| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| He's at it again.... Kerry didn't meet with UNSC before voting on Iraq.... |
| 2004-10-25 |
| as he claims. Remember this in one of the debates... Just shook my head.... and thought.. there is no way... Finally, he is being questioned it.... but I've got 5 bucks that says, only Fox will mention this.... 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. 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. |
| Posted by:Sherry |
| #13 After Paris and Managua don't you understand that this guy simply wants to be on the other side of the U.S. policy. He wants to be that soft end of policy when it calls for a point end. He clearly is not above lying to ?win? political points. |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge 2004-10-25 6:56:41 PM |
| #12 When Kerry is elected he will re-institute that fine old European custom of titles of nobility. Since he is not an ambitious man he will take only the title of baron. Baron von Munchausen |
| Posted by: Cleamp Slang9997 2004-10-25 6:25:05 PM |
| #11 Gee, you mean Senator Kerry is a lying sack of shit? I'm shocked! Shocked, I tell yez! He'll probably get a pass from the MSM on this. |
| Posted by: mojo 2004-10-25 1:34:50 PM |
| #10 Kerry can't be acting in his own self-interest -- there is no "self" there! The man is a void. The reason he shows no character is that there is no fiber in him, no identity. He shifts whenever he can, and lies whenever it suits his passing fancy. The only relatively constant theme of his has been opposition to American interests and support of Communist States. At best, his self is describable as being non-American if that can be seen as some sort of identity. What is apparent though is that Kerry is a power-luster. He wants power for its own sake, not for some higher purpose. He invokes "plans" as if he really wants to achieve specific goals, but he has no purpose -- as evidenced by his complete lack of initiative over the last 20 years in the Senate. This is the type of neurotic who is easily manipulated. And who is very dangerous once you let him have power. He doesn't value truth or liberty. He wants a position of power, but he doesn't know what it's for, because he is the ultimate pragmatist -- picking whatever action fits the moment, without principles. So, should he become President, you can expect him to be as dangerous for US liberties and prosperity as FDR was. Luckily, I am convinced Bush will be re-elected. |
| Posted by: Kalle (kafir forever) 2004-10-25 11:11:49 AM |
| #9 I heard this on Boortz today. I'm not surprised one bit. |
| Posted by: Jarhead 2004-10-25 10:51:22 AM |
| #8 Well this is good news! If every time he says he's going to work with the UN he means like this, then America might be okay. |
| Posted by: Urako 2004-10-25 10:31:53 AM |
| #7 Bill of INDC Journal was teasing us with this the other day. Apparently he had something to do with the story, but I don't know what. I think it's a big So What. It's not, as they say, spin-proof. "Oh, well, by all the members of the council I meant some of them, and by "met", I meant that I introduced myself to a guy in the corridor, whom I'm fairly sure had something to do with the French delegation, who didn't know me from Adam..." If the media can't get worked up about Christmas in Cambodia, this won't stir them either. |
| Posted by: Angie Schultz 2004-10-25 10:16:32 AM |
| #6 Speaking before the Council on Foreign Relations in New York in December 2003, Kerry said: Thanks to some friends in New York, I was invited to come up and meet with the Security Council in the week prior to the vote, and I wanted to do that, because I valued my vote. And I wanted to know what the real readiness and willingness of our partners was to take this seriously. So I sat with the French and British, Germans, 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. He sez he met with Germany just a week before voting in October 2002 to authorize the use of force in Iraq. One little problem, Germany didn't start their current period on the Council until January 2003. Maybe he got them confused with the Cambodians. |
| Posted by: Steve 2004-10-25 9:21:33 AM |
| #5 Wow, Kerry met with representatives of Cameroon. Well, I'm impressed. |
| Posted by: mhw 2004-10-25 8:50:54 AM |
| #4 Lol - FoxNews just reported this and named names, heh. Just more of Skeery dissin' any country that isn't Phrawnce or Germany as inconsequential - and inflating the event to make himself seem consequential. Wotta transparent asshole. |
| Posted by: .com 2004-10-25 8:40:06 AM |
| #3 The Phantasy Candidate. Secure in the knowledge that he'll get a pass from the MSM - and utterly discounting the pajamahadeen who already know he's the most disingenuous demagogue in modern poltitical history, he will say whatever his operatives tell him will make good sound bytes. The Demagogue Party. New and Improved! Shameless! Wrinkle Free! |
| Posted by: .com 2004-10-25 6:59:05 AM |
| #2 Kerry's not mental, he just operates from a pure lust for power. If we were to peel away all of the layers of John Kerry that comprise his lust for power we'd be left with nothing as there's quite literally nothing else there. He's the unprincipled side of Ayn Rand's egoist ideal, the thing that happens when one acts from one's pure self interest but in a dishonest manner. Kerry has correctly surmised that he can win this election by simply casting out a continuous stream of lies and distortions that go far beyond anything we've seen in American presidential politics to date because it's far easier to start fires than to put them out. |
| Posted by: AzCat 2004-10-25 1:56:34 AM |
| #1 If he had met with them he would have known France, Germany and Russia had no intention of enforcing any real action agaist Saddam. The guy is mental. |
| Posted by: Sock Puppet of Doom 2004-10-25 1:06:16 AM |