Kerry - Security Council visit

For a man who says he places a lot of empahsis on telling the truth, Kerry sure has a funny way of showing it. The latest gaffe on his truthfullness comes after a Washington Times Investigative Reporter started looking at Kerry's statement made during his second debate. Kerry claimed that he had met for hours with every member of the security council before the 2002 vote to allow the President to use force in Iraq. Well, guess what, No one on the Security Counsil remembers this happening. John Kerry will say anything to get elected. He is only looking after his own self.

----

I went to meet with the members of the Security Council in the week before we voted. I went to New York. I talked to all of them to find out how serious they were about really holding Saddam Hussein accountable.

I came away convinced that, if we worked at it, if we were ready to work and letting Hans Blix do his job and thoroughly go through the inspections, that if push came to shove, they'd be there with us.

www.debates.org...

-----


U.N. ambassadors from several nations are disputing assertions by Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry that he met for hours with all members of the U.N. Security Council just a week before voting in October 2002 to authorize the use of force in Iraq.

But of the five ambassadors on the Security Council in 2002 who were reached directly for comment, four said they had never met Mr. Kerry. The four also said that no one who worked for their countries' U.N. missions had met with Mr. Kerry either.
The former ambassadors who said on the record they had never met Mr. Kerry included the representatives of Mexico, Colombia and Bulgaria. The ambassador of a fourth country gave a similar account on the condition that his country not be identified.

www.washingtontimes.com...

Also to be found here.

Please tell me that Kerry doesn't lie and wouldn't even remotely considering doing so...


seekerof

[edit on 25-10-2004 by Seekerof]

I just saw this on Drudge and was about to post it. IMHO this is pretty serious. If he is going to run around saying that he meet with the Security council and spoke with them for hours so he KNOWS what they want, and yet 4 out of 5 have never met with him .... that's beyond dishonesty and exaggeration.

I'm disgusted with Kerry.

Jemison

Here comes the spin.....


Yes fast as a bullet, speedy a rocket plane.....



the DNC spin....no Flip-Flop.......

www.washingtontimes.com...

Kerry - 'truthfulness is the fundamental test of leadership'.

Kerry flunked his own fundamental test.

Heck ... even FRANCE is saying that he is a liar! WOW!

HEY ... where are all the socialist/Kerryites? Why aren't they
here trying to defend the latest garbage Kerry has spewed?
We are listening ... go ahead .... anyone???



[edit on 10/25/2004 by FlyersFan]

I think the title of this thread needs to be more specific so that Kerry supporters don't skip over it. I am shocked that we haven't heard their spin yet and I can only guess that they haven't learned of this news yet. Either that or they realize that there is no way to defend Kerry and their only defense will be that he lies less than Bush.

Jemison

Originally posted by FlyersFan

HEY ... where are all the socialist/Kerryites? Why aren't they
here trying to defend the latest garbage Kerry has spewed?
We are listening ... go ahead .... anyone???

[edit on 10/25/2004 by FlyersFan]

They will do their utmost to ignore this as they concentrate on the explosives story.

Of course they never say when was the last time the IAEA inspected the site nor do they mention that Saddam and any number of his regimes military may have used or moved the material in question - MSM wants you to believe it just happened recently so Bush can be blamed.

On the other hand Kerry caught in another outright fabrication (LIE) is not news to these kool-aid drinkers.

Jemison, The reason why I titled this thread this way was because I wanted to get the spin from the Dems. They tend to ignore anything I post, becuase I'm labeled as a partisan hack by most of them. I really find it funny that someone would claim the truth is important and yet can't tell the truth.

The "bush soils himself thread is at more than 5 pages and this has barely 5 responses"
Why? Because the "anybody but bush" and facts don't go together. I mean come on if you were a kerry supporter would facts be your friend?

Is this even true? I mean, Rev. Moon's Washington Times leads the story. Rev. Moon has a bit of an agenda, and his media outlets reflect that. Seekerof points to a "news site" that takes PayPal donations. Um, Drudge?

I'm going to wait until I find out this is actually true before I get all worked up over it. But, by all means, the rest of you, have fun.

Facts is facts, right?

And here we have Senator Kerry saying this...

I went to meet with the members of the Security Council in the week before we voted. I went to New York. I talked to all of them to find out how serious they were about really holding Saddam Hussein accountable.

I came away convinced that, if we worked at it, if we were ready to work and letting Hans Blix do his job and thoroughly go through the inspections, that if push came to shove, they'd be there with us.

And just like I posted elsewhere a couple days ago that he would, the real power behind the Republican Party comes up with this....

You forgot Mexico, Colombia and Bulgaria!!!


Read the Moonie Times "investigative" piece inventing this nontroversy and tell me this isn't the most desperate Republican smear to date? (And what took them so long?)

But of the five ambassadors on the Security Council in 2002 who were reached directly for comment, four said they had never met Mr. Kerry. The four also said that no one who worked for their countries' U.N. missions had met with Mr. Kerry either.

The former ambassadors who said on the record they had never met Mr. Kerry included the representatives of Mexico, Colombia and Bulgaria. The ambassador of a fourth country gave a similar account on the condition that his country not be identified.

Is this Moonie under the impression there are only 5 members of the UN Security Council? Why didn't he call the permanent members of China, Russia, France and the UK?

Oh he did, they just weren't in the "4 out of 5" body count trying to prop this up on wooden legs. :shk:

The Times was only able to confirm directly that Mr. Kerry had met with representatives of France, Singapore and Cameroon. In addition, second-hand accounts have Mr. Kerry meeting with representatives of Britain.

Only France, Britain and others? ONLY? :shk: But NOT BULGARIA! AND YOU FORGOT COLOMBIA!

