October 24, 2004

The Big Kerry Story

is out in the Washington Times. Kerry Lied. bq. 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. bq. "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. bq. 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." Emphasis mine. According to the WaTimes article: bq. 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 article goes into some detail, the reporter (Joel Mowbray) spent some time tracking down lots of people and they all say the same thing. No meeting. The only person who said differently was from -- guess what country -- FRANCE bq. Jean-David Levitte, then France's chief U.N. representative and now his country's ambassador to the United States, said through a spokeswoman that Mr. Kerry did not have a single group meeting as the senator has described, but rather several one-on-one or small-group encounters. But no other members even had a one-on-one chat. What a maroon... I am glad that the mask is slipping from the face of the current democratic party and the world is seeing it for what it is. Maybe this will inspire someone like Zell Miller to clean house and get us people like the other J.F.K. and F. D. Roosevelt. Other bloggers are carrying this story: Dan at The Carnivorous Conservative: bq. More important than some might think? Wizbang, among others by now, I'm sure, have the breaking Kerry story: bq. I'm seeing some reactions to this already and I would suggest we stifle the yawns and not "misunderestimate" this story. Kerry's attacks on Bush have been what? "He lied." He said at that debate, "America needs a President who tells the truth." It is the final week of a tough campaign and Kerry needs to be moving forward and fast. He does not need people asking the questions: "Did you lie?" or, "Why did you lie?" Yes, politicians lie all the time. But, if this story is true, not usually so blatantly in a nationally televised event. This type of story now, which may only be stage setting for other breaking news, should not be too quickly dismissed. bq. Remember, this is on tape. If this gets some traction, the networks will be playing footage from the debate and asking questions that go to the heart of Kerry's character at a time when he can least afford them. It also mitigates Kerry's main attack on Bush's honesty. If this drives up Kerry's negatives even just a few ticks, it will likely have an impact in a tightly fought campaign. And Cheney, perhaps even Bush can trumpet this on the stump making it news, even if no one else does at first. Over at The Truth Laid Bear: bq. Without lapsing into blogger triumphalism, countering the mainstream media's tendency to ignore Kerry's flaws is, after all, what we're here for, isn't it? (Or Bush's flaws, for that matter, but others have that beat covered pretty well.) bq. I'll admit, my first reaction was a bit of a yawn myself. But then I thought about why that was, and I think it comes down to the fact that I expect Kerry to exaggerate and outright lie when it serves his political purpose of the moment. But the fact that he's a serial exaggerator is exactly why this story should receive attention, not why it should be shrugged off. bq. So let's not treat Mr. Kerry with the "soft bigotry of low expectations" that I'm sure his squishly little liberal heart would find so offensive. The standard is a simple one: tell the damned truth. It would appear he didn't in a crucial discussion of one of the most critical policy decisions made in years. The two blogs from whom I got the initial heads up: TheBigTrunk at PowerLine has a short entry with a link: bq. John's bogus (UN) journey The Washington Times has posted Joel Mowbray's story that Rocket Man teased here yesterday: "Security Council members deny meeting Kerry." Bill at INDC Journal has more: bq. All politicians lie, right? Not quite like this - watch the video. bq. Kerry manufactured meetings out of whole cloth and then presented them as justification for a deadly serious contradiction of George Bush's decision to go to war. bq. He did something very similar when he previously recited a false story on the Senate floor about an illegal mission into Cambodia, using it as a basis for criticism of Ronald Reagan's intent to provide aid to the Nicaraguan contras. bq. These aren't exaggerations. This isn't a case of lying about sex. It's a story about a man that's pathological enough to look a nationally televised audience of 55 million people in the eye and tell them a manufactured story, and then use it to propose a conclusion about a deadly serious matter of foreign policy. bq. This isn't a misused accusation that "KERRY LIED!" by virtue of his previous declarative statements about the "unacceptable threat" from Iraq's WMD programs. This isn't akin to Lawrence O'Donnell's tirade of, "LIAR LIAR LIAR," about items deemed unworthy of public debate. bq. This is just a "lie." Take it for what its worth. Posted by DaveH at October 24, 2004 9:36 PM