Monday, October 25, 2004

Kerry: another whopper

Joel Mowbray breaks the story in the WASHINGTON TIMES HERE

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.

An investigation by The Washington Times reveals that while the candidate did talk for an unspecified period to at least a few members of the panel, no such meeting, as described by Mr. Kerry on a number of occasions over the past year, ever occurred.

At the second presidential debate earlier this month, Mr. Kerry said he was more attuned to international concerns on Iraq than President Bush, citing his meeting with the entire Security Council.

"This president hasn't listened. 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," Mr. Kerry said of the Iraqi dictator.

Speaking before the Council on Foreign Relations in New York in December 2003, Mr. Kerry explained that he understood the "real readiness" of the United Nations to "take this seriously" because he met "with the entire Security Council, and we spent a couple of hours talking about what they saw as the path to a united front in order to be able to deal with Saddam Hussein."

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.

[more on link above]

Although Kerry lied about meeting "all" the UNSC members, even meeting with any is highly questionable. Foreign policy is the sole and exclusive province of the executive, and typically congressional committees coordinate their meetings with foreign officials with the State Department.

Of the permanent members, Kerry met with France, and allegedly Britain. He also met with Germany of the rotating members. What the heck was he thinking?

Oh, yeah, he was thinking of running for President, and wanted to appear as if he were a consequential member of the Senate, instead of just a show pony who only shows up for photo ops . . .


Thanks to INDC Journal for the pointer to this story.

UPDATE: Bill at INDC also gives a link to this Daily Recycler VIDEO. It's on-site video, nothing to download, from the second debate. Watch Bush's face as he hears Kerry's whopper. . .


Blogger millersam said...

You are talking about the Washington Times here.

Do you know who owns this paper?

And what this person stands for.

Better look it up, before you quote a dubious paper lake this.

What if OBL would endorse GWB? You would praise them then as well?

October 25, 2004 at 1:08 AM  
Blogger Adjoran said...

Don't like the facts? Attack the messenger . . .

Typical of the vacuousness of the far left. This story, incidentally, was eclipsed by the New York Times article the same day about "missing explosives," which was thoroughly refuted in a couple of days.

Osama bin Laden appears to have endorsed Senator Kerry; at least he was parroting the campaign talking points.

Whose side is Kerry on, anyway? Hmmmm . . . he was on the side of the enemies of the US regarding Vietnam, Grenada, Pershing II missile deployment, Reagan's military buildup, Nicaragua, the Nuclear Freeze, missile defense, and even the first Gulf War - authorized by the UN and joined by the largest coalition in the history of the world.

That he and OBL are on the same page is hardly surprising.

October 30, 2004 at 8:06 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home