Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Times)   In a flip-flop that surprised none of his supporters, Kerry's claim to meeting with Security Council members prior to vote has been proven false   (washingtontimes.com ) divider line
    More: Dumbass  
•       •       •

16370 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Oct 2004 at 1:54 PM (12 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



555 Comments     (+0 »)
 


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2004-10-25 07:32:38 AM  
Okay, I can't sleep, and I get online to see what the big "October Surprise" is that the Freepers have been touting for the last 20 hours (Could it be drug use? Was he dishonorably discharged? Did he blow a goat on video?), and I am treated to this.

This.

The Washington Times has cracked this election wide open by reporting that Kerry did not meet with every single member of the United Nations Security Council, at least not Colombia, Bulgaria, and Mexico. And some unnamed fourth country.

But the same article reports that Kerry did meet with many and perhaps all of the permanent (and veto-holding) members of the Security Council. As well as with ambassadors from Singapore, Cameroon, and other temporary Council members.

So it comes down to whether Kerry lied when he said he "met with all of them."

So this is Karl Rove's idea of an October surprise?

Raising this--an attack on Kerry's honesty on this issue--on a day when it is reported that tons and tons and tons of conventional explosives (which may right now be used in roadside bombs to kill our troops) went missing under our watch, and that Bremer was told about this six months ago but we were never informed?

Raising this on a day when 49 Iraqi troops were reported as having been exeuted gangland style by insurgents, an attack US military officials are quoted as saying that with current US troop levels, such "security problems" cannot be "fully addressed"?

And the big October Surprise is that Kerry only met with some (and perhaps almost all of the 15, no one can say) members of the Security Council, but not "all"?

This?

Oh, sweetie.

I'm going back to bed.
 
2004-10-25 07:36:53 AM  
Oh, and the headline for this thread is a damnable lie. RTFA.
 
2004-10-25 08:10:42 AM  
Rough morning, Lars? ;)
 
2004-10-25 08:22:53 AM  
Morning Lars.

I'd comment, but you said everything I would have said.

Karl Rove must be stretching, though most people won't bother to read the whole article.
 
2004-10-25 08:24:24 AM  
There's been an "investigation"?
 
2004-10-25 08:28:47 AM  

"Proven false" my ass. It's telling that some diplomats from the US who're advancing the allegations in this article won't even go on record with their name. Keep it vague and spin, baby, spin.

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.


There are five permanent members with veto power. That would be France, UK, Russia, China and the US.

France and Britain are mentioned specifically as having met Kerry. The US, well.... Did Kerry meet with Russia and China? The article doesn't say. Doesn't even go there.

So we've gone from "you forgot Poland" to "you forgot Bulgaria"? Gimme a break. Desperate.
 
2004-10-25 08:35:52 AM  
And this, my friends, is the kind of crap that gets greenlighted on a Monday morning.
 
2004-10-25 08:39:43 AM  
In other news.. George W. Bush declares that John Kerry is a "bozo"
 
2004-10-25 08:39:45 AM  
I take that back.

This is the kind of showcase for LarsThorwald's articulate and compelling writing that gets greenlighted on a Monday morning.
 
2004-10-25 08:42:30 AM  
The truth "the fundamental test of leadership."

"Remember: integrity, integrity, integrity."

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."

Methinks you shouldn't base your campaign on truthfullness and then get caught in bloody lies. It just looks fookin' stupid.
 
2004-10-25 08:49:23 AM  
GraphicAddiction:

Methinks you shouldn't base your campaign on truthfullness and then get caught in bloody lies. It just looks fookin' stupid.

Funny, Kerry's opponent has based his campaign on bloody lies, and just looks fookin' stupid. No one needs a Moonie Times article to spin it that way, either.
 
2004-10-25 09:05:49 AM  
2004-10-25 08:42:30 AM GraphicAddiction

Ye gads, give it up man. This is a non-story. Simply wishing it a bombshell doesn't make it so.

All shake, no bake. Next!
 
2004-10-25 09:10:05 AM  
moonie is a wingbat
 
2004-10-25 09:42:19 AM  
That's right, any untruthfulness by your candidate is just a simple oversight, or perhaps the media's fault.

What else do you whistle walking past the graveyard?
 
2004-10-25 10:07:49 AM  
God, LarsThorwald is such a partisan troll douchebag.


just kidding. This article is garbage.
 
