Liars just carry on

Having been away for a week let me try to review things. First, it seems clear that Kerry won the first debate hands down. Although Bush might have done a bit better in the second debate Kerry appears to have won that one also. Indeed, Bush demonstrated nothing other than the fact that he gets angry and confused. I am also convinced that he was, in fact, wired. At first I thought this might just be another conspiracy theory but I no longer think so. In addition to what I said in yesterday’s blog, the two photos that show something suspicious under Bush’s suit coat, the fact that he demanded no photos from the rear, the claim by a former interpreter that he had to have been wired when dealing with the Indonesians, and his behavior in general which my linguistically trained wife insists demonstrate that he was wired, there is also now a statement by a highly respected London tailor who makes expensive ($2000 to $3000 dollar suits) that no such suit would ever bunch up like that. The only claim to the contrary is by Bush’s own tailor who said it was just a wrinkle (one has to assume that he has a vested interest in continuing to make suits for the chimp).

Now, about the Vice Presidential debate. It is virtually impossible to find a single thing that Dick the Slimy did not lie about. There is no point in reviewing this here as it has already been done by others. The one lie that puzzles me the most is when he claimed he had never seen Edwards until that night. There are photographs and records that demonstrate unequivocally that he had met Edwards on at least three previous occasions. So what I don’t understand is why this particular lie? What was the point? He must have known it wasn’t true. He must have known it could be shown to be untrue. So why do it? Either he thought everyone would be too stupid to check on it or he felt that for some reason it was worth lying about. Perhaps he meant to simply denigrate Edwards for his attendance at Senate functions? But if so, it was entirely foolish because his own attendance record is far worse. What I think, based on his record of lying, is that he is plain and simply a pathological liar. He lies about everything, all the time. He lies even when there is no need to lie. He lies even in the face of all evidence to the contrary, as in the case of the presence of nuclear weapons in Iraq and the relationship of Iraq to the terrorists. He seems to lie for the mere joy of lying. And the major media lets him get away with it, time after time after time. Perhaps that is why he does it, he knows they will not actually challenge him. That tells you something about the media (as if we don’t already know about the American Pravda).

Now to Sinclair, the media giant which is apparently going to appropriate prime time a couple of weeks before the election to showcase a blatantly partisan and dishonest film slandering John Kerry. This will probably violate the law, and perhaps they will not actually do it, but in the meanwhile they are keeping this absolutely disgusting, dishonest, and totally reprehensible attack in the public eye. You should either write Sinclair and protest or, better yet, simply boycott all of their stations.