.

As more and more of his voting record, his bill sponsorships and cosponsorships, his lobbying contact history, and his public and semi-public speeches and other statements come to light, I anticipate even more cause for him to squirm.

And the campaign has barely begun.

All in all, I'm glad I'm not Kerry, and I'm awfully glad he's not my party's candidate

The shrub is a proven liar, and that doesn't matter to you. So if you don't care that the most powerful piece crap on earth couldn't lie straight in bed, why would you care about his opposition?

This past week, just after giving a grand speech condemning environmentally unsound and gas guzzling SUVs, somebody asked Kerry about his Suburban. He responded that the Suburban belonged to the family (wife/kids); it wasn't his.

(Reminds me of Pat Buchanan driving his Mercedes to give a speech to an America First - buy American rally. )

But remembering Bill Clinton wagging his finger straight into the camera: "I never had sex with. . ."
will Kerry get a pass if he has essentially done the same thing re those medals?

I don't think there is a perfect candidate out there.
Well, maybe.
There was this one guy, Jerry, who used to sit out on the porch while we fooled around inside with the townies. He was a helluva guy otherwise, a good analyst, a steady hand at directing an operation and seemed pretty comfortable with himself.
Pretty good guitar picker.
He always told the truth. Always.
I think he joined a monastery in 1970.

Should I go find him?

And if I did,
how long would it take the mudsuckers to find out about that one joint he and I did that weekend before he signed his getting out papers?

And would any of that matter in the face of the fact that the Presidency of the USA is presently occupied by an incompetent surrounded by his equally obtuse staff? Well meaning dweebs all, but still not up to the job.

So, what about John? Can he do better?

Yeah. I think so.

And I'm a pretty good judge of character.
Like I knew Jerry wouldn't spill about that joint to anyone. Ever.

Joe

Wilso, while it is widely and enthusiastically alledged in some circles that "Bush Lies", no forensically, or even merely legally, valid evidence of such exists, despite the immense energy thus far fruitlessly devoted to establishing such. Merely believing a thing is so, no matter however convenient, comforting or gratifying that thing may be does nothing to make that thing so, no matter how vituperatively one so convinced engages those who do not accept the original premis in the first place.

Nixon lied. Clinton lied under oath. Bush may say things some folks don't like, he may say things in a manner some folks don't like, but under the legal definition, it is unproven that Bush in his official capacity ever has lied. Such things are a matter of law, not of opinion, and above all else, Thye US is a NAtion of Laws. And lawyers ... too damned many of both to my mind, but nevermind. Given the emotion, energy, and means of those opposed to Bush, it is preposterous to assume direct, conscious, proveable wrongdoing would exist, yet has not thius far been brought to evidence and been employed successfully in juridical proceedings. That one disagrees, however vehemently, with what is said by another does not make that other a liar; it means merely there is disagreement.

Further, it is disingenuous at best to ascribe to an individual politician in a comples democratic governmental system, such as Bush, or Chirac, or Schoeder, or whomever, the attributes one admires or detests about the government of which that individual is a part. Convenient, certainly, but disingenuous. That individual is but the front person for a huge, and broadly elected, institution of other individuals placed in myriad offices by a hugely greater number of voting citizens.

All the stuff posted are what he was sent by the military, so if somebody's lying, should you blame the pentagon too?
There are plenty of ex-crewmen who don't like Kerry. Wonder if they're all republicans?
Once again, Kerry claims to have thrown ribbons, not medals.
But, no, it wouldn't matter at this juncture. How many lives have his (allleged) lies cost? And how many Iran/Contra cronies has he tried to get on his team? Those are the things that matter to me.

Four words. Weapons of Mass Destruction. Four lies for the price on one.

Sorry, Wilso ... whatchya got there is an allegation, one with great appeal to some, yes, but one thus far absent corroborative evidence and unsubstantiated. An error of monumental proportion, perhaps, but misapprehension is not dissemulation.

Do you now? And just which website from the 'far left' that you visit serves as balance to Drudge? I mean, as you've used this eclectic reading regimen to justify posting another Drudge bit here, you could share this with us, fox.

Dishonesty in an elected official is always relevant. More important, by rather a long ways, is whether or not there is a real discernible PATTERN of deceit, and what the deceit(s) concern.

Indeed.

Considering Bush's military record—if it can be found—The republicans best avoid attacking Kerry's military record.

I heard one guy interviewed on the radio that wouldn't even concede that Kerry was at more risk from the war than Bush. He claimed that pilots are always in danger. Well, maybe bush pilots.

Besides, Bush has proven himself to be either an incompetent fool, or the damnest liar in the world. Fool us once, shame on you. Fool us twice, shame on us. How much will Americans swallow from this administration? I suspect that by November, Americans will be fed up with the quagmire in Iraq.

Where I surf is not the thesis of this thread Blatham. I only commented on it so as not to give Drudge's 'heads up' promo more credence than it may deserve. Your comment otherwise does address the thesis:

Blatham writes


As Timber points out, it is not a lie to state something that is not true, if one believes it is true at the time it is stated. If it in fact turns out that Saddam did not have WMD--the jury is still out on that--GWB did not lie about that unless hundred upon hundreds of high level people in the military, in Congress, and in countries around the world also lied. The only way one could say Bush lied about that is to know that he knew better when he said it. There is no empirical or documented proof that he has lied about that or anything else in his official capacity as president.

So if it turns out Kerry lied about those medals, will it be a big deal? Are we seeing a PATTERN of deceit akin to what Blatham alludes?

Of course he's a f*cking liar! Everyone lies! Sheesh! And if you and Timberlandko think that Bush has never lied then you are fooling yourselves. And it doesn't matter that someone lied, it's what they lied about that matters in politics.

