Redstate

.. surely this smacks of desperation? I mean seriously. Just in the last 24 hrs, we have:

1. hundreds of tons of missing explosives
   
   
2. 50 Iraqi soldiers executed, probably by infiltrators
   
   
3. an American diplomat killed.

THAT, folks, is the real news from Iraq.

... I'm looking forward to the time when this election is over and you go back to posting your own stuff again, instead of going to bat for Bush. You don't play the game of gotcha all that well (nor does anyone because the game inherently stinks). I miss your more original work that scratched that particular itch as only you and Den Beste seemed to be able to do. Are you planning on going back to the type of critical and well thought-out writing that you were doing last year and earlier this year, or is this trevino character what's left of the mighty Tacitus?

Certainly, failing to focus on your preferred topics is desperate and diversionary.  And yes, this diversion was planned weeks in advance, to drown out all other news this weekend.  Which, mind you, we had perfect foreknowledge of, being gods who walk the earth, etc.

Free clue:  this is news on John Kerry, not "news from Iraq."

Now, then -- I believe you have a dKos diary to write.

"Tacitus is no good anymore.  Because, uh, I don't agree with him."

Please folks, at least hand me a dime when you do this.

I'm not saying that you're no good anymore. I think that you're probably still as good as you have been. I'm just saying that you excel at a certain type of writing and analysis, and gotcha isn't one of them.

That being said, this isn't run of the mill gotcha, as elaborated-upon.

What ever were we thinking? Because, surely, one of these two men (and NADER!) must deal with the crises of the world. Do we want the guy who couldn't achieve perfection while conquering another country, or the fellow who couldn't even be honest while criticizing the fellow who was all-too-human?

But, one supposes you're right. Let's vote for God Azura Kerry on November 2. He may be an inveterate liar, but at least he's superhuman.

This is not a story for the political junkie.  It's a story for the undecideds.  The undecideds are wavering.  They are concerned about security.  Do they want to keep the President guy or empower a serial liar?

This day more undecideds will decide to keep the current guy who means what he says as opposed to the the challenger who no one can trust.

The story is not just the lie, the story is the pathological liar.  In choosing the leader of the free world, I think it matters.

Undoubtedly one can find inconsitancies in any politician's history, but in the case of Kerry it would be difficult to find an issue other than worshipping at the altar of the U.N. on which he has been consistent.  Moreover, Kerry is almost the only politician I have ever seen who consistently makes stories up out of whole cloth!  ( Hillary does this too, but those are typically small and stupid embellishments, eg "I was named after Sir Edmund Hillary, who wasn't known when she was born" )

Perhaps Kerry met the "entire Security Council" in one of those restaurants in New York where that kind of thing allegedly happens all the time.  More likely John Forbes Kerry is a pathological liar.  In truth, he exhibits the tendencies of a sociopath.

And very unlike the Bush haters who scream what they want to be true, we have factual evidence for concern.  Nuff said.

Unfortunately, John Kerry has already established himself as a pathological liar for those that have any appreciation for the 10 Commandments.  The existence of this story of a non-meeting accordingly becomes a non-event with non-impact.

Those that are only voting for "Hate Bush" don't care.  Heck they'd vote for Fido and  think that the Veep is Stu-Ped.

Those that still haven't made up their mind obviously do not have an encyclopedia of knowledge of this Charlie McCarty with a hundred different Edgar Bergan's pulling his strings. They lack the knowledge or ability to comprehend the concept of a pattern of fabrication. What they see as a single "Error" such as this has no impact on them.

Having squeezed 30 hours on campaign this week along with my real job, this phantom event doesn't even raise my blood pressure a point. There is no surprise left on what Kerry would say.

This non-event is further dulled by the current 24 hour broadcast of ads that are so outlandish that undecideds comprised of Jay Walk All-star rejects finds them unbelievable.  Why would they believe this let alone find it incriminating?    

Trevino -

I'm not a Bush supporter.  I plan to vote for Kerry next week.

That said, your research here looks solid.  It deserves a response.  Has the Kerry camp made one?  I'd be interested to see it.  If you have contact information for a Kerry spokesperson, I would actually be interested in following up myself.

