October 24, 2004
Kerry Lied ... Again
Posted by Bill
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.
All politicians lie, right? Not quite like this:
Kerry manufactured meetings out of whole cloth and then presented them as justification for a serious contradiction of George Bush's decision to go to war.
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.
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.
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.
This is just a "lie." Take it for what its worth.
UPDATE: Please read and absorb this post by the Truth Laid Bear:
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.)
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.
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.
So let's make sure that everyone we possibly can reach knows that. And let's not conclude that Teflon John is going to get away with this one just yet --- because the one thing that is true is that if the blogosphere doesn't light a fire under this one, he will walk...
UPDATE: Roger Simon:
Is John Kerry a sociopath? That's an extreme statement but it would seem he has sociopathic tendencies if the new report by Joel Mowbray in the Washington Times turns out to be correct. We all remember the Senator's bizarre (and to date unsubstantiated) claim that he spent Christmas in Cambodia during the Vietnam War. Well, he appears to have gilded the lily once again, this time, incredibly, before our very eyes during the second presidential debate.
A commenter brings up a reasonable point - Kerry "meant to communicate" that he only met with the permanent members of the Security Council, not "all of them," as he specified on two occasions. I don't believe that this interpretation invalidates the significance of Kerry's statements, but in any case, I've been told that verification regarding the permanent five is in the works as well. We'll see. I await further detail with everyone else.
UPDATE: I'll try to muster up some commentary on the commentary tomorrow. Suffice it to say that there is an appropriate reaction that lies somewhere between "the world revolves around this" and "yawn."
Predictably, Captain Ed has some of the best analysis.
UPDATE: Remember, a spokesman for France's chief U.N. representative at the time said that Kerry did not have a single group meeting, rather several smaller, even one-on-one meetings. But here's a third instance of Kerry being very specific with his assertion, this time in a December 10, 2003 interview with the Boston Globe:
Secondly, I spent a lot of time before the vote looking at this issue. I went up to the United Nations at the request of some friends. And I met with the entire Security Council in a room just like this at a table like this. I spent two hours with them. (inaudible), just me and the Security Council, asking them questions. The French ambassador, "Is there a time when President Chirac would be ready to come on board? What do we need to do to move the French people to a place where they understand the stakes? Are you prepared to spend money? Do you believe we might have to use force in order to disarm Saddam Hussein? At what point would you be ready to do that?" I went through that with all of them. And I left there convinced that the U.N. was prepared to be deadly serious about this.
UPDATE: Read Redstate's comprehensive round-up:
... go ahead and re-read the quoted lies above. Notice a surprise guest at the table in Kerry's imaginary international conference? Germans. Kerry is manufacturing a Security Council meeting involving nations that weren't on the Security Council in 2002.
UPDATE: And more from Captain Ed:
Yes, it reveals nothing that we haven't seen before, but in this case the lie is particularly egregious in that he's using it to undermine our foreign policy and diplomacy in a time of war. It's another indication that nothing, not our security or the lives of our troops, comes before his own overwhelming ambitions to seize power and live out the life of his boyhood idol, John Kennedy. And the fact that he's established a firm pattern of deceit and self-aggrandizement shouldn't be treated with a round of indifference; it should be heralded to the American electorate so that they can see Kerry for the prevaricating narcissist that he so clearly is.
Posted by Bill at October 24, 2004 11:17 PM | TrackBack (57)
Sorry, Bill, but I doubt this will get much play. I have considered Kerry an out and out liar since the 92 primaries and I'm underwhelmed. If they respond at all they will simply make a minor retreat from full to partial, accuse the WaTimes of unfairly trying to crucify him for partisan purposes and the rest of the LLL will jump on.
Posted by: ctob at October 24, 2004 11:43 PM
Don't forget the world leaders who had expressed support for Kerry's candidacy.
Democrats whine that Republicans always paint their candidates as liars; well, if they'd stop nominating liars, the accusations would stop.
Posted by: Robert Crawford at October 24, 2004 11:43 PM
Do I get commenter prize for being first on your site for being right?
Okay, a little while ago I went and read debat 2 and copied key insufferable Kerry "I was at that bunker", "I was at Kyoto" blah blahs
One that I copied with keen interest, becuase I remember "powerlines" post "Thank you Nikki" right after the debate had to do with, well here is the question...
