Kerry caught lying again!

[CamB]

Originally posted by island911
See what your're missing there, LD, is Kerry lied to defame his own country. . . to make a name for himself.

So really Kerry just/only lied to make a name for himself. . . .See? . ..pay no attention to that middle part, let's talk about Bush. [/kerry supporter]

Len - this applies to you too.

You need to wait for proof that Kerry lied - at the moment there is really only Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (hardly unbiased) say-so that he didn't.

I know Glenn thinks, and I think you also think Len, that WMD will still be found in Iraq, because none have been found yet.

As far as I am concerned, you will only have to wait a little while and the truth about Kerry will come out on this subject. This was no slip of the tongue from Kerry --> logic suggests there must at least be some foundation to what he said (or it really is a whopping great lie).

[91C2wrencher]

Thanks Lendaddy, Ya see all politicians are liars, but in this case GW is just so condescending, like we're all third graders and he can put one past us, that it makes hard to believe him even when he says something in the form of a complete sentence(which is rare). I just want a president that is a good liar, someone you can really put your faith in whilst getting it in arse. I don't know for sure but its good bet that Kerry won't refer to himself as a dictator anytime soon.

[dd74]

'68 was 36 years ago. A person's memory is bound to be fuzzy.

I find that only the rather aged on this board concern themselves with Kerry's and Bush's Vietnam-era past. In "Logan's Run," a 36-year-old wouldn't be able to vote because they'd already be dead .

But I digress: to me, all things concerning the Vietnam war stopped in 1975 when we pulled out. Knowing our inability to be effective during that conflict, but our continual visits back to it particularly in light of a presidential election, is very sick and ironic. After all, we did lose that war. Now we hold it up as if the losing cause that was Vietman is some rite to passage for the most powerful leader in the free world; i.e. the president.

Very odd.

[ubiquity0]

Originally posted by lendaddy

Are you saying that Bush made this up from whole cloth? Or do you think it's likely that he was told this by one one of his advisors?

I would expect that Bush's advisors are there to advise him on issues that they know more about than he does. I can't believe that an 'advisor' fabricated this misinformation & passed it along to him to spew out.

Originally posted by lendaddy

Is it posssible that he confused the IAEA report with one from another agency?

That would be a logical explanation. But the Whitehouse's response to criticism of Bush's statement isn't consistent with that theory. It was claimed that Bush was merely “imprecise” & left at that. No other report existed that reached those conclusions hence the Whitehouse was able to offer no defence.

Can it be proven that Bush knew that he was using an imaginary report to justify actions in Iraq? I guess not. If he asserted that he saw fairies living in his backyard then that could never be considered a lie either on those grounds. But the only alternative explanation is that he is terribly confused.

"I spent Christmas in Cambodia" is a lie under your definition?

[ronin]

Originally posted by ubiquity0
"I spent Christmas in Cambodia" is a lie under your definition?

it is if he didn't

[lendaddy]

Cam,

If you read my posts I said IF it is proven that he was not in Cambodia it would be a lie. And for the record I don't require absence of doubt before I would consider it a deliberate lie, rather within logical reason. I mean if the other guys on Kerry's boat say "we never went to Cambodia" then even though I wasn't there it would be a logical conclusion that he was lying. Also, if a couple of people in the cabinet said " Bush knew they hadn't set a timetable" I would consider that evidence as well.

[CamB]

I just wanna stress the IF.

I found yet another article - http://www.boston.com/globe/nation/packages/kerry/061603.shtml

in which he refers to patrolling further up the river. I'm finding it very difficult to decide who to believe here.

[ubiquity0]

Originally posted by ronin
it is if he didn't

How about if he didn’t enter Cambodia, but believed that he did? I doubt that all the river passages had ‘Welcome to Cambodia’ signs at the border. How about if he was relying on inaccurate information- ie. WW2-era maps, a fallible navigator etc? Would he be responsible for relying on bad information and deemed a liar because of it when Bush is pardoned for the same fault? Why would the word of the Swift Boat Veterans, none of whom were on his boat, be considered ‘proof’ when Kerry’s word, as someone who was on the boat, is not?

[lendaddy]

Good point, it would have to be proven to me that he knew he was deceiving us/the country.