Thanks -

I was never a huge fan of the travel writing...

What I'm missing are the honest and searing analyses of the situation in Iraq, thoughts on Hamilton, and so forth. I don't want to read them now, because I think your writing will favor your current task of getting Bush reelected instead of what you really think. For example, what are your thoughts on the 350 tons of missing explosives, what are your predictions for the upcoming Iraqi election, what's your view on the Federal Marriage Amendment, and so forth.

Here at Red State, your writing and rhetorical gifts are mostly wasted as you're preaching to the converted. (Reminds me of the scene in the HBO Rat Pack movie where Dean Martin would walk up to random people and spout gibberish to prove that people would laugh at anything he said, regardless of the merits. Not that your writing is gibberish.) There doesn't seem to be that honest punch in your writing as of late, though that may just be election fatigue. In any case, I should be more patient - I have a little over a week to hear what people really think about things instead of shilling for their candidate.

Also, I had another question, though I don't know if you would or should answer it in public. Being a political appointee to your current job, is your livelihood threatened by a Kerry victory? Are you high enough on the appointments list that you'd be replaced if a new administration were to come to power, or do things not work that way?

The 50 Iraqi soldier and the American diplomat killed is news but it is yet just another act by terrorists who are trying to influence not only on-goings in Iraq but in the USA as well.  

The hundreds of tons of missing explosives is a questionable story because the IAEA doesn't know when they disappeared.  It could have been before the war, it could have been during, or it could have been just after.  Either way, those explosives have been missing for quite a while.  The fact that this story came out just now before the election smacks of the media trying to influence on-goings here in the USA.

A few confirmations, which buttress Kerry, and a bunch of "no record" - which tells you nothing. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

And your assessment of the relative importance of this is I think miscalculated, but ok, lets see how it plays out. It didnt exactly rock my boat, but I dont think it would have rocked my boat if it were Bush claiming the same thing either.

Genuine kudos for the research and hard work, however. You put a lot of effort into this, clearly. The appeal of the giant-killer role notwithstanding, this is good journalism.

Its just inconclusive journalism. IMHO.

CrowdedHouse, if you want a thread on those topics...start one.  This thread was begun to discuss Kerry's claims relating to the U.N.

I get tired of discussing politics with my Dem friends, because (generally within a minute) regardless of topic they will invariably say "Haliburten!"  Then fold their arms and look smug.  

The issues in Iraq (explosives, ambushes, etc) are real, and we should discuss them.

But Kerry's at best "stretching of the truth" and at worst "outright lies" in this case are also important.  A large part of his case against Bush is THEY WERE TALKING TO ME...THEY WOULD HAVE TALKED TO YOU...BUT YOU NEVER TRIED!!

The Washington Times story throws some serious cold water on Kerry's claims...and we need to look into it.

I agree, John Kerry is a liar, and that this is important.  But don't expect it to sway the election.

Except that I'm not a political appointee anymore, and life doesn't always allow for the blogging we'd like.

Tacitus.org itself will be revamped.  However, as for Red State -- this has its purpose, and seems to be filling it well, I'm thinking.

Just call the KE04 national office at 202-712-3000 and ask for a press contact.

When the actual Joel Mowbray story broke last evening.. when we actually saw what the headline and text was.. I was one of those Bush supporters that was mildly disappointed. I felt it was just another "garden variety Kerry lie" [and how sad that we can just assume a blatant lie by a Presidential candidate is not unusual] that would not gain traction with masses of undecided voters.

However, I have a "day after the night before" new slant:

I think the real story is that of the major Security Council memebers (besides the US) that Kerry COULD have talked with, and CLAIMED to talk with, he actually spoke with only ONE..... FRANCE.

This story's importance is not so much Kerry's repeated lies as such, but it is in revealing KERRY'S ongoing propensity to SUBMIT U.S. FOREIGN POLICY DECISIONS TO PREAPPROVAL FROM THE FRENCH ABOVE AND BEYOND ALL OTHER PARTIES.