"GIBSON: The next question is for President Bush, and it comes from Nikki Washington.
WASHINGTON: Thank you.
Mr. President, my mother and sister traveled abroad this summer, and when they got back they talked to us about how shocked they were at the intensity of aggravation that other countries had with how we handled the Iraq situation.
Diplomacy is obviously something that we really have to really work on.
What is your plan to repair relations with other countries given the current situation?"
now here is Kerry's answe (after Bush),
"KERRY: Nikki, that's a question that's been raised by a lot of people around the country.
Let me address it but also talk about the weapons the president just talked about, because every part of the president's answer just now promises you more of the same over the next four years.
The president stood right here in this hall four years ago, and he was asked a question by somebody just like you, "Under what circumstances would you send people to war?"
And his answer was, "With a viable exit strategy and only with enough forces to get the job done."
He didn't do that. He broke that promise. We didn't have enough forces.
General Shinseki, the Army chief of staff, told him he was going to need several hundred thousand. And guess what? They retired General Shinseki for telling him that.
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.
I came away convinced that, if we worked at it, if we were ready to work and letting Hans Blix do his job and thoroughly go through the inspections, that if push came to shove, they'd be there with us.
But the president just arbitrarily brought the hammer down and said, "Nope. Sorry, time for diplomacy is over. We're going."
He rushed to war without a plan to win the peace.
Ladies and gentleman, he gave you a speech and told you he'd plan carefully, take every precaution, take our allies with us. He didn't. He broke his word. "
My guess: Have they busted him for the claim that he met with the UN Security Council before the vote authorizing the war.
In the course of looking for his specific quote, I found this story:
Kerry Says He Met With UN Security Council
This story, dated October 23, says in part:
The Washington Times conducted interviews with embassies of countries opposing the war in Iraq and concluded that there had been no meetings between Mr. Kerry and foreign heads of state since the beginning of 2003. After a review of Mr. Kerry's schedule, it was shown he had no opportunities for personal meetings with foreign heads of state, save one on September 24 when the New Zealand Foreign Minister was in Washington. Several foreign leaders including Germany's Schroeder and the Australian Foreign Minister deny any contact with Kerry.
So this shows that the Washington Times has been pursuing this story. Maybe they have on-the-record statements contradicting Kerry.
so I throw it out there, becuase well this is fun.
Anyone think this might be an angle?
Posted by: peapies at October 24, 2004 11:48 PM
Bill, I so wish this has legs--I simply don't think it does. I think people already accept that Kerry is an opportunistic douche that will say anything.
I think they've already factored that into their opinion of him.
I hope I'm wrong though...
Posted by: Christopher Cross at October 24, 2004 11:48 PM
He lies and he cheats. He cheated in the first debate too. It was not a pen in his RIGHT hand, it was a little fliptop notebook that he produces all the time, most notably at the Black churches lately. But I digress. I digress. He lies. Ho hum. He could produce weapons of mass destruction and place them on the skating rink at Rockefeller center hold the button and dance a jig with TeREza and the Main Stream Media would not CARE. They hate Bush, the Hitler Chimp and they DON"T care if he lies about the Boston Marathon, about the Salfur Truce Meeting that never was, about being in attendance at the 1986 World Series Game 6, about that 18 point deer that inhabits Cape Cod, about that Dog Name VC on his swiftboat and that Magic Hat and the looking world leaders in the eye, and meeting with security council members. He lies, he is a pathological liar and a egomaniacal narciicist of megatudional proportions and he LIES. My God, I'm having a melt down reminiscent of the Clinton years - Character MATTERS. Character MATTERS the Hitler Chimp has it and THOSE zealots of the Liberacists HATE him for it.
Posted by: Katherine Lambert at October 24, 2004 11:53 PM
Who knows how it will play.
My family who were Gore voters and are now voting for Bush (3 in FL and 3 in OH) are doing so because they think Kerry is slimey and will say anything to get a vote...this will confirm what they already think. Probably won't change (m)any minds, but, yeah he's an idiot.
Posted by: tc at October 24, 2004 11:54 PM
Please go re-read my initial post, and tell me where I hyped it as an election breaker.
It's significant to get Sec Council members to refute such an accusation during the debate, but I refuse to entertain claims that I implied that this would swing the election. The only promise that I made was that the Kerry campaign would have to address the claims, and they have - and are.