And how the hell does anyone go from...

Kerry: I went to meet with the members of the Security Council...

To: NOT BULGARIA!

AND YOU FORGOT COLOMBIA!

And expect anyone (but a Moonie Republican) to give a damn? When Kerry says he met with members of the UN Security Council, do sane people think "wow, he tracked down the guy from Angola?" Or do they know better?

Let's make the reasonable assumptions (non-Moonie) grown ups make when discussing important things okay? Crap like this "rebuttal" of Kerry's documented one on one meetings with several members of the security council is how Bush manipulates public opinion into thinking he has a broad "mother of all" coalitions when he's got three countries AND POLAND!

This is worse than that Bush Cries Wolf ad. Or Moonie Sherwood's "Stolen Hour." When are you people going to take your party back and quit letting this nut run the show and make you look stupid?



"I want to salute Reverend Moon, who is the founder of the Washington Times, and of the new paper here." ~President George HW Bush

God, I love the Washington Times. :shk:

And you know why? Nothing they say ever sees the light of day outside of net postings. And, no...not because mainstream media is liberal. It's because they aren't stupid. But the WT sure knows how to whip the Moonie base into a frenzy!

Your best bet (in all seriousness) is to make an e-mail spam out of this. Leave out the part about Kerry meeting with the grown ups on the council like France and Britain, and DO NOT LINK to the original story. Most informed people (even Republicans) shudder at "The Washington Times." Then just start spamming people with the nuanced right wing lie.

That'll work real good.

Or you could use Seekerof's, CyberCastNews Service link, but it still has problems. It names the source.

After a headline like Newspaper Casts Doubt on Kerry's Talks with UN Security Council and the sentence "According to a Washington Times investigation..." you're done there too.

Stick with the unsubstantiated e-mail rumor. That's you best bet.

PS - And you're right Phoenix. Real news will be reporting on the 380 tons of high grade explosives Bush let slip through his fingers today, not this. Just like nobody cared when Sherwood and Sinclair got together to smear Kerry. And if you want to call that a conspiracy, go ahead.

It's a conspiracy of the reality based community to deny ideological ignorance.

[edit on 25-10-2004 by RANT]

Jayzuss can they get any more laughably desparate?

Talk about the republican fan-club scrapping out the bottom of the barrel.

I was pointing out that Kerry is a liar, he can't even keep his stories straight. I would say that he was a serial liar and can't be trusted to tell the truth about anything. Cambodia, Paris, watching Billy Buckner's mistake, Talking to the Security Council, it goes on and on..... The man just does not know what the truth is. This thread was not born in desperation, but rather, just another example of the Democratic philosphy, Lie, the truth hurts to much.

All Politicians lie. What I can't figure out is why Kerry supporters can't admit that their candidate lies. Why not acknowledge that he's a liar just like the rest of them?

Jemison

From the Washington Times Article

After conversations with ambassadors from five members of the Security Council in 2002 and calls to all the missions of the countries then on the panel, The Times was only able to confirm directly that Mr. Kerry had met with representatives of France, Singapore and Cameroon.
In addition, second-hand accounts have Mr. Kerry meeting with representatives of Britain.

When reached for comment last week, an official with the Kerry campaign stood by the candidate's previous claims that he had met with the ENTIRE Security Council. (emphasis added)

In 2002 the UN Security counsels members were;

The permanent members of the Security Council as it now stands are France, China, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

In 2002 the temporary members were Bulgaria, Cameroon, Columbia, Guinea, Ireland, Mauritius, Mexico, Norway, Singapore, and Syria.


Lets face it if Kerry had said he met with some of the council then it would have been true.

If Kerry said that he had met with most of the council it would have been just another in a long line of exaggerations.

To say that he met with the entire council is an outright lie - period,
which countries were members and their importance on the world stage are irrelevant in disputing the lie.

Meeting with France's delegate is par for Kerry anyway - we all can surmise their position on this issue without having a meeting (can ya say oil for food)



[edit on 25-10-2004 by Phoenix]

Despite the mighty SPIN of those Kerry proponents, seems even members of the Security Council have NO recollection(s) of Mr. Kerry:
Security Council members deny meeting Kerry

Hey Curme, no PayPal donations on this page buddy!

Tell you what, perhaps you guys can convince Mr. Kerry to give another 'global' guarantee on this also, hmm?




seekerof

[edit on 25-10-2004 by Seekerof]

If you were backing a president who was worthy of the job, you & all Rove Repbulicans would not substitute the parsing of your opponents words for actual discussion of governance record or detailing what actual plans you do have that warrant America's trust in re-electing ( electing for the first time) Bush.

I'm just saying, when this:



is literally in the middle of an article saying Kerry lies, probably isn't going to be unbiased, and may even stretch the truth to get a point across. I wouldn't take them too seriously.

Oddly enough, if you look at the url of that ad: /ads/Creatives/washtimes/Newsmax_box_10_.2004/KerryFilm_250x250.gif.

A Newsmax ad on the Washington Times? Or is it vice versa?

Originally posted by Bout Time
If you were backing a president who was worthy of the job, you & all Rove Repbulicans would not substitute the parsing of your opponents words for actual discussion of governance record or detailing what actual plans you do have that warrant America's trust in re-electing ( electing for the first time) Bush.

Wow, rather that face facts and defend your candidate, you seek to go off topic. What, you can't say anything in defense?

Isn't that what you accuse Republicans here of doing all the time? Or do I have my misguided Dems confused again?

I know cognitive dissonance is a beeeeeyooootch, but why do I need to go depthward on something that was already drawn, measured and left wanting?