Somehow or other, Francophile Kerry has subjugated all his international and foreign policy thinking to Les Francais. He tries to hide it by code words like "international community" and "dont go it alone" [I guess when Kerry is in a crowd of 35 people, none of whom are French, Kerry considers himself "alone"]. But the French are for him the sine qua non of foreign policy.

Unfortunately, at that VERY moment the French were actually on Saddam's hefty payroll being bribed to oppose us in the UN.

So the summary is:

Kerry claims he talked to the Entire Security Council. In reality, he mistakes FRANCE for the entire UN, and gets the "endless Hans Blix inspections is the way to go" talking point from THEM. He claims that as an international mandate, and ignores the fact that his beloved FRANCE was on the take for Saddam and had convinced Saddam that they would drag out inspections so that America would never invade.

Can you say: Relying on France to help prop up Saddam!!! Does that sound vaguely like aiding and abeting an enemy!!! Or even mind-boggling naivete in blindly "trusting" a corrupt French government?

I'll bet the LIES part itself has less resonance than the TRUSTED A CORRUPT FRANCE part.

No record means they're not on the record -- it doesn't mean we got told nothing.  ;-)

this story is weakening it, not enhancing it. I concur with Malkin, the "tease" only served to raise expectations unfairly to your source material (though really, Mowbray is more of a columnist than a journalist. I think you and Krempasky have better journalism credentials).

If you've got more to the story, now's the time to lay the cards. Else, it's over.

And I really do think you need to address the issue of unsecured explosives too. Thats an issue that is going to hurt Bush and unless theres a good explanantion for why those materials were left unguarded, that doesnt involve gross incompetence, no Kerry-UN theorizing is going to distract from it.

Anyone have a take on how many members of the Security Council President Bush spoke to regarding the situation at the time?

So it's just a question of who is a more pathological liar about worse things. Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction, jokes about not finding them, and a thousand soldiers are dead. I'll take an exaggeration about the number of members of the Security Council he spoke to over being resonsible for a 1000 dead Americans.

Even Bush new "scary wolf" ad is a lie... The FIRST terrorist attack on the US on 9/11? Are you kidding me?

I concur with Malkin, the "tease" only served to raise expectations unfairly....

The tease, such as it was, that emanated from Red State was completely consistent with the story itself.  The unfair raising of expectations was the result of some rather fevered speculation -- which, I might note, Krempasky did his best to tamp down in comments on several sites.

If you've got more to the story, now's the time to lay the cards. Else, it's over.

Well, no.  Whether it's over or not remains to be seen.  And if folks don't want to be on the record by name -- and why would they want to alienate a possible future Administration they may have to work with? -- there's no reason for us to not respect that.

And I really do think you need to address the issue of unsecured explosives too.

Noted, and irrelevant to this.

What are you talking about?  The ad clearly references the first attack on the trade centers, after which Kerry voted to gut intelligence.

For two reasons.

First, because it's public knowledge that the Administration was deeply involved in the Security Council resolution process.

Second, because the President isn't promulgating a longstanding lie on this subject.

Why would you accept lies from either the President or John Kerry?  Why not just nominate a respectable person to run for President on the Democratic ticket?

However, there's one thing that I'm a bit unclear on regarding the purpose of Red State. Is Red State primarily a top-down blog that is intended to take talking points from up high from folk like the RNC and provide a venue for dissemination in blog format, or do you see it as a bottom-up site where Republicans of all color can gather and debate and attempt to arrive at a consensus about what the GOP should adopt and focus upon?

Or to put in another way: last night a friend and I spent a good hour talking about and debating the problem of expensive medical malpractice insurance. We debated whether punitive damages were a good way to continue going and given our common goal of allowing doctors to do their job while providing the patient recourse in the event of a actual snafu and malpractice. We went back and forth while no good solution was reached, it was a good discussion to have. Another hypothetical example: The RNC declares that the solution for the problem is to cap damages. Now is the purpose of Red State to support the RNC/GOP position as handed down or is it intended to foster the discussion and debate in order influence the RNC/GOP? It's probably a mixture of both, but which is dominant.

Or to ask another way, several months ago, you had some stinging words about the handling of Falluja. Would such a post ever appear on Red State, even if it went against the official GOP party line? I think that the mission statement is unclear on this point

Because we know the President had administration had to negotiate with all permanent members and the majority of the rotating members of the Security Council to get Resolution 1441 passed.

