You’re right. They are apples and oranges.
Kerry’s apparent embellishment is about what date he was in Cambodia more than 35 years ago.
The Bush administration’s “embellishments” landed us in a war that to date has killed more than 11,000 Iraqis and nearly 1,000 Americans and cost taxpayers $130 billion.
Here’s the new boss, same as the old boss?
Who’s mixing apples and oranges, now?
Just to clear things up for the mentally challenged (me), was Kerry lying in '79 and '86, or is he lying now? Thanks.
[slams head onto desk]Only if it were that simple. I hope you’re never called to jury duty.
Hard to say. He is challenging a man who was lying, is lying, and will, if he shall draw breath, lie tomorrow.
Surely, you’re not saying that Kerry’s lie is justified by an alleged Bush lie?
Not at all. I imply nothing of the sort. I wouldn’t have the remotest concern about the veracity of Sen. Kerry’s war stories if he weren’t running for President. It might well be considered, when judging character, when trying to choose. For instance, if John Kerry were running for office against George Washington.
But he isn’t, is he? He’s running against GeeDubya (Praise the Leader!) who’s respect for truth and unflinching candor is legendary.
Yes, “legendary” is just the word, don’t you think?
Ok…
From what I’ve read now, it appears to me that Kerry lied, twenty-something years ago. So, to be painfully honest, yes. Kerry lied.
Kerry Lied. Clinton lied, and Bush lied.
Lie number 1: Kerry was not in Cambodia on Christmas, 1968.
-number of attributable deaths as a result: 0
Lie number 2: Clinton had sex with an intern.
-number of attributable deaths: 0
Lie number 3: Iraq had stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, posed an imminent threat to the United States, and just possibly was involved in 9/11. Kinda, sorta
-number of attributable deaths: ?
I like my lies with a small “l”, thank you.
Somebody probably moved the sign. Those wacky pranksters in the NVA were known for their practical jokes, so the sign that said “Welcome to Cambodia, Population Varies” was probably five miles downstream.
Suppose for a moment that Kerry wasn’t in Cambodia on Christmas 1968.
Suppose, also, that it is eventually proven (with documents and eyewitnesses and whatnot) that Kerry was actually in Cambodia on 12-27-1968.
Does that make him an “embellisher”? And will this make any difference to the die-hard Bush apologists?
When your head stops spinning, please explain it for simple old me: Just how does Kerry’s lie (if indeed it is a deliberate lie and not mistake in memory) equal in severity to that of any of the whoopers Bush and crew have told?
Here’s the way I see it. Kerry was in Cambodia in January / February 1969. He probably wasn’t there on Christmas 1968.
Years later, he said that he was, and this is most likely incorrect. This may have been an unintentional conflation of events - for example, he could be remembering a crappy Christmas on the Vietnamese side of the border and a crappy Tet on the Cambodian side as the same event. On the other hand, he may be lying, by adding in a bit about Christmas to give his Cambodia story extra pathos.
I’m leaning towards it being a lie at the moment, but just adding in Christmas to a story isn’t much of a lie. If it were Bush who had said this, only Reeder would be posting about it, and we’d all be shouting him down for agonizing over such small potatoes.
They’ve become the thing they hated. It used to be, if you raised something about Clinton to counter something about Bush, the left would ridicule you for your misdirection. But now, if you raise something about Kerry, they counter with something about Bush.
The difference, of course, being that since Bush is running against Kerry, the comparison is actually relevent.
If Bush was running against Clinton, then raising something about Clinton to counter something about Bush would also be relevent.
Are you suggesting that Clinton made Monica Lewinsky blow him in order to take our attention away from bombing Afghanistan and Sudan? 
Well, if stern duty demands…
Look, I don’t care about Bush. this board is quitre clear about Bush’s indiscretions.
Do you want a liar fopr president?
I wish you had asked me that four years ago.
No thanks…already got one
could…not…re…sist…
Is this a trick question?
Since we don’t have the option of a candidate who is not a liar we are forced to decide which liar is the biggest lying sack and which liar’s lies have been the most destructive.
Fortunately, these are easy questions to answer in this election.