IF AT FIRST YOU DON'T SUCCEED, LIE, LIE AGAIN

A few of my favorite parts:

Inasmuch as these are journalists who adjudge George Bush more evil than Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, their perception of reality is to be treated gingerly. But if Ms. Pearl is toying with the idea of becoming the latest liberal cause celebre, she might want to consider the trajectories of the rest of them.
All the Democrats' most dearly beloved anti-war/anti-Bush heroes invariably end up in the Teresa Heinz Kerry wing of the nut-house. Scott Ritter went from being a trusted U.N. weapons inspector valiantly defending poor, misunderstood Saddam Hussein from George Bush's imperialistic war to being just another creep trying to have sex with underage girls.
Max Cleland was a war hero who lost his limbs as a result of Viet Cong grenades, giving him the stature to gleefully taunt George Bush and Dick Cheney. "Where the hell were you in the Vietnam War?" Cleland responded to Cheney. "If you had gone to Vietnam like the rest of us, maybe you would have learned something about war."
Then we learned Cleland was a victim only of his own clumsiness and had dropped the grenade on himself in Vietnam after stopping for a beer. Bill Burkett was the left's most admired military veteran since Benedict Arnold. He claimed Bush had shirked his National Guard duty and said he had the documents to prove it. According to Dan Rather and CBS News, Burkett was a "solid" and "unimpeachable" source who was being attacked by "partisan political operatives."
And then Burkett turned out to be a foaming-at-the-mouth loon. He was eventually forced to admit on air that he had "misled" CBS on the phony National Guard documents,
Most recently, The New Republic's "Baghdad Diarist" has been unveiled as a liar, another illustrious chapter in that magazine's storied history of publishing con men and frauds. If conservatives are the ones driven by ideological passions, then why are liberals the ones always falling for laughable hoaxes in support of their anti-war ideological agenda? And if liberal beliefs are true, why do they need all the phony stunts to prove them? How about liberals keep hoaxes out of politics and return them to their rightful place: "proving" Darwinian evolution.

As I have said before, why do liberals need to make up stories to make their case?
If their side is right, why lie about what Bush has or has not done?
Why lie about your military service to bash Bush?
Why make up stories about what happened in Vietnam (Kerry) or what is happening in Iraq?