Anyone that draws a bizarrely dissonant conclusion from either my previous post or comments under the thread is not my responsibility.
Posted by: Bill from INDC at October 24, 2004 11:55 PM
no big deal, except for maybe some blogosphere play. any traction it had got swamped by the nyt story on missing explosives. talk radio and blogs can push this story, but the MSM outlets wont be talking about it.
Posted by: anon at October 24, 2004 11:56 PM
They hate Bush, the Hitler Chimp and they DON"T care if he lies
Yes, some of "them" don't care - but there are a small group of undecideds that do care.
Posted by: Bill from INDC at October 24, 2004 11:56 PM
good job, peapies. I was hoping you were wrong (but you were right!)
Posted by: tc at October 24, 2004 11:56 PM
I think this just serves to convince those who already knew Kerry was a self-aggrandizing liar. The only way this will hurt the campaign is if Kerry feels the need to react to it personally, and I doubt the campaign manager(s) will permit that. The rest of the MSM will ignore it.
8 days left.
Posted by: John at October 24, 2004 11:56 PM
Damn! Katherine...you can shout out quite the rant!
And...agreed...he is a liar, and they won't care.
Posted by: jmflynny at October 24, 2004 11:57 PM
he did say...significant, but not huge people!
Posted by: peapies at October 24, 2004 11:57 PM
..and Bill said it wasn't "huge", just "interesting" all along. At least the speculation was entertaining, right?
Posted by: tc at October 24, 2004 11:58 PM
I'm not saying this doesn't mean anything or that you overbilled it. I'm just saying it won't go anywhere no matter how much of a baldface lie it is. My prediction is a mention on political grapevine on special report. Minor blurbs on a few shows and then ignored.
Posted by: ctob at October 25, 2004 12:02 AM
now I'm over my recognition tantrum...I still think it is a leggy story, but what do i know...
and like corndog said...
did he really negotiate the cease fire of gulf war 1 (or some such he said)
Posted by: peapies at October 25, 2004 12:03 AM
I posted on this here a while ago:
Kerry was also interviewed in Dec 2003 on Sean Hannity where he made a very similiar claim. Someone should get that transcript and see Kerry's exact words.
I heard a portion of it and thought he implied he met right before the UN vote. I may have misheard it and he was implying Oct 2002 senate vote.
Either way kerry is lying again. Just like Cambodia, just like being at the Gulf War I surrender talks, etc etc.
Posted by: Jenjis at October 25, 2004 12:03 AM
I agree it's significant to get Security Council members to refute Kerry's statment and hope it gets some play in the MSM. Added to France and Germany saying they won't send troops to Iraq no matter who wins the election, why vote for Kerry? Except for the 'anybody but Bush' crowd, who will vote for, well, anybody but Bush, this story may well convince the middle of the road voters that Kerry offers nothing reliable.
Posted by: Retread at October 25, 2004 12:04 AM
Bush's face is priceless when Kerry makes the claim he met with the UNSC....i LOVE it...anyone else pick up on that in the video clip?
Posted by: LuvyaDubya at October 25, 2004 12:07 AM
Wouldn't have had the legs to make any lasting difference with a month to go. Would be spin proof and a LOT worse if it had been all of the security council saying they hadn't met him and not just 4 of them. As it is, it's open to a good spin reaction to counter it. It might have enough legs to make some difference with a week to go. Kerry will have to respond and it's critical in the last week to stay proactive and avoid the appearance or reactive campaigning.
Like Bill said in the seminal thread about this; not huge, but interesting.
HOWEVER - so far the teaser is that 4 of the member delegations have said they never met the man. It's not clear to me from the story so far that the last member delegation met him in the time frame Kerry claims and the meeting concerned the runup to the Iraqi war. If it turns out that one of the delegation people says he met Kerry at a function 4 years ago, (or 4 months ago), the lie becomes spin proof and Kerry may have to spend a lot of precious time this week countering.
Posted by: Just Passing Through at October 25, 2004 12:08 AM
Thanks Bill, for staying up late...again...to clue the rest of us in on the goings-on.
One note as to (some of) the previous comments...don't shoot the messenger, make of the message what you will.
Bill is delivering the news, not starring in it, so a critique of the reporting should be of less concern than the content of the reporting itself.
But, hey, that's just my opinion.