Um, unlike Senator Kerry, the adminstration actually does sit at the table in the Security Council.

There's a few things I can think of that would never have been posted here if we were an RNC/talking points op.

That was a large part of Kerry's case for voting for him. The other large part of his case for voting for him is that he would tell the truth to the American people.

Good Lord, you people have a weird definition of "lie".

A "lie" is a deliberate untruth; a more expansive definition would include saying something which actually isn't true not knowing and not caring whether it is true or not.

Nothing Bush said about WMD fits either definition.  The only definition which would work is this:

Anything said which doesn't turn out to be true is a lie even if the speaker believed it was true when he said it.

Bush did not lie about WMD.  

Though you are lying when you accuse him of it.

"Lying" implies forknowledge of the untruth and intentional telling of it anyhow.  

Unless you can prove that Bush knew there were no WMD at the time he was speaking about them, then it wasn't a lie.  Do we now know that what we knew back then was less-than-truthful?  Yes.  But it was no lie.  

If a police officer, in a tense situation, sees a perp pull out a gun and aim it at him, is he justified in using deadly force?  I'd say so. What if the "gun" turned out to be a toy?  Was he still justified?  Yes.  It's a tragedy, but it was still justified.  

Kerry, on the other hand, knew full well that he never had the meeting which he insisted he had because he is the one who "had" the purported meeting.  So his was an out-and-out lie.  

The "responsible for 1000 American dead" is a specious, desparate remark.  I suppose FDR is "responsible" for the hundreds of thousands of dead Americans during WWII, eh?  Germany didn't attack us, after all.  And I imagine all we had to do was "understand" the plight of the Japanese and what we did to provoke Pearl Harbor rather than retaliate with deadly force...

And yeah, you mistook what the wolves add was about.

Next.

"I personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, tape wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blew up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, and razed the UN Security Council in a fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan."

Cite this?  I recall a quote just like that where Kerry reports accounts from the Winter Soldiers meeting, and I recall a quote from the Cavet debate with O'Niell where Kerry denies personally doing those things (but does call his partaking in a free fire zone and razing villiages as contravening the Geneva Conventions and therefore as War Crimes)... but I don't have any idea where that quote comes from with the "I personally...".  Source?

Paraphrasing from his 1971 Senate testimony.

Unless you can prove that Bush knew there were no WMD at the time he was speaking about them, then it wasn't a lie.  Do we now know that what we knew back then was less-than-truthful?

Actually if one must use a convoluted expression it should be 'less-than-correct' or 'less-than-factual. Less than truthful continues to imply that someone knew the facts and deliberatly supplied or relied on something they knew not to be factual.

The 'fact' of the matter is that what was reported and relied on by the President AND the Congress were the facts as known at the time. Obtaining a different set of facts later does not make the previous set 'untruthful', merely incorrect.

from the book of Proverbs:

6:12 A naughty person, a wicked man, walketh with a froward mouth.

6:13 He winketh with his eyes, he speaketh with his feet, he teacheth with his fingers;

6:14 Frowardness is in his heart, he deviseth mischief continually; he soweth discord.

6:15 Therefore shall his calamity come suddenly; suddenly shall he be broken without remedy.

6:16 These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:

6:17 A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,

6:18 An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief,

6:19 A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.

mea culpa

How to talk to a liberal (if you must).

Some of the key points:

1.  Don't conceede anything.
   
   
2. If they aren't getting hysterically upset  from your points, you aren't doing anything right.  

I say whenever a leftwinger comes here to accuse Bush of lying, we should simply point out the history of the Democratic party's treason, election fraud, corruption, etc.

To all of those left wingers who hate Bush, think he is worse than Hitler, and idolize Noam Chomsky:

If you truly feel that way, and believe America is an evil country, why don't you just renounce your American citizenship now?  No one is holding you here against your will.  If it is so miserable, you can leave.  And maybe your pals Mr. Hussein, Mr. Zaraqawi, and Mr. Bin Laden, whom you all implicitly defend with your lies and distortions, can set you up with something more to your liking.  

