The post below and Rand Simberg's hilarious take down of Mary Mapes have underlined a recurring theme here at the Posse: the increasing need of the left to base its positions and arguments on a bedrock of lies and distortions.
This is hardly new; the old Soviet Union survived on such fare.
What differentiates this current crop is the willingness to knowingly engage in forgeries to make their case.
It is one thing to claim that "Bush lied, people died!" or refuse to acknowledge that Saddam Hussein had extensive terrorist ties.
It is quite another for a Democrat activist to pose as a Republican for the purposes of getting a good news photo. (Both links courtesy of the hated Instapundit.)
If all else fails, one can always make up dead soldiers to illustrate a point.
Apparently, if a fraud becomes old enough, it is considered to be true. The Winter Soldier project - a documentary with less truth about it than This is Spinal Tap - was recently resurrected for a second run.
Again, the issue here is not that people have differing views of reality. One can argue about matters of causation and perception. Even glaring untruths can be passed off as poor information or lack of curiosity.
But how does one explain the need to intentionally create fake evidence?
When the anti-war left moves beyond falsification and into outright fabrication, what does this say about the moral or logical strength of their cause?
Comments