October 24, 2004
Kerry Did not Meet with ALL UN Ambassadors
Per Drudge on radio at 10:39PM ET. "Will be reported tomorrow in the Washington Times," thus:
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.
This is the item referred to at INDC, Redstate.org, Power Line, and LGF.
"Interesting, but not huge." --- a statement which itself can only described as "an overstatement and an understatement."
Kos can barely contain his glee about this.
Posted by Commissar at October 24, 2004 10:48 PM
Those responsible for hyping this non-story need to be added to this slapfest.
Extracted from: McGehee at October 24, 2004 11:40 PMGood thing I didn't have my hopes up. This is it? Yeesh. I've encountered more exciting and politically-relevant revelations in the Classifieds.
Extracted from: Flakbait at October 24, 2004 11:43 PMChad at In the Bullpen is right; the KLA story is bigger.
Extracted from: Johnny Walker Red at October 25, 2004 12:47 AMAt least Kerry met with SOME of them, did Bush meet with even one of them? Excepting of course his "lecture" to to UN General Asembly.
Extracted from: charlemagne at October 25, 2004 02:58 AMda stolen explosive stories is so much better.
The Agitprop Sub-Commissar for the Antagonist Soviet advises that drudge is oh so dead, decaying, and oh so pre-Reagan...
I say we manufacture our own scandal and call it Irangate.
Extracted from: Comrade Jane at October 25, 2004 08:31 AMThis is just another facet to the lunacy I was talking about here. While I disagree about the significance of this story (mostly because I can't see it getting anyone interested if they're not already down on Kerry), turning on each other does no one any good. Well, it'll help David and his wacko Progressive Borg, but not anyone on the sensible side of these issues.
Extracted from: Boyd at October 25, 2004 09:38 AMI wonder what part of the word "entire" the Democrats do not understand?
"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
MAYBE he met them in Cambodia?
One of the Man's major claims is that he is oh SO much better at diplomacy? Well this was a diplomatic fiasco.
If he holds to his claim he is in effect calling these diplomats, liars or he has been using them to support a lie and they don't like it.
So Mr Slapfest? THIS is the new diplomatic initiative the Kerry Administration has to offer?
rotflamo!
Extracted from: Dan Kauffman at October 25, 2004 10:02 AMMy thoughts on the story in full here.
My favorite line: "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.""
Hypocrite? You betcha!
Extracted from: Tremor at October 25, 2004 10:39 AMKerry's handlers (ABC, CBS, NBC, NYT) will respond by blaming both sides. "Both candidates have been accused of innaccuracies this year. Etc., etc., etc."
For some perspective on what to expect in the final 9 days of the campaign and how to respond to surprises from the Democrats and/or terrorists, check out The Final Week.
Extracted from: salt1907 at October 25, 2004 10:40 AMSo was kerry Lying when he accused himself a war crimes?
It's all so confusing!
Extracted from: Rob Read at October 25, 2004 10:45 AMEasy to win debates when you make things up. Do we go back an rescore it now a Bush Victory? It's now much easier to understand all the faces Bush made in the debate. He must be saying in his head, "What the.......?"
Hugh McBryde
Extracted from: Prakk at October 25, 2004 11:09 AMHe said "all" & he clearly didn't meet with "all of them. Not even HALF. Why do we go around hanging our heads about it? How could the left "barely contain their glee" about it? It's like saying "SERIAL KILLER KERRY KILLS 40", and later finding out it was only 25. This hardly a vindication.
Hugh McBryde
Extracted from: Prakk at October 25, 2004 02:52 PMAll I can say is, if Kerry's lifetime of lies hasn't already scuttled him, one more -- of this relatively light caliber -- ain't gonna do it.
Maybe it would do him in if we learned his first name is really Jim, and this whole campaign is just an elaborate sequel to "Liar Liar."
Extracted from: McGehee at October 25, 2004 09:58 PM The entire Left is having to spend time, in the last full week of the campaign, explaining why it doesn't matter that their guy is a lying sack of sh, fertilyzer. That ain't a big deal?
Komrade Kerry had to have a big rally, the first with Comrade Clinton since his surgery and where was it? Philly. This late in the campaign and al-Qerri is having to campaign in a Donk stronghold?
Is President Bush campaigning in Midland or Dallas this late in the campaign?
That ain't a big deal?
Having Clinton campaign with Kerry in Philly was planned way last week. Kerry's been having to focus on shoring up his base for the last two weeks. The whole world knew what a lying sack of fertilizer he is.
The entire Left is having to spend time, in the last full week of the campaign, explaining why it doesn't matter that their guy is a lying sack of sh, fertilyzer. That ain't a big deal?
No. It isn't. The Kool-Aid® drinkers have been having to spend time doing that since the Swiftvets story hit. However much damage is going to be done to Kerry in that area, has been done.
Extracted from: McGehee at October 26, 2004 07:37 AM
