16 Words, and What D'Ya Get?

Blogger Cynthia Johnston insists Kerry's Vietnam lies are merely political tall tales and thus won't influence the election:

[Carl] and his right wingnuts have started comparing Kerry's "lies" to Al Gore's "lies"s the centerpiece of their anti-Kerry diatribes. The former supposedly presenting with symptoms of False Memories which "justify" his policies. The latter having "claimed to be the inventor of the internet and the hero in Love Story". Carl says Kerry's "lies" have consequence.

Johnston supplies two arguments: First, President Bush's falsehoods are worse; and, second, Kerry's exaggerations are trivial. Neither is true.

1. Bush's Sixteen Words Were True: Johnston says the President overstated Saddam's ability to acquire nuclear fuel in his January 2003 State of the Union address: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium (yellowcake) from Africa." She belittles Bush's basis for the so-called "16 words":

   That's the litany all those right wingnuts recited ad nauseam when President Bush got caught with imaginary yellowcake on his hands. IT WAS ONLY SIXTEEN LITTLE WORDS, they bellowed and brayed, as if to justify their presence in the State of the Union Address.

   Liberals disputed the phrase--especially Joe Wilson, who visited Niger. Naturally, as Jeff Jacoby recounts in the Boston Globe,

   The Democratic National Committee cut an ad accusing Bush of deliberately deceiving the American people. And the press embarked on a classic feeding frenzy, turning loose a tidal wave of coverage and commentary.

   But Bush was vindicated, said a July 22nd Washington Post editorial, by "two major official reports, by the Senate intelligence committee and a special British commission." The British group left no doubt:

   We conclude that, on the basis of the intelligence assessments at the time, covering both Niger and the Democratic Republic of Congo, the statements on Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Africa in the Government's dossier, and by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons, were well-founded. By extension, we conclude also that the statement in President Bush's State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that: The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa was well founded.

   Liberal icon (and former Kerry advisor) Wilson lied. But Bush's 16 words were accurate--even when trumpeted (never brayed) by "right wingnuts."



2. Kerry's Lies Are Frequent and Frightening: Johnston insists Kerry's fibs are like Clinton's, who famously perjured himself before a grand jury. She mentions Kerry's standard stump-speech story about a supposed victim of America's ineffective (mostly employer-provided) healthcare system--which President Kerry promises to fix. It turned out that the women--a Kerry delegate to the Dem convention--likes her insurance plan. Johnston downplays Kerry's tale as "apocryphal instead of accurate" and thus inconsequential.
   
   Not so. Kerry's fibs are the source of, and props for, his values and proposals.
   
   a) Testifying before the Senate in 1971, Kerry said American soldiers routinely committed war crimes. Kerry's charges were never substantiated. Anyway, Kerry's now proud of his service and of Vietnam vets.
   
   b) Kerry's consistently claimed special insight from a fake fire-fight in Cambodia, even during a Senate debate in 1986. Yet, Kerry's own diary says he was "relaxing" miles away that day; none of his crewmates confirm Cambodia. Ultimately, the Kerry campaign grudgingly conceded Cambodia was fiction.
   
   c) Kerry did more than embellish Ms. Knowles' story. Cancer wasn't enough; Kerry invented a problem--inadequate health coverage. Ms Knowles became a victim of cancer and the market--justifying liberal legislation.

3. Conclusion: There's a theme here. The Kerry tales all have the same ending--more control. Kerry's made-up memory, James Lileks says,

   taught him the necessity of standing up against evil governments, such as the ones we face today. In other words, [that] would not only be a lie, but one that eroded the political persona he was relying upon in the election.

   Kerry's acceptance speech said "help is on the way." A lame lede for a campaign, but appropriate for a doctor. Kerry looks a bit like an old fashioned medical man--impressive presence and demeanor; smart; a bit dreamy. Still, I wouldn't recommend "Dr. Kerry"--he only prescribes one remedy.
   
   The Senator's the same. The Sirens in Kerry's nightmares bellow warnings of President-elect Nixon's war crimes and markets un-mindful of Mary Anne. His too-vivid imagination thus becomes a rationale for regulation and paternalism.
   
   Cynthia, voters prefer authentic to ersatz. Kerry's not only been caught lying--apparently no longer fatal for Democrats--he's battling imaginary demons rather than specifying how his plan to halt Islamic terrorism differs from Bush's. So voters can more easily see that Kerry's other proposals are more Mondale than new millennium.
   
   In the last month, multiple investigations confirmed President Bush's "16 words" were not lies. In that same span, the only reason Kerry hasn't shot himself in the foot is that its stuck in his mouth. Kerry's just not Presidential.

More:

Further fractures in Kerry's leadership, according to Mark Steyn in the Spectator (U.K.):

[T]he party that likes to sneer that Bush never had a plan to deal with Iraq’s inevitable insurgents doesn’t seem to mind that Kerry never had a plan to deal with the Swiftees’ equally inevitable insurgents. A guy awash in gazillions from Barbra Streisand and co. who can’t see off a couple of hundred middle-aged ‘liars’ and their minimal ad-buy? Is that really the fellow you want to put up against al-Qa’eda, the ayatollahs and Kim Jong-Il?