Kerry lies again!
-
Quote:
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.
Ambassador Andres Franco, the permanent deputy representative from Colombia during its Security Council membership from 2001 to 2002, said, "I never heard of anything."
Although Mr. Franco was quick to note that Mr. Kerry could have met some members of the panel, he also said that "everything can be heard in the corridors."
Adolfo Aguilar Zinser, Mexico's then-ambassador to the United Nations, said: "There was no meeting with John Kerry before Resolution 1441, or at least not in my memory."
All had vivid recollections of the time frame when Mr. Kerry traveled to New York, as it was shortly before the Nov. 7, 2002, enactment of Resolution 1441, which said Iraq was in "material breach" of earlier disarmament resolutions and warned Baghdad of "serious consequences as a result of its continued violations."
Stefan Tafrov, Bulgaria's ambassador at the time, said he remembers the period well because it "was a very contentious time."
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.
But after being told late yesterday of the results of The Times investigation, the Kerry campaign issued a statement that read in part, "It was a closed meeting and a private discussion."
A Kerry aide refused to identify who participated in the meeting.
The statement did not repeat Mr. Kerry's claims of a lengthy meeting with the entire 15-member Security Council, instead saying the candidate "met with a group of representatives of countries sitting on the Security Council."
Asked whether the international body had any records of Mr. Kerry sitting down with the whole council, a U.N. spokesman said that "our office does not have any record of this meeting."
A U.S. official with intimate knowledge of the Security Council's actions in fall of 2002 said that he was not aware of any meeting Mr. Kerry had with members of the panel.
An official at the U.S. mission to the United Nations remarked: "We were as surprised as anyone when Kerry started talking about a meeting with the Security Council."
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.
He added that Mr. Kerry did not meet with every member of the Security Council, only "some" of them. Mr. Levitte could only name himself and Ambassador Jeremy Greenstock of Britain as the Security Council members with whom Mr. Kerry had met.
One diplomat who met with Mr. Kerry in 2002 said on the condition of anonymity that the candidate talked to "a few" ambassadors on the Security Council.
The revelation that Mr. Kerry never met with the entire U.N. Security Council could be problematic for the Massachusetts senator, as it clashes with one of his central foreign-policy campaign themes — honesty.
At a New Mexico rally last month, Mr. Kerry said Mr. Bush will "do anything he can to cover up the truth." At what campaign aides billed as a major foreign-policy address, Mr. Kerry said at New York University last month that "the first and most fundamental mistake was the president's failure to tell the truth to the American people."
In recent months, Mr. Kerry has faced numerous charges of dishonesty from Vietnam veterans over his war record, and his campaign has backtracked before from previous statements about Mr. Kerry's foreign diplomacy.
For example, in March, Mr. Kerry told reporters in Florida that he'd met with foreign leaders who privately endorsed him.
"I've met with foreign leaders who can't go out and say this publicly," he said. "But, boy, they look at you and say: 'You've got to win this. You've got to beat this guy. We need a new policy.' "
But the senator refused to document his claim and a review by The Times showed that Mr. Kerry had made no official foreign trips since the start of 2002, according to Senate records and his own published schedules. An extensive review of Mr. Kerry's domestic travel schedule revealed only one opportunity for him to have met foreign leaders here.
After a week of bad press, Kerry foreign-policy adviser Rand Beers said the candidate "does not seek, and will not accept, any such endorsements."
The Democrat has also made his own veracity a centerpiece of his campaign, calling truthfulness "the fundamental test of leadership."
Mr. Kerry closed the final debate by recounting what his mother told him from her hospital bed, "Remember: integrity, integrity, integrity."
In an interview published in the new issue of Rolling Stone magazine, Mr. Kerry was asked what he would want people to remember about his presidency. He responded, "That it always told the truth to the American people."
Fictional accounts do not make a statesman. This is unfortunately a rather consistent scenario with Mr. Kerry, and many of the stronger points he supposedly made during the debates have been refuted, namely this one, the claim that a General had been fired because of dissent, and the claim that Bush had outsourced and otherwise neglected the search for OBL (according to Tommy Franks).
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20041025-020600-3030r.htm
I wonder if Edwards will be too busy combing his hair to help Kerry pull his foot outa his mouth on this one
-
Nice find, n2o. This pretty much hits the nail on the head for me. Integrity, I think not.