Okay, so Bush hasn't been legally caught in any straight up lies (yet), but his deception about the reasons for going to war in Iraq is worse than any lie about Kerry's medals, in my opinion. You can quibble about the legal definition of a lie all you want, but he's a liar. Period. And a lie that ends up getting people killed is worse than lying about medals, in my opinion.

Just my two cents. Enjoy.

Kickycan writes:


Well, I haven't seen any empirical or documented evidence that there was any deception. If there was any deception, then the previous administration, almost every member of Congress, the U.N. and a dozen heads of state of other countries all cooked up an amazing giant conspiracy to perpetuate it.

So is an unproven deception that some wish to believe worse than a documented lie?

Seriously, one lie about an embarassing issue over medals isn't damning. Unless, as Blatham suggested, a pattern of such lies and deception is shaping up.

Of course being perceived as a liar could be the least of Kerry's problems:

Sen. Kerry's likability gap
Posted: April 1, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern
©© 2004 Laurence A. Elder

Kerry's critics point to his shifting stands on NAFTA, the war in Iraq, the No Child Left Behind Act and the Patriot Act. Kerry detractors expect the public to catch on when Kerry -- a fiscal liberal -- attacks Bush for "fiscal irresponsibility."

But, actually Kerry has a deeper problem -- his lack of likability and the Butchy Cataldo Factor.
Butchy Cataldo?

Well, Sen. Kerry doesn't know, either. Precisely the problem, according to a window-to-the-soul story in the New Republic.

The people who know Kerry best consider Kerry aloof, imperious and condescending. Even worse, Kerry can't seem to retain their names. At a 1996 Massachusetts political affair, a Democratic Massachusetts state legislator said to his friends, "Watch this." He walked up to Kerry and said, "Hi, Senator -- Representative Butchy Cataldo." At this, Kerry smiled, slapped his back and exclaimed, "Butchy, so good to see you again!" One problem -- the guy, the state rep -- was not Butchy Cataldo. In fact, Butchy Cataldo ran and lost to this Kerry-greeting legislator whose name is Bill Reinstein, a man bearing no resemblance to the tall, dark-haired Cataldo.
Call this a likability gap -- a problem for Kerry.

Presidential candidate George W. Bush, in 2000, unaware of an open mike looming nearby, whispered to his running mate, Dick Cheney, and said, "There's Adam Clymer, a major league a--hole from the New York Times." Liberal columnist Maureen Dowd took Bush to task for his profanity, reminding Bush that he now, in fact, plays in the "major leagues."

But Sen. Kerry, in an interview with Rolling Stone magazine -- not during a perceived, private, off-the-record conversation -- said that he voted for the Iraq war resolution without realizing that Bush would "'F' it up." Only Sen. Kerry didn't really say, "F." Major leagues, Senator.

Likability?
At a campaign stop in Chicago before an AFL-CIO leadership group, a supporter urged Kerry to fight hard. Kerry, unaware that his microphone could pick up his conversation, said this about the Bush administration: "We're going to keep pounding. These guys are the most crooked, you know, lying group I've ever seen. It's scary."

The Kerry campaign insisted that the senator referred only to his "Republican critics," not the Bush administration or the president himself. (Believe that one when Osama bin Laden converts to Judaism.) Republicans equal: crooks-liars-warmongers-environmental-rapists and protectors-of-friends-in-high-places.

Likability?
On the eve of the first anniversary of the war in Iraq with the Democratic nomination cinched, Kerry jetted to Idaho to go skiing. As Kerry snowboarded down a hill, a Secret Service agent inadvertently found himself in the senator's path. Kerry took a header. When reporters later asked Kerry about his fall, he snapped, "I don't fall down." Kerry blamed this tumble on his "son-of-a-b-tch" Secret Service agent. Son-of-a-b-tch Secret Service agent? The agent complained about Kerry's treatment and remark.

(Maybe the agent feels miffed since his job description requires him to take a bullet, if necessary, for Sen. Kerry. A little gratitude might be appreciated.) A spokesperson for the Secret Service said, "Obviously, the complications and burden of being monitored 24 hours a day is not just a simple inconvenience. But Sen. Kerry should understand agents are working for his safety and well-being." (According to the Drudge Report, reporters observed Kerry falling at least six times.)

Likability?
Kerry faults Bush's handling of the war in Iraq, accusing the president of "unilateralism" based on "arrogance." For, as president and commander in chief, Kerry expects to be able to bring to the table all parties interested in forging multilateral approaches to worldwide issues. In other words, Kerry expects to use his diplomatic flair and non-arrogant personality to convince the French, Germans and Russians -- all of whom did business with Saddam Hussein and lost money and influence after his fall.

Does Kerry expect the governments of the Middle East to come to the table and agree on encouraging the spread of democracy while it threatens to destroy the leaderships' power? Presumably, Kerry expects to use his warm, persuasive personality to cobble together a coalition that the warmongering, arrogant President Bush could only dream about.

Likability?
Kerry reminds me of a story I once read about the San Francisco Giants' slugger Barry Bonds. Mired in a batting slump, Bonds sat in the locker room and complained about his uncharacteristic struggle to get his offense going. I can't put my finger on the problem, said Barry aloud. I'm struggling. Can't buy a hit. Bonds then looked up and noticed a chronically poor-hitting teammate nearby. Bonds turned to him and said something like -- you must feel like this all the time.

So, how could the often tone-deaf Kerry work on his likability? He could drop the approach -- sincere or contrived -- that Bush equals Satan. Or maybe he should ask Butchy Cataldo.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37844