Bush is the Liar:

1. I never said I wasn't worried about OBL
   
   
2. SH was behing 9/11
   
   
3. I don't own a timber company
   
   
4. SH tried to buy Uranium in Africa
   
   
5. There are WMD in Iraq

Christ guys, no one cares about whether not Kerry met with all of the security council.

America seems to care about 340 TONS of explosives not being secured in Iraq. If a democrat was commander and chief and allowed this to happen, we would all be all over them.

If you guys are really wasting time on this non story, it is truely sad and it means Kerry will be the next president

You have a moral objection to liars, correct?

So how can you vote for one, regardless of what side he's on?

If we're all assuming you as a Kerry supporter and it;s not true, please, feel free to try to fool////set us straight.

That entire segment only serves to weaken the strength of this argument, and now to hear you say it was a paraphrased joke makes it worse.

Take it out and make it known something was removed.  You aren't helping us when you "paraphrase" something like that.

Christ guys, no one cares about whether not Kerry met with all of the security council.

So you don't care that he routinely lied about it over and over again?

Hmm.  Interesting.  How do you justify your moral objection to someone you say is liar while telling the world you don't care if the other guy is a liar?

*to the tune of Mickey Mouse...

The point is that everyone on this site is complaining that JK is a liar and that he will "nuance" it away when this is exactly what everyone is doing here when someone raises the point that GWB lies as well.

At any rate, get off this board and check the news. NO ONE CARES ABOUT THIS QUESTIONABLE STORY. What people care about is GWB's mismanagement of Iraq. How do you let 40 truck loads of explosives disappear?

Keep talking about this story, straight through January when Kerry is sworn in as president.

and this is it. If you want to keep peddling the same old disproven list of "lies" you can either respond to the responses you have previously gotten or you can take it someplace else that wants to hear a parrot ask for a cracker over and over and over and over.

We've already responded to 1-5 at least a couple of times each and when faced with the facts, you leave and spout your lies in another thread. For example, your lie about the timber company is easily disproven by anyone who wants to research what factcheck.org has found.

First, you don't make the rules. As much as it may hurt you to realize this, you are not quite the warden here. But this is typical of your leader GWB who throws out of his events anyone who may not be "brainwashed" into supporting him. Since apparently your browzer does not seem to have the capability of going beyond this site I will provide references -- http://news.statesmanjournal.com/article.cfm?i=88491 or http://www.citizensvoice.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=13207582&BRD=2259&amp
;PAG=461&dept_id=455154&rfi=6

As far as factcheck.org, is your factcheck.org not the same as mine?

1. As has been my case all along BOTH canidadates distort the truth, there are plenty of articles on GWB there as well. Are you saying that all the GWB ones are false, but we should cite Kerry's as being right?
   
   
2. Deal with this quote from Factcheck.org:
   

"So Bush was wrong to suggest that he doesn't have ownership of a timber company. And Kerry was correct in saying that Bush's definition of "small business" is so broad that Bush himself would have qualified as a "small business" in 2001 by virtue of the $84 in business income"

As far as me leaving, I very well might (I am sure that will make you happy). However, should I leave it is only because you have not provided for me the intellectual debate and challenge I was hoping for. This tired one sided hackery is just third grade stuff.

We should clarify: the $84 in Schedule C income was from Bush's Lone Star Trust, which is actually described on the 2001 income-tax returns as an "oil and gas production" business. The Lone Star Trust now owns 50% of the tree-growing company, but didn't get into that business until two years after the $84 in question. So we  should have described the $84 as coming from an "oil and gas" business in 2001, and will amend that in our earlier article.

Link here.

I take it that your complete failure to answer any of my charges about the lies/distortions that factcheck.org says Bush told means that you now agree with me. As factcheck.org indicates, BOTH of them lie and distort.

Then why was this story atop politics.technorati.com all day?

One thing I don't care about -- having you around.

the $84 did not come from a timber company, period. Nor was the timber company under Lone Star ownership the year that Kerry said it was. So rightfully Bush disagreed with Kerry's statement, period.

So far, the only liar besides John Kerry I see in this thread is you, tjones.

