The NY Times gleefully reports that "Bush Dismisses Idea That Kerry Lied on Vietnam".
Well, he would say that, wouldn't he, since Bush is not a knucklehead and has the good sense to stay on the high road while leaving the (uncoordinated) dirty work to others.
And let's remember Bush's actual (made-up) quote - we wish his answer had been, "Is Kerry a war hero? It's a slam-dunk!"
Actual answer:
"I think Senator Kerry should be proud of his record,'' Mr. Bush said. "No, I don't think he lied.''
Boring!
There is the beginning of explicit recognition that we are in a Moral Superiority War (not a culture war). All intellectually honest folk SHOULD be enraged at the press, my point #2 below.
http://tomgrey.motime.com/1093544824#329796
The 3 big issues the Kerry Lie brings up (Lies):
1) Kerry’s Lie mean he is unfit to be commander in chief; he will be sunk by the Swifties.
2) The press & academia has been enabling Kerry for years, covering up his lies. The PC beliefs of most press reporters, and their censorship of discussion & cover up of the facts, has been enabling Kerry’s Lie, and most in the press are still trying to. Bush-hate by the press is no excuse for a press cover-up.
3) Kerry’s Lie helped create Political Correctness: “ending the Vietnam war, now” as the morally superior position. This is the Kerry Lie sand that PC is built on, and it is now developing cracks.
What is worth fighting for, what is worth fighting against?
The evil commies deserved to be fought against;
Saddam deserved to be fought against.
To fight means to kill, die, and even kill some innocents. The real alternative is surrender.
The desire to avoid killing innocents is good. That's what war crimes is all about. The evil guys don't have war crimes trials. If Christian based Civilization, Moral Civ, allows war trial fear to stop us from winning -- we will lose due to our morals.
Cambodia Genocide occurred because such morality stopped oppostion to evil.
Such morals are not superior.
Posted by: Tom Grey | August 27, 2004 at 01:06 PM
none are as blind as those who refuse to see
Posted by: reggie | August 27, 2004 at 01:41 PM
There's nothing as meaningless as a truism.
Now that we're done exchanging pointless aphorisms, do you have anything of substance to discuss, reggie.
Posted by: Mitch H. | August 27, 2004 at 02:04 PM
It's all so simple if you just remember how to parse responses as was required when dealing with Bush's immediate predecessor in the White House.
"No, I don't think he lied." READ: "I KNOW he lied."
Posted by: Ed | August 27, 2004 at 02:08 PM
I believe Kerry lied in 1971 when he reported that he had read in Stars and Stripes (DOD newspaper) accounts of his missions. The paper barely covered the big battles (Khe Sanh), they weren't into covering 5 man Swiftboat crews. For more info, please check: http://thoughtsonline.blogspot.com/2004/08/nice-to-see-hugh-hewitt-joining-in.html
Posted by: steve sturm | August 27, 2004 at 03:19 PM
Were it not for the fact that he’s such a dummy (Raines says so, no?), Bush might have been referring to Kerry’s pride of authorship regarding his military records. From today’s Sun-Times comes this:
One B.G. Burkett – an acknowledged expert in finding fraud in military records – finds Kerry’s records suspicious, saying "The multiple citations and variations in the official record are reason for suspicion in itself, even disregarding the current swift boat veterans' controversy."
Posted by: The Kid | August 27, 2004 at 03:48 PM
this comments section has become very strange recently
Posted by: sym | August 27, 2004 at 04:03 PM
Maybe Bush thinks Kerry is delusional, and therefore would not fit the exact definition of "liar".
Let's see. . . .we have the Christmas in Cambodia, and VC the flying wonder dog stories, both of which have been shown to be rather tall tales.
How many more fabrications of his Vietnam record does it take before Kerry would be considered delusional, rather than just a liar?
Posted by: Narniaman | August 27, 2004 at 04:24 PM
The wheels are coming off, fellas. If Glenn Reynolds wants to change the subject, ya gotta wonder. Where is the post on Robert Lamberts's story? How about Wayne Langhofer? Jim Russell? These guys weren't on Kerry's boat, and they support his version of events.
I got to hand it to ya though, this BS moved the polls.
As GWB likes to say, "Mission Accomplished"!
Posted by: TexasToast | August 27, 2004 at 04:45 PM
yep, texas toast, the wheels have come off and kerry is fast becoming burnt toast.
Posted by: jim jones | August 27, 2004 at 05:45 PM
Kerry's magic bus is heading over a cliff.
Posted by: syn | August 27, 2004 at 06:32 PM
So now Bush has adequate credibility for the folks down at the Times. I thought that he was the Father of Lies and lies were his native tongue, but apparently he has now stumbled upon the truth. Or something.
Posted by: Katie | August 27, 2004 at 07:59 PM
Trying to acquire Purple Hearts.
Posted by: Greg F | August 27, 2004 at 08:14 PM
"Kerry SHOULD be proud of his record. I don't think he lied"
"Should be proud" meaning he isn't and embellishes?
"I don't think he lied" meaning the speaker, but not all the others who know the facts?
seems that Bush hit the precise phrases to express exactly what he meant. Was anybody listening?
Posted by: Andy | August 28, 2004 at 12:58 AM
Chances are that Kerry’s pride has increased with each passing year. After all, the valor he displayed in 1969 has increased too, at least on his Silver Star citation. The third and most recent citation was signed over fifteen years after the act by the then Secretary Navy John Lehman and adds: "By his brave actions, bold initiative, and unwavering devotion to duty, Lieutenant (jg) Kerry reflected great credit upon himself...."
The additional language varied from the two previous citations, signed first by Adm. Elmo Zumwalt and then Adm. John Hyland, which themselves differ.
It’s vitally important that Kerry remind us of his heroism too, lest we forget. Heck, even Lehman has forgotten and now says he never signed that citation.
Posted by: The Kid | August 28, 2004 at 11:34 AM
I am glad to see the maligned Viet Nam vets standing up for themselves and proclaiming that they are honorable people, were honorable people when they were in Viet Nam, and that they fought honorably.
Kerry, and the anti-Viet Nam war movement, demonized them with lies. Today's anti-war movement can't wait to demonize today's soldiers too, witness the overblowing of the Abu Ghraib story. They want America to think that the abberant behavior of Abu Ghraib is the norm.
They want to demonize the war by demonizing the warriors. They have no shame, just like Kerry had no shame in the seventies. The warriors are fighting back this time.
Posted by: thedragonflies | August 28, 2004 at 12:05 PM
Brinkley appears in the WaPo and NO Times-Picayune today. Looks like your prediction that there will be no New Yorker story is correct. Unfortunately the WaPo didn't press him on his claim to the London Telegraph that Kerry went into Cambodia on three or four occasions.
Posted by: Brainster | August 28, 2004 at 12:37 PM