2004-10-25 10:15:52 AM  
Garbage. Can't believe this got greenlighted.

How about the fact that 360 tons of explosives are missing in Iraq? Hmmmm? Admins?
 
2004-10-25 10:18:26 AM  
[image from newswire.ca too old to be available]

"You're all a bunch of fickle mush heads."
 
2004-10-25 10:21:29 AM  
weakest. october surprise. ever.
 
2004-10-25 10:59:44 AM  
I predict that by Friday at noon Kerry will have fathered over 12 illegitimate children with black prostitutes.
 
2004-10-25 11:30:39 AM  
Gawddamn liberal media- always letting the Dems get away with murder!
 
2004-10-25 11:32:21 AM  
I didn't say it was earth shattering, you vapid, over reacting drones....I said it looked STUPID.

Sheesh. Unclench your bloody buttcheeks, you'll strain yourselves trying to play this moronic blunder down.
 
2004-10-25 11:55:05 AM  

Doesn't anyone RTFA?

The former ambassadors who said on the record they had never met Mr. Kerry included the representatives of Mexico, Colombia and Bulgaria.


Give me a farkin break. This is your October Suprise? That Kerry didn't meet with a few temporary members of the security council?

Oh hell, no way I am voting for Kerry now. I'm going with the guy who lied to me about his reasons for going to war.
 
2004-10-25 12:14:30 PM  
"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 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."

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.


Seems some of you aren't reading the whole article. I shouldn't have to paste crap like this.
 
2004-10-25 12:25:22 PM  
OH! Another interesting bit here...

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."


Why there's more to this article than everyone is letting on about. Wonder why?
 
2004-10-25 12:42:41 PM  
Weak.

Next we'll hear "know what else Kerry lied about - he NEVER WENT TO VIETNAM". Because at the time it was technically South Vietnam or some crap like that.

The article and anyone who thinks it means anything is seriously stretching for some way to make Kerry look like the blatant liar that you already know Bush is.
 
2004-10-25 12:46:55 PM  
This harkens back to his quote that about a lot of foreign leaders who he talked to and privately told him they wanted him to beat Bush. Did he ever name them, or did any come forward?

/seriously asking, not flaming.
 
2004-10-25 12:48:49 PM  
you vapid, over reacting drones

Dear GraphicAddiction,

You lose by default.

Love,

Everybody.
 
2004-10-25 12:59:20 PM  
I'm just posting parts of the article that you all are neglecting to mention. What's the problem here?

Cosmic_Music thinks he speaks for everyone. Not surprising.

"Simply wishing it a bombshell doesn't make it so."

"I didn't say it was earth shattering, you vapid, over reacting drones....I said it looked STUPID.


I will always respond to blatant knee jerk over reaction to VERY simple two sentence statements this way. Get used to it.
 
2004-10-25 01:08:03 PM  
lunchinlewis:

This harkens back to his quote that about a lot of foreign leaders who he talked to and privately told him they wanted him to beat Bush. Did he ever name them, or did any come forward?

I believe it's no on both counts. It was a pretty stupid thing for Kerry to say, for reasons that should have been apparent to any 3rd grader who's ever been burned by the "I'm not telling you" line. I don't really doubt that one or more leaders may have said that to him, but he should never have said it publicly.
 
2004-10-25 01:09:20 PM  
What's the problem here?

Speaking for everyone - as I do - I think the problem here is the story is transparent horseshiat.
 
2004-10-25 01:17:32 PM  
You know, at least the Repubs can use the excuse that their boy had faulty data about the WMD, blah, blah, blah. Go to factcheck.org and they'll even tell you Bushie didn't lie. Even I was surprised to see that tidbit there on that website.

Now it seems that old Kerry was HIGHLY inaccurate about very important meetings on key world issues he's supposed to have gone to personally not too long ago.

Excuse me if I seem to be enjoying this a little too much. I do think it's teh funny to watch all the righteous indignation over the fact that Kerry didn't know what the fook he was talking about over something he was supposed to have done personally two years ago. So which is it? Is he a liar or a moron for not remembering who the hell he talked to during important meetings in 2002?
 
2004-10-25 01:28:22 PM  
This changes my vote for sure.

I was going to vote the all-surrender ticket. But now I'm going to vote the all-mislead-you-again-and-again ticket.
 
