Why Does Carly Fiorina Have to Play the Liar-in-Chief? To Win? Win What?

Hmm. I wonder how long I can get away with this crap.
Cheney proved the truth is overrated, so who knows?

We know that presidential candidates run for a variety of reasons. Carly had a book out. Maybe she wants to just keep her profile high for some later opportunity. Maybe she relishes her Hillary attack-dog status. I don't know. She comes off competent, it's true, but she sure seems pretty mean.

It doesn't help that she relies on serious untruths to appear decisive in her attacks. Here's George Stephanopoulos pointing out that she's making up key points in her attacks on Planned Parenthood, which she turns into attacks on Obama and Clinton:

Numerous investigations into Planned Parenthood, stemming from the heavily edited videos purporting to show that the women's health organization "sells" fetal tissue, undertaken by states, have turned up nothing. The videos, concocted by an obscure anti-choice group dubbed Center for Medical Progress, don't reveal any actual wrongdoing by Planned Parenthood.

That doesn't stop Carly Fiorina from making stuff up. If you watch what she says to Stephanopoulos, she doesn't actually says she saw it in the actual CMP videos. She just said she "saw them," not saying what and where. Typical. Here's a breakdown by Vox.com's Sarah Kliff.

Her other big lies are about Hillary Clinton, specifically Benghazi and email. None of what she says is true or proven. In fact, the Benghazi scandal was put to bed after no wrongdoing was found (by two House committees!), only to be brought back to life by the completely phony Trey Gowdy special committee. As for the email scandal, that's essentially a DC media narrative that has a life of its own, independent of any actual wrongdoing, either.

Here's Fiorina going after Hillary -- all lies -- in last night's debate:

So why does Fiorina do it? Some have said it's because other candidates give her money to do it. That gives her status in the race -- the one who goes hard after Hillary -- regardless of the truth of the accusations. Of course, not being truthful isn't a dealbreaker for Republicans. If you listen to how many times the candidates say that Obama was the worst president in history and Clinton and Kerry the worst Secretaries of State the country has ever known, you get a sense that truth isn't relevant.

I'm curious. Where does Carly Fiorina go from here, and will George Stephanopoulos be the only one to call her out?

Update. The usual suspects -- progressive blogs -- begin to present information and analyze Fiorina's habit of departing from the truth here, here, here, and here. For what it's worth, these blogs are all reputable, meaning you can believe them because, unlike Carly Fiorina, truth and reputation mean something to them.

Fact-checkers begin to weigh in. The fetus statement? Mostly false. Reiterated as false by Politico. It's interesting that no one seems to be fact-checking the Benghazi and email claims, probably because they are mainstream media narratives that are repeated ad nauseum. The media occasionally points out that they might not be true, but they're having too much fun with them to give them up yet. They will, and the stories will melt, except on Faux News.