Kerry Lies

What is a lie?

The classic definition of telling a lie would have to be saying something even when you know it to be false. For example:

“I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky."

Bill Clinton certainly knew what he said on national television and in front of the whole world was a big fat lie. He knew it from first hand experience. He was one of the participants in the event he was claiming never took place. He knew it was a lie, but said it anyway because he didn’t think he could get caught. After it was disclosed that DNA existed to counter his lie, he was forced to admit he lied.

Another example:

“I remember Christmas of 1968 sitting on a gunboat in Cambodia. I remember what it was like to be shot at by Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge and Cambodians, and have the president of the United States telling the American people that I was not there; the troops were not in Cambodia,"

John F. Kerry certainly knew what he said on the floor of US Senate in 1986, and on numerous other occasions, was a big fat lie. He knew that he had never been in Cambodia at any time during his four month tour of duty in Vietnam. He said it to further enhance and embellish his military record. He said because he didn’t think anyone would ever check it out. Only after it was proven to be false was his campaign staff forced to admit that he lied.

What is being mistaken?

The classic definition of being mistaken is asserting something you and others sincerely believe to be true, which later turns out to false. When the Catholic Church in the time of Galileo asserted that the Earth was at the center of the universe, they could hardly be accused of telling a lie. They, and nearly all of the experts, deeply believed that assertion. There were no widely accepted facts to refute the theory. When Galileo and others proved it not to be so, they had to eventually admit their error.

Likewise, when George W. Bush, Jacques Chirac, Helmut Kohl, John Edwards, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, and nearly all of the other world leaders asserted that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, they could hardly have be accused of lying about it. Nearly all of their intelligence experts firmly believed this to be true. Subsequent facts, so far, have not borne them out. The worst that could be said about them is that they were possibly mistaken. They didn’t purposely put forward facts they knew, with certain personal knowledge, were false.

The question?

Given the above, why would anybody, knowing that Mr. Kerry flat out lied about his venture into Cambodia still insist on supporting him for the highest and most sensitive office in the United States? How can you trust somebody who would repeatedly tell such a lie?

The only answer abides in the notion that since Kerry supporters are so caught up in their rabid, irrational hatred of Bush, they are willing to forgive Kerry anything--solely for that fact that he is not Bush! This is astonishing! Face it. Kerry supporters are getting ready to cast their precious presidential election votes for a man who knowingly lied about his military service, and then shamefully made that military service the centerpiece of his whole political campaign! Incredible! Aren’t they the least bit worried about what else he may have lied about? Or what, indeed, he may lie about in the future?

It boggles the mind.