2004-10-25 01:35:58 PM  
I'm sure most of us could care less who is actually voting for whom at this point in the game. The question that most folks who aren't out in left field want to know is....

LIAR? or MORON?

Hmmmmm....that's a real toughie.
 
2004-10-25 01:37:17 PM  
I do think it's teh funny to watch all the righteous indignation

I think you'll find that's scathing indifference.
 
2004-10-25 01:38:16 PM  
Not so far.
 
2004-10-25 01:41:23 PM  
Liar or lying moron, more like.
 
2004-10-25 01:43:44 PM  
Not so far.

i think so. The only person who is righteously indignant in this thread is you. I mean, when even the excellent Chelsea Clinton Is Carrot Top's Lost Twin isn't going for this one, you know it's nothing. give up, chile. Save your ammo for when there's something to shoot at.
 
2004-10-25 01:45:44 PM  
ME? Indignant? I'm having a blast. I'm not shooting at anything.

I'm simply asking a few questions...that's all.
 
2004-10-25 01:49:58 PM  
GraphicAddiction: The question that most folks who aren't out in left field want to know is....

Just so I'm clear here, you want us to pick between these two options that you've decided are the only valid choices that can be made, based upon a story that incorporates only the barest minimum of the Kerry campaign's rebuttal to be considered balanced?

The fact that there's a Newsmax ad right in the middle of the story indicates to me that there is more to this than is being reported.
 
2004-10-25 01:58:41 PM  
After looking through the "Top Stories" sidebar, I amend my previous comment to include the fact that I now agree with Cosmic_Music and that this article is, in fact, transparent horseshiat. Is this an actual respected newspaper?

I'll base my decision on the facts when they finally leak out.
 
2004-10-25 01:59:52 PM  
I love it, Kerry claims twice to have met with the entire council, which is proven false. But...

Kerry supporters do not care about this, as they already knew Kerry is an opportunist who exaggerates politics for his own personal gain. So, what do Kerry supporters do now? They explain that this lie is not really an earth shattering lie, so it doesn't matter.
 
2004-10-25 02:00:06 PM  
 
2004-10-25 02:00:13 PM  
Quimby: I run this town. Youre just a bunch of low-income nobodies.

Quimbys aide: Uh, election in November. Election in November.

Quimby: What, again? This stupid country.!
 
2004-10-25 02:01:10 PM  
Ah, now we're attacking the source. I'm surprised it took that long.

It doesn't have to be a two choice question. I'm simply wondering what could lead a man to be that erroneous in his statements about important meetings with the UN.

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.


And again, I don't think this is anything earth shattering, I'm just curious as to why these types of blunders aren't considered out and out lies about personally attended meetings. Coming from a guy that harps on accountablilty, I would think he would know not to puff up his business like that.
 
2004-10-25 02:01:51 PM  
The Moonie Times drops a "bombshell"?

Imagine that.
 
2004-10-25 02:01:53 PM  
Headline is full of shiat. That is all.
 
2004-10-25 02:01:56 PM  
2004-10-25 10:21:29 AM Chelsea Clinton Is Carrot Top's Lost Twin [TotalFark]

weakest. october surprise. ever.

Wow, I just agreed with something you said. That's a first.
 
2004-10-25 02:02:20 PM  
I submitted this with a more necon headline.
 
2004-10-25 02:02:20 PM  
edverb:

"....."Proven false" my ass. It's telling that some diplomats from the US who're advancing the allegations in this article won't even go on record with their name. Keep it vague and spin, baby, spin.

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.


There are five permanent members with veto power. That would be France, UK, Russia, China and the US.

France and Britain are mentioned specifically as having met Kerry. The US, well.... Did Kerry meet with Russia and China? The article doesn't say. Doesn't even go there.

So we've gone from "you forgot Poland" to "you forgot Bulgaria"? Gimme a break. Desperate...."

Desperate, is right. Good post.
 
2004-10-25 02:02:44 PM  
There are some serious issues with Kerry's integrity, integrity, integrity if he insists on continuing to tell such easily verifiable falsehoods. A brain disorder or massive personality flaw might be the cause of such self destructive conduct. Such grandiose behavior is the sign of a psychopath.
 
Displayed 50 of 555 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Newest | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.

In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report