...which is why I'll never have very many friends who are politicians. For a good example of lying for political gain, let's look at this Stars and Stripes interview with John Kerry:
Stripes: You said during your speech sir that never again would U.S. troops operate, or be hostage to a lousy energy policy --
Kerry: What I said is, I didn’t say never again, I said I don’t want them to be hostage.
Stripes: You think that’s what’s going on now?
Kerry: I think in the first war, their oil was a critical consideration, because Saddam Hussein’s intent was to take over the oil fields. Jim Baker said publicly that it had something to do with what we were doing.
Stripes: But our operations in Iraq right now, no?
Kerry: No. That’s not related directly to the oil … and I never suggested that it is.
Hmm, this assertion — that Kerry had never suggested that the 2003 invasion of Iraq wasn't directly connected to oil — didn't fit with my recollection of earlier Kerry statements, so I googled "Kerry Iraq Oil," and came up with this from the May 25, 2004, Washington Times:
"A strong America begins at home — with energy independence from the Middle East. Let's ensure that no young American soldier has to fight and die because of our dependence on foreign oil," the Massachusetts senator said.
Maybe I'm just insufficiently nuanced to discern the Senator's deep adherance to the truth, but the above quote certainly seems to suggest a connection. In my naïveté, I'd call that a lie.
Let's move on in the Stars and Stripes article. Later in the interview, Kerry states:
[The Bush administration] went into Iraq in a brilliant military strategy, which we all adopted and supported...
Whoa, wait a second. I thought he only voted to threaten the use of force, not the actual use of force, right? Oh, wait, this is a military audience, so a candidate has to look sufficiently martial. At any rate, another lie, thankyouverymuch.
Stripes: Tommy Franks has said in his new book that we should be in Iraq for three to five years – does that sound like a fair estimate to you?
Kerry: I think that that estimate depends on the success of my diplomacy. I will be more successful than George Bush, and I think any timetables now will depend on a new president, and a new credibility to re-create the relationships that this administration has broken.
Okay, typical political speech. "I'll do better than my opponent." Fine. But wait, how does that square with the next question:
Stripes: As a hypothetical, what happens if these old allies don’t come back? Or if they don’t want to go into Iraq in substantial numbers?
Kerry: Well, I’m not going to deal with hypotheticals. This is not a hypothetical. I’m working on knowledge I have, indicated to me from colleagues in the Senate who’ve traveled abroad and talked to people. I know the power of my own diplomacy and I believe, and I’m confident to say I can do a better job of bringing people to the table and reducing the burden on American troops. I know I can do it.
So the Senator is willing to discuss his hypothetical successes, but not his hypothetical failures. Typical.
It's starting to get under my skin, examining Kerry's words so closely. So I'll leave it to the reader to finish the fisking.