[island911]

Originally posted by ubiquity0
How about if he didn’t enter Cambodia, but believed that he did? I doubt that all the river passages had ‘Welcome to Cambodia’ signs at the border. .. .

Good point; Kerry does seem to be confused and lacking direction. . . .easily run amuck.

However, .. ..

[island911]

Originally posted by ubiquity0
. . . I doubt that all the river passages had ‘Welcome to Cambodia’ signs at the border.
. ..

A bit more on this. . ...

During Christmas 1968, Kerry was stationed at Coastal Division 13 in Cat Lo. Coastal Division 13’s patrol areas extended to Sa Dec, about fifty-five miles from the Cambodian border. Areas closer than fifty-five miles to the Cambodian border in the area of the Mekong River were patrolled by PBRs, a small river patrol craft, and not by Swift Boats. Preventing border crossings was considered so important at the time that an LCU (a large, mechanized landing craft) and several PBRs were stationed to ensure that no one could cross the border.

A large sign at the border prohibited entry. Tom Anderson, Commander of River Division 531, who was in charge of the PBRs, confirmed that there were no Swifts anywhere in the area and that they would have been stopped had they appeared.

So you are right, the sign didn't say "welcome".

[ronin]

Originally posted by ubiquity0
How about if he didn’t enter Cambodia, but believed that he did? I doubt that all the river passages had ‘Welcome to Cambodia’ signs at the border. How about if he was relying on inaccurate information- ie. WW2-era maps, a fallible navigator etc?

lmao. this wasn't some lone frontier with three men stationed there for 12 minutes. everyone knew exactly where the Cambodian and Laosian borders were. this was critical, considering the political situation at the time. to add, US officers are rigorously trained in proper map usage, and a 55 mile error would be quite hard to fathom (npi) unless the parties involved were totally and utterly incompetent

[ronin]

hehe. looks like Island beat me to it

[Mulholland]

Originally posted by k911sc
mull,, will you be leaving here like bush will be the whitehouse come november?

I am going to have to rub it in before I leave...I am on a psychological mission to make as many liberals implode as possible (think Hannibal Lector).

[Mulholland]

Originally posted by lendaddy
Remember when Clinton said there were no nukes pointed at the US? I would not consider that a lie even though it was untrue since I am sure he didn't fly around the world checking the devices to see where they were aimed, I wouldn't expect him to, he just took bad advice.

Wrong len, he knew, he was the President of the United States...Inhofe has proof, "Buzz" Patterson was there.

[ubiquity0]

Originally posted by ronin
and a 55 mile error would be quite hard to fathom (npi) unless the parties involved were totally and utterly incompetent

...funny, I find it quite hard to fathom that the President of the United States would 'confuse' the clearly stated conclusions of an IAEA report with some other 'report' that has never existed. That screams competence.

[techweenie]

Originally posted by Mulholland
I am going to have to rub it in before I leave...I am on a psychological mission to make as many liberals implode as possible (think Hannibal Lector).

Ah, your Christian role model, Hannibal.

So how many liberals do you think you have imploded so far (think Don Quixote).

[ronin]

Originally posted by ubiquity0
...funny, I find it quite hard to fathom that the President of the United States would 'confuse' the clearly stated conclusions of an IAEA report with some other 'report' that has never existed. That screams competence.

sorry, I'm not defending Bush in this case, I'm criticizing Pinnochio Kerry. and if you are willing to compare the possibility that Bush misspoke, as you dems are so fond of pointing out on a regular basis that he is very capable of doing so, with an egregious attempt by Kerry trying to convince us that he is somehow able to physically occupy two different areas of three dimensional space at the same time, then perhaps your competence should be called into question

[Mulholland]

Originally posted by techweenie
Ah, your Christian role model, Hannibal.

So how many liberals do you think you have imploded so far (think Don Quixote).

You have kept your twisted head on your shoulders pretty good, thus far...I am not going to tip my hand as to my gamesmanship, although it is more than evident that Lynn went over the deep end at one point.

[island911]

Originally posted by Mulholland
. . .., although it is more than evident that Lynn went over the deep end at one point.

LOL . . .point; Mul.