I'm sitting here listening to Rep. Jerrold (The Hut) Nadler call the Swift Boat Vets "a bunch of liars." I'm not sure why.

Why he's calling them liars, or why you're listening? ;)

The latter. I know why he's calling them liars--it's all he's got.

I am very curious:

Exactly what have the Swift vets been accused of lying about?

This is like "Bush lied about the intel." To prove someone is lying, several preconditions must be met:

1. A statement must be demonstrated not to be true. Thus, "Kerry did not serve in Vietnam" would be a statement that might be a lie.

2. The statement must also be shown to be deliberate. Thus, if a 5-year old said that, after he'd been told by his parents to repeat this (cruel parents!), is the child lying? No, of course not. He may be repeating a lie, but the child himself is not making a false statement deliberately.

By contrast, it is now clear that SEN Kerry's statement about being in Cambodia at Christmastime 1968 was, in fact, a lie. It was both false, and it was stated deliberately. Now, if Kerry mis-remembered, then it wasn't a lie---but making it the core of a speech on the floor of the Senate, when it is "seared" into your memory would seem to differ somewhat from "Hey, what were you up to the last time I saw ya, coupla years ago?"

SO, I'm genuinely curious: What have the Swift vets said that was both WRONG, and deliberately stated as such?

Their contention that there was no gunfire during the boat rescue, for one.

You missed "item 3" in your list: To be lying, a person must know what he says is false.

People on both sides have been accusing the other of lying. I have no doubt there are faulty memories on both sides, and some of them just don't understand that someone can be honestly wrong about something they think should have been obvious. On each side, I am sure some is true and some is not.

It is NOT clear that Kerry was lying about Cambodia. He was wrong, yes. He said things I don't like, certainly. But it isn't clear he was deliberately lying on that issue.

Yes, it's possible that Cambodia is a fantasy that he's incorporated into his long-term memory. I'm not sure that's more reassuring than his being a liar, though.

VR:

I thought your item 3 was the same as my item 2? My use of the phrase deliberate was referring to the idea of knowingly stating a falsehood.

That being said, your point about gunfire strikes me as particularly appropos:

Military history in the gunpowder age is replete with stories of units convinced they were taking enormous fire, when in fact the troops are hearing their own sides' fire and "responding."

Given the description of the Swift-boats as fairly loud and noisy, it seems to me that it is eminently plausible to have a few rounds coming in, and start returning fire, and believe that you're in a massive firefight when the other side's already skedaddled. (If a mine had been set off, it would certainly make sense for the VC to have run, having done as much damage as they were likely to do.)

This does NOT mean that anybody lied on their citations, or even in their recollections. Even if VC who had been in the engagement were brought forward and confirmed that they'd run off, it doesn't mean that the vets didn't THINK they were under fire.

The Cambodia incident, however, as I noted, is more consistent with a lie, in no small part b/c Kerry used it in a Senate speech, and b/c of the specifics he attributes to it. But, yes, it's certainly also possible that he is/was misremembering. Although misremembering a turning point event (his own general description of that incident's importance) leaves one wondering....

Dean, "deliberatey" isn't quite the same thing as "knowingly." I may deliberately make a statement and it may be false, but it isn't a lie unless I know it is one. Semantics, I suppose, but you used that terminology to state that Kerry's Cambodia statement was a lie.

I'm not taking a position on the gunfire. I was just responding that that was one point where vets were accused of lying.

Kerry may be lying about Cambodia, but I have to wonder why he would be so specific about something he knew was false and where there were witnesses. My guess is that he remembered it incorrectly and is deeply regretting the statements he made about it, now that they are coming back to bite him.

VR: One reason he would be so specific about something he knew was false could be cause he got away with it and it worked for so many years. When I returned from Vietnam my college roommate was a card carrying S.D.S. member. We often would have spirited political discussions. He used to have this tactic of inventing fake studies to back up his arguments. Was very effective until I caught on.

Course Kerry could be just the poor victim of a horribly seared brain. Poor fellow.

VR, however, raises an interesting problem about Kerry.

Imagine that, back in the early 1970s or whenever, Kerry lied/fibbed about Cambodia. (For the purposes of this thought experiment, assume he did so after his testimony before Congress.)

BUT, what if, over the years, he succeeded in persuading even himself that it was true??

Is it still a lie? I think we'd agree it was a lie in the beginning (again, this is a thought-experiment, not an accusation). But what if he had come to believe it to be true? What if, frex, in his mind, he really believes that he was in Cambodia, and really believes Nixon was President in December 1968?