Posted by: jmflynny at October 25, 2004 12:09 AM
This is as blatant as the Cambodia lie, but since it is much more recent it should get more play. Noone thought Rathergate would get much play either, but we have to keep on pushing until they have to at least report it backhandedly.
Just saying "they won't care so I won't do anything" doesn't help get the truth out at all. I'm sure some good 527's or the Bush campaign itself could make a great commercial juxtaposing the answer with the facts in the article and play it in every battleground state. Who needs the MSM?
It could sway some of the few swing voters left and at least would serve to pump up the base even more right before election day which translates to more votes. Do you want to elect someone that has a pattern of making up stories out of whole cloth to paint his opposition's policies as wrong? Hell, at least Gephardt uses the "I have a friend" ploy with some of the stories he makes up.
Posted by: twalsh at October 25, 2004 12:09 AM
also interesting in the same answer of the debate he was also peddling the General Shinseki fired then retired fable as well...serial I say, serial
as Bush on sat night live would say...
"thats what you call and eegggggsssadddgggerrraaaasheeeonnn"
Posted by: peapies at October 25, 2004 12:11 AM
And the reason they won't care is because they (the MSM) are equally the psychopathic liars as Kerry is. "Birds-ofa-feather" and all that.
Posted by: Sharpshooter at October 25, 2004 12:12 AM
This is kinda lame. I was expecting something really major.
Posted by: JohnQ at October 25, 2004 12:13 AM
re: Bush's face in the video:
...anyone else pick up on that in the video clip?
Just Passing Through:
Kerry has repeatedly not just made the claim that he met with all of them at some point, but right before the vote in 2002,
"the week before the vote"
"all of them"
Posted by: Bill from INDC at October 25, 2004 12:13 AM
Interesting, I have personal knowledge that in SOME cultures, the ability to be coy and sneaky is considered a virtue. Funny how the Democrats seem to laud successful lying and deception as virtues.
If this does get legs, I expect no less than for Bill Clinton and the boys to gather 'round JK on the Capital steps to proclaim solidarity, and to 'splain that "anyone would lie to get to be president," and that this incident doesn't rise to the level of impeachment, or whaterer.
Posted by: Rich at October 25, 2004 12:18 AM
I think Bill's 'Update' by Truth Laid Bear sums it up: Low Expectations.
We've come to expect lies, and we've become a bit jaded. Now, each new revelation is but one more to add to the record.
While I do recognize that there exists a certain group of 'them' that won't care, I, like Bill, certainly hope that there also exists another group of them that does.
Posted by: jmflynny at October 25, 2004 12:19 AM
Isn't the MSM that needs to care about this one.
If that video shows Bush's reaction as Kerry said it, he may have known Kerry was lying or was flabbergasted that a Senator would take it on himself to have meetings while the WH was in the middle of a ticklish diplomatic standoff.
The story Bill links to has no definitive time that Kerry might have met the French - it's vague on that point - but the Kerry campaign's anser is interesting. They say they were closed door individual meetings. That will help to defuse the accusation that Kerry was lying, but opnes another question.
What the hell right did Senator Kerry have in 2002 to attend closed door meetings with UN security council memebers and discuss sanctions against Iraq while Colin Poweel was negotiating with them?
THAT is what I would run with if I were the republicans. Kerry reprised his trips to Paris to talk with the North Vietnam delegation etc etc.
Posted by: Just Passing Through at October 25, 2004 12:20 AM
The headline should read: UN Challenges Kerry's Credibility. Most people know Kerry will lie, but when the defunct UN challenges your credibility, epecially in light of the Oil/Food program, then we really know how slimy Kerry must be.
Posted by: conservativepoet at October 25, 2004 12:23 AM
I just watched the video, too, and knowing what we now know, it's obvious from W's face that he knew Kerry was lying. And it is greatly to President Bush's credit that he didn't call him on it.
Posted by: Retread at October 25, 2004 12:23 AM
What is the best site from which to view the video?
Posted by: jmflynny at October 25, 2004 12:26 AM
Nevermind! I see Bill linked it already...I missed that earlier.
Posted by: jmflynny at October 25, 2004 12:27 AM
"Just Passing Through:
Kerry has repeatedly not just made the claim that he met with all of them at some point, but right before the vote in 2002,
"the week before the vote"
"all of them""
I realize that. But the article you cite contains the preliminary spin from his campaign to counter - he met people behind closed doors. It would take more than a week to run that down if the stall play is run well enough.
