Why this matters
By joelmowbray Posted in User Blogs — Comments (7) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
The man who has made honesty and integrity central campaign themes has just been caught lying on what he himself portrayed as a critical event relating to the dominant issue of the election. And it's not the first time. He's lied so often, in fact, that his campaign capitulated before the story even ran. They're not trying to cover for him, so why should anyone else?
Aziz, it looks like you have been reading summary sentences only. It has been repeatedly clarified that Kerry claimed to have met with the entire council. He is not "capitulating" that he didn't and is instead claiming to have met with a few members in private. Joel never said Kerry met with no one at any time, and if you had read his article you would see that Joel actually says that Kerry did met with 3-4 members in private (though I can't tell if that means one meeting or several one-on-one's).
Geez, if you are going to criticize the guy, at least read what he says before criticizing so you can get the criticism straight.
without wading into teh source material!
"It has been repeatedly clarified that Kerry claimed to have met with the entire council."
and it was repeatedly claimed that Kerry met with SOME of the council. Likely just an exaggeration, he wasnt consistent on eth stump, and anyway that kind of embellishment is common on the trail. Bush didnt even recall his own words about Bin Laden, for god's sake, in the heat of the debate moment.
You're trying to pick and choose between statements to find the one with the largest margin of error from your facts. But there are other equal statements which match them - a reduced claim of "some" of the council. And the kerry campaign appears to have embraced that latter claim, according to what Mowbray seems to be asserting above.
Look, just tell me if Im being a partisan idiot who just doesnt get it. I'll stop intruding on the topic if thats how you feel. Howevere, if you think that yoru case is strong enough on the merits to actually make sense to someone who isnt pro-Bush a-priori, then you need to acknowledge that teh story hasnt met eth evidentiary requireents to match your conclusions about Kerry's character. I'll butt right out if you think Im wasting your time here.
...the ones where Kerry specifically said, "I met with some of the members of the security council." Saying that he met with the Security Council or the representatives of the Security Council is not a lesser statement. Yet quotes like "I met with every one of them" seems to be fairly clear. I don't know about your memory, but my memory doesn't contain meetings that don't take place.
If this were the only exaggeration I'd be inclined to say that it was a slip of the tongue or maybe 'exaggeration for effect'.
But it isn't the only one. There is a long litany of such 'exaggerations':
- The now infamous, and infinitely revised, 'Cambodia at Christmas' incident; Not so much 'seared' into his memory, more like 'lightly breaded and gently sauteed';
- 'My SwiftBoat ferried CIA operatives into Cambodia for secret missions': Right, a shavetail in country for 30 days gets assigned to a mission that would have major international repercussions if caught; And using a boat that the VC or Cambodians could hear from miles away on a quiet night in the Mekong Delta?;
- Attending the Gulf War cease-fire signing at Safwan: He attends the cease fire signing for a war he voted against?; He was in Boston the night before and Washington the night after --- the only way to do that would be in a SR-71; But there is no photo record of a prominent, and camera hungry, US Senator at the signing --- ever met a camera shy politician?;
- Running the Boston Marathon, his first and only Marathon; Except that he can't remember exactly what year and can't recall his time; And there is no record of him doing this and you can't run the Marathon unless you qualify in another Marathon first;
- Vivid memories of attending game 6 of the 1986 World Series; Except he was at a fund raiser in DC the night of game 6;
- and on and on and on and on.
He feels this overwhelming need to include himself in history, or to incorporate some historical event into his life.
Is any one of them a big deal? Of course not. But all of them together show a pattern of exaggeration and self-aggrandizement bordering on pathological. I for one do not want a man who can't help but include himself in history, or inflating his own self-image, to have his finger on the button.
As I have carefully watched and listened to Kerry, I have come to the conclusion that I am watching real-life Forest Gump. This guy writes himself into any picture he wants to. Talk about being in control of your own destiny!
Most folks stretch absolute truth a little at one time or another, just to make the joke funnier, etc., but I am beginning to believe Kerry is either delusional or just a compulsive liar. Which one do we want to be POTUS???
How has Kerrry's campaign "capitulated" ? Backed off an exaggerration, I suppose, would be more accurate, but your claim is that Kerry met with none of the council on September 30th, they still maintain that Kerry did meet with the council.
I think that you need to slow down in your "framing" if you want this story to maintain its integrity. This isnt your Townhall column, you're trying cross to the journalism side of the fence. You'll need to establish clearly what you are claiming and what the Kerry side is claiming before you can argue that the campaign has "capitulated" - and given from my understanding (please correct me if wrong) of your basic thesis, capitulation would be an acknowledgement that Kerry did NOT meet with the security council. That, they have not done.