BTW, Jim please take that bullshit sig off for me. Everytime I post, I get sick because you associated me with Mr Kerry. It's like you having a picture of a Cavalier on your sig. Thanks. -
How is the economy down. I don't need any numbers, but how is America's economy on a down swing. President Clinton left us in a down turn that was not a sinch to dig out of. I would say that the local economy is thriving. In the industry that I work in, business has been extremely prosperous for at least four straight quarters throughout the entire country (38 states). This does not happen in a slump. I'd say things look prosperous.
-
PSI2HI wrote:
Bush it outsourcing all of our American jobs and has destroy'd the American economy, what do you got to say about that? Outsourcing 260 million jobs to India!!
Cheap labor is hard to find. why not find a person in India that'll work for like 1 dollar an hour opposed to a person in america that'll work for 7 an hour making tennis shoes. -
RX8ownage wrote:
Cheap labor is hard to find. why not find a person in India that'll work for like 1 dollar an hour opposed to a person in america that'll work for 7 an hour making tennis shoes.Quite frankly I agree. I come from a business perspective, if that means untrained and uneducated people are going to be out of jobs. Boo hoo. Go back to school.
-
2k3WRXND wrote:
Quite frankly I agree. I come from a business perspective, if that means untrained and uneducated people are going to be out of jobs. Boo hoo. Go back to school.What if you were the 260 million who were laid off? How is our economy down? We lost 260 million American jobs, and we are in the largest national deficit in American history.
-
PSI2HI wrote:
Bush it outsourcing all of our American jobs and has destroy'd the American economy, what do you got to say about that? Outsourcing 260 million jobs to India!!That belongs in another thread I think...this is about the Kerry/UN meeting thing. You could atleast make part of your post correspond to that!
-
RX8ownage wrote:
Cheap labor is hard to find. why not find a person in India that'll work for like 1 dollar an hour opposed to a person in america that'll work for 7 an hour making tennis shoes.
Takes every job away from americans....
Bush also gives tax breaks to these companies for what reason?
Economy goes down from this...anyone with common sense would know that...
Bush states that he is against outsourcing yet he does this...
And who in the right mind would give tax breaks during war?.... -
Im coming from the business point of view. What would you rather pay, 7 or 1 dollar to have a person make you a shoe? Of course you'd take the cheap labor because it saves you money in the long run.
I never said it was right to do take jobs away from americans, but if it'll save you money and keep your annual income high, you'll be in smooth waters
-
PSI2HI wrote:
What if you were the 260 million who were laid off? How is our economy down? We lost 260 million American jobs, and we are in the largest national deficit in American history.Guess I'm not worried personally, that's why education is important. I get laid off I get another job. I market myself personally, and if you have no assetts you can't market yourself period. It's not difficult to find a job with education and skills in America.
Back to the outsourcing: let's face it, its a cruel business world. Business practice a lot more unethical views then this. It's a dog eat dog world, and if I can save a buck or 2 by laying people off and outsourcing it. You bet your ass I will.
-
PSiedTSi wrote:
kirk but think about it theres a limit to trimming your budget...it stops when you basically take away your business by causing your consumers to lose their jobs...
The economys been in the shitter since 9/11, which is why you Michael Moore fanatics are blaming bush. What should he have done, of course he was going to retaliate which is billions, people got scared to fly, so lay offs were made from every airline possible. Shit if gore was president, our unemployment rate wouldn't be near what it is now, 6%. If companies gotta survive, they've got to take a hit by cutting jobs. Sure they feel guilty doing it, but if it's better for the company..you just half to let some people go. -
Right, just like im against illegal immigration taking american jobs here... but if its better for the business, i would do the same if i could. its a tough situation.
-
-
fallguy wrote:
I agree that this is getting off topic.Outsourcing has been going on for years...it is a global market...anyone who has taken any economic classes at all would have known this. Maybe find out how many jobs Heinz outsources. Talk about hyprocisy.
exactly.
-
lol @ the heinz's..Theresa fucked Kerry when she said Laura bush has never had a real job when I believe she was a school teacher, but that coulda been Lynn Cheney I dont know. She's (Theresa) has been living off of daddy forever, which is Im sure paying for Kerry's campaign or a majority of it.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login