The media is going thru Carson's books trying to verify everything. That's hard to do going back 50 years. There's also a desire to show that he's a liar to ruin his credibility. Yesterday I saw a new hit piece in the Wall Street Journal claiming that a story Carson told about an incident that happened at Yale never happened. Carson said he took a class called Perception, then the author said he spoke to someone at Yale who told him that they never had a class by that name. Today Carson posted to his Facebook page a copy of a class syllabus for a class called...wait...PERCEPTION. These "reporters" do a little superficial research then give up and say because they didn't find it, it doesn't exist.

It's also possible that Carson, in trying to recall things from many years earlier, might be off on a couple things by a day, a week, or a month. If you were to ask me the name of the elementary school I went to, I couldn't tell you. When I was growing up I moved around a lot. How many people writing a book when they are 40 or 50 or 60 years old are going to remember specific dates in their childhood? I bet it wouldn't be very many. Doesn't mean that the person is lying -- which is defined as a "deliberate intent to deceive" -- but is merely mistaken on the chronology. So if Carson wrote in his book that he met with General Westmoreland in May but the meeting actually happened in February, it does not mean that the meeting never happened. Carson just got the month wrong. Instead of the media seeing it that way, they twist it to mean that he never met with the general at all.