I stand by my take. This will hurt him as it stands a bit, but not be huge thing unless the answering tactic focuses on the closed door meetings as dramatically outside the purview of a senator acting without State Department endorsement.
Their are multiple ways this could play out with the info in hand so far.
Posted by: Just Passing Through at October 25, 2004 12:30 AM
Now that I got the rant out - and am thinking rationally (as a political addict does past midnight) it seems that we should do an email campaign similar to Rathergate. Perhaps have the top 20 blogs do links to say Chrissy Matthews and Dan Rather, along with Fox News and the New York Times and demand that they put something about this on the news. Or perhaps the Bush Campaign will make a fake ad that never gets played on paid air but released only to the press for free air (stealing from the Kerry PlayBook on the Ostrich ad) and unleashes it. This could be a day turn around at most if Rove would get on the case.
I think this could be MADE big even if the instincts of the press for truth are nonexistent at this point. Maybe Bush who never whines on the stump or complains about Kerry except in vague phrases would make a DIRECT assault on the stump then the news media woould swoop in to try and flip the story on Bush.
Just some thoughts. How does a story get legs Bill? It gets legs from being posted everywhere. I see that Drudge has it buried instead of flashing cowbells. You know the MSM pays alot of attention to Drudge so he needs to help. Also Bill Kristol and Rich Lowry could pump this up. Britt runs with the Oil for Food Scandal more than anyone and maybe it will perk up to him.
Legs on a Kerry Lies like Walter Mitty story are questionable. Also Zogby is deserting Kerry so maybe the well informed but moronic intelligentsia will defect with Zogby and pile on this story.
Who Knows - I'm still hoping there is a video of Kerry pxssing on the American Flag before burning it floating around out there though Crush Kerry says not. Also the European Divorce from his first wife might have some sleazy sex with a tuba in the bed or something. Please God, give us something here in Bush land to make the win so big it is impossible for those koons to cheat.
Posted by: Katherine Lambert at October 25, 2004 12:34 AM
I doubt it will get any major airtime - but we can hope.
Posted by: Von at October 25, 2004 12:36 AM
Does anyone suppose Larry O'Donnell will have anything to say about this?
Remember Kerry's story about his mother telling him "Integrity, integrity, integrity" on her deathbed. I'm taking bets on the veracity of that one!!!
She was probably trying to remind him of his WEAKNESS, not his strength!
The devastating thing about this is this man, this man who would be President, has been proven to be a blatant liar. The members of the world community which he holds up as the place where we MUST go to get permission for anything and everything have now said that John Kerry is a liar. How would they be able to keep a straight face if he comes to them, and what kind of fools would they have to be to believe ANYTHING he says to them?
Bill, I have to disagree. This is huge for anyone who has a shred of intelligence and even an ounce of REAL integrity. This is contemporary and this speaks right to the heart of Kerry's campaign for the Presidency.
We saw this with the Swift Boat Vets. O'Donnell was only the latest to claim over and over that they were liars, that everything Kerry said was gospel. Puts a whole new light on the subject. And that is only the first piece of the puzzle. Now, any reasonable person has to look at all Kerry's statements and wonder which, IF ANY, are true and which are fantasies. Is the man mentally ill? Is he delusional? These, unfortunately for the Democrats, have to be serious questions.
Of course, our brethren to the left will pooh pooh this and try to sweep it under the rug. For some of them, this is not an issue. More's the pity for them. Let's hope the real American people see this for what it is and send this charlatan packing.
Posted by: Bill M at October 25, 2004 12:38 AM
The last paragraph says it all, with honesty @ the fore front of his so called "presidency" I guess he thought it was "ok" to lie during the campaign to get there.
But that depends on what the meaning of "how do you define me, before or after or "AS IS".
What a, as Lawrence O'Donnel would snip: liar, liar, pants on fire....
Posted by: Pam A at October 25, 2004 12:43 AM
We're all underwhelmed because we all know Kerry is a lying, exaggerating, windbag. And frankly, if it's all that exciting to us, it's probably not gonna be interesting enough for the MSM. Which is probably a good thing, because every time pundits on the right accuse Kerry of "lying" he can monopolize 10 minutes of valuable pre-election airtime exaggerating about all the important UN folks he DID meet with.