When you intentionally spread information you know is demonstrably false, you are in fact lying.

No wonder you don't care if Kerry is a pathological liar.

We need to be much more careful when accusing others of lying. Any inaccuracies (i.e. lies) made when accusing others of lieing really damage the attack. For example you list a lot of examples when you claim Kerry lied about meeting with the UN security cancel. And yes he has definitely been caught in a Lie in quotes 2 and three.

But

Unfortuneately, the very first quote, Kerry said "I met with members of the Security Council". The Washington Times confirms that this time, Kerry told the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. The same with the fourth example.

In examples five  and six Kerry said he met the "Security Council" and if he had said "Security Council members" there would be no problem. This is a weak basis for accusing someone of lying.

Example 7 is the one in the washington times article. Unfortunately this one is not nearly as strong as quotes 2 and three. Here he says he met with members of the security caouncil (true.) He went to New York (true.) He talked to all all of them (Probably a lie.) But this is not nailed down. All we got is he didn't meet with them. No quotes on whether or not they talked. This kind of behaviour, especially on the par of  lets kerry off the hook.

Further comments.

You state Every one of these statements is a lie. No, several of them weren't. Don't give people a reason to distrust you.

Copying and pasting from yor blog you have

"I personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, tape wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blew up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, and razed the UN Security Council in a fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan." Then it says

Paraphrasing from his 1971 Senate testimony.  AAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG!!!! It's in quotes. Then you admit its not a quote. In most peoples book that makes you a liar. In fact this is a worse lie than you accuse Kerry of doing, since you completely change the meaning. He had said that Other vets had said they raped .... Not that he had.

You are right Germany was not a Security Council member in October and November 2002. However they were the secruity council president (I believe, I might be off by a month) in January 2003. It is reasonalbe that when talking to members of the security council, when the time frame of the action has not yet been determined, to talk to people who will be members in a few weeks. Don't weaken a stong argument by making silly and bad points.

Kerry accused Bush of knowing Kevin Bacon. When Bush denied it, they cited the "Seven degrees of Kevin Bacon" principle, thus establishing a connection between the two, and thus proving once again that Bush is a liar for denying it in the first place....

First off, I agree that the 1971 testimony "quote" was in poor taste. However, you could also note that mention of UN Security Council in the quote is a clear hat tip that it was tongue in cheek. But Kerry did admit  that he personally committed atrocities. But as a whole, I agree with you broader statement that it was in poor taste.

On the issue of Kerry and the UN, you have a small point there. However, you are offering more of an olive branch than is deserved for two reasons. First and most importantly, the author specifically asked the Kerry camp if he had in fact met with all of the members. The response was "yes he did". He had a chance to ABORT the whole story if he had actually told the truth to a point blank question. Secondly, when you say to someone you met "Security Council members" it is clearly implied that you are saying you met them all. If you meant to qualify it, you would need to specifically say "some". The fact that at other times he specifically says "all" and "entire SC", etc. makes that interpretation that he is lying virtually certain. Otherwise, you'd have to grant another series of flip-flops where Kerry couldn't decide whether he met with all or some, all or some, all or some, ad nauseam.

Unlike John Kerry, I am a fan of the truth.  In the Winter Soldier hearings before Congress JK was spokesman for VVAW and spoke for all the "testimony" offered at the WS meeting.  The actual line was something like "I heard testimony where soldiers reported personally ..."  On the Cavet show he admitted that he neither personally did not witnessed the horrible things he described but was himself "guilty" of participating in free-fire zones and burning villages.

John Kerry did both claim to commit atrocities and witness atrocities. That has no bearing on the quote, since obviously Kerry never claimed to raize the UNSC!

Ben Affleck nudeBrad Pitt nudenude Bruce Willis picturesGeorge Clooney nudeJohnny DeppJustin Timberlake nudeRicky Martin nudeRobbie WilliamsTom Cruisenude beyonce knowlescarmen electra nudechristina aguilera nudehalle berry.comhilary duff nakedjanet jackson nudejennifer aniston nudejessica simpson nudemadonnamandy moore pictures nudepamela anderson nudenude salma hayekshakira nude