Now Bill, I know you said it wasn't a huge story, but you also said it was "SOMETHING THE KERRY CAMP WOULD HAVE TO ADDRESS". Come on, can't you just admit that you were fanning the Hype-Flames just a little bit??? Maybe even a little tooo much??? With all the "ohh, it's getting cold in here" and the "its something that happened or did not happen in the past few years" stuff???
Please don't yank our chains like this again. This story is interesting, yes. But is it worthy of a day and a half build-up and tease-fest?? Not hardly.
Posted by: Totally Sirius at October 25, 2004 12:51 AM
"Bush's face is priceless when Kerry makes the claim he met with the UNSC....i LOVE it...anyone else pick up on that in the video clip?"
In the last 2 debates Bush had a look of incredulity on his face throughout. I think he sat with his advisors after debate #1 and they told him, "When Kerry lies, don't look peeved, just look dumbfounded."
Posted by: Yehudit at October 25, 2004 12:52 AM
Now Bill, I know you said it wasn't a huge story, but you also said it was "SOMETHING THE KERRY CAMP WOULD HAVE TO ADDRESS". Come on, can't you just admit that you were fanning the Hype-Flames just a little bit???
I was 100% correct: The Kerry campaign already addressed it once thus far. Read it again.
It's not my fault that you spent all weekend fantasizing about UBL. Don't blame me for your interpretation and hyperbole, or the fact that you have nothing better to do on a Saturday night than splatter my message board with 40 theories.
I was perfectly straight with you, and EVERYTHING that I said was accurate.
It's also not my fault that you apparently can't read very closely. People need to start taking responsibility for correct interpretation - I'm not your information nursemaid.
Don't "yank (y)our chain?" The only think yanking your chain was your desperate imagination.
Posted by: Bill from INDC at October 25, 2004 12:59 AM
You'd think this statement from the story would negate the "met with some of the members" spin, but it probably won't:
"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."
Posted by: dorkafork at October 25, 2004 01:03 AM
Just Passing Through -
I didn't say that Kerry wouldn't weasel out of it.
Posted by: Bill from INDC at October 25, 2004 01:04 AM
I think this story has the potential for impact. Much like the Cambodia story, which was dismissed at first as a non-starter and stumbled, this one could pick up steam.
The uestion is how to present it and, as importantly, how to confront Kerry with it. The former will manage on its own as the story will be told and retold until no one quite has control over it. Then from the pack of stories one salient meme will develop. The latter is more important.
The Xmas in Cambodia was never really addressed by Kerry or his campaign. It lingered for a time and has become a backdrop - but it did hurt him for a time. Now, this story has to go through the same process but at a much accelerated pace to impact the electorate. To accelerate the pace, Kerry needs to be confronted soon. Due to his diligence in avoiding reporters and just ignoring unseemly questions, it is unlikely it will break into full stride prior to Nov 2.
Bloggers and concerned can spread the word, open up the airwaves and such, but that is the only way it will move forward uickly. That, or someone with a couple of million to splash out there can create an add real quickly.
Is it important? Yes and no. Everyone knows Kerry is an embellisher so this is just one more straw on that camels back. so at first glance it may appear unimportant. But, this is a big one and a recent one and was told in a presidential debate. Many Kerry supporters are already uncomfortable their candidate and it seems it will only take a few nudges to move them in the other direction (i know of two recently). In all likelyhood it will only effect his base of support and not dramatically increase Bush's.
Posted by: punk boy at October 25, 2004 01:07 AM
"Please don't yank our chains like this again. This story is interesting, yes. But is it worthy of a day and a half build-up and tease-fest?? Not hardly."
Yea, but it was kinda fun!
Posted by: Bill M at October 25, 2004 01:08 AM
More I think about it, the more I think this could have legs. Not just for the lie itself, but for the preliminary response from thr Kerry campaign. Someone did not think it through before they talked about behind closed door meetings. Unless Kerry can claim convincingly that he had some offical status in doing so - State Dept endorsement or officially as a Senate Intelligence Committee member (don't know how that one could be spun, just tossing it out there), he has done something very serious.
The more I think about it, the more I believe that is why Bush had that first expression and then the distant one. He could not have known during the debate that Kerry was lying about the meetings. He looked surprised, and then thinking briefly about the implications of the guy at the other podium having just admitted that he actively inserted himself into and possibly interferred with a critical diplomatic negotiation.
Think about it for a moment. If the Kerry campaign sticks with it's story, a US Senator on the Senate Intelligence committee with the implied knowledge of US intelligence met behind closed doors without offical sanction with the representatives of countries with interests opposed to the US' interests on a matter of national security. At the very least, Kerry needs to be questioned about what he said.
I am not sure Kerry can spin this one in any way that won't bite him badly. Damn shame the story did not come out this coming Weds or Thurs or even over next weekend.
Posted by: Just Passing Through at October 25, 2004 01:09 AM
Unfortunately, I don’t thin this will get much play. Since Democrats believe themselves to be morally superior, lying to get what they want is a point-of-pride, not a vice. Because Democrats believe Bush is Hitler, to dim Dems, it is OK to about anything to remove Bush.
Posted by: pajama_jihad at October 25, 2004 01:10 AM
The way this could become an issue is if the Bush campaign pushes for it, demanding Kerry address the charges.
Posted by: mike at October 25, 2004 01:16 AM
"I went up to the United Nations at the request of some friends. And I met with the entire Security Council in a room just like this at a table like this. I spent two hours with them. (inaudible), just me and the Security Council, asking them questions."Here
Posted by: jimboster at October 25, 2004 01:20 AM
"Just Passing Through -
I didn't say that Kerry wouldn't weasel out of it."
I didn't say you did. I initially agreed with your take that this would be interesting, but not huge and said the Kerry Campaign could react and spin it.
After thinking through the implications of the initail Kerry reaction about closed doors, and thinking a bit more about the expressions on Bush, I've changed my mind. Unless the Kerry campaign backs off the 'closed door' story fast and finds another spin, this could be a big thing if not huge. It goes from a defense of 'exaggeration' - inflating a meeting with from 1 to with 5 security council attendees to admitting to a series of what appears to be unendorsed closed door meetings with individual security council members in the week before a UN vote of critical interest to the US.
Like I said, this could play out multiple ways. If Kerry sticks to the closed door spin, my reaction were I the RNC would be along the lines of an incredulous 'Who the fuck do you think you are?' all week long.
Posted by: Just Passing Through at October 25, 2004 01:20 AM
Bimpersticker #1 at the ready: www.cafeshops.com/pathological
No markup, for your convenience.
Anyone who wants the artwork is welcome to it.
Posted by: Rich at October 25, 2004 01:20 AM
It depends upon what the meaning of the word "all" is.
Posted by: j.pickens at October 25, 2004 01:22 AM
In honor of the "foreign leaders" that only John Kerry seems to be able to see, I fired up the Photoshop and I present John Kerry in 'Harvey'
Posted by: Darleen at October 25, 2004 01:24 AM
Bill Clinton was the "Liar, Liar" with his pants on fire - just so you know.
And I meant to call them Bumperstickers!
Posted by: Rich at October 25, 2004 01:26 AM
Bad timing, guys, what with the story that the Bush admin let 380 tons of high-grade explosive get pilfered by Iraqi insurgents.
Hmmm...one guy forgot Bulgaria.
The other guy let Zarqawi take 380 tons of explosives.
Hmmm...which is the bigger story?
Posted by: Jeff Fecke at October 25, 2004 01:34 AM
Yawn. Kerry forgot to use the word "Permanent" in his statement. Big deal.
In the mean time, I dare Bush supporters to tell us why this is more important news than the fact that George W. Bush GAVE TERRORISTS the "greatest explosives bonanza in history."
Posted by: Geek, Esq. at October 25, 2004 01:37 AM
the fact that George W. Bush GAVE TERRORISTS the "greatest explosives bonanza in history."
George Bush gave it to them??!!!!!
OH MY GOD!!! I didn't even know that George Bush was in Iraq, much less that he would GIVE EXPLOSIVES TO TERRORISTS!
Posted by: Bill from INDC at October 25, 2004 01:41 AM
I wasn't aware this was a duel. "I see your schwartz is bigger than mine".
Like I said the typical justification will be "oh I meant partial not full meeting". And that will be the end of it. The "permanent" thing a few people have mentioned is of course silly cause there is no proof he met with China or Russia either, smarties.
But I do think think the point about him screwing around with this at a sensitive time is perhaps valid. But as a senator he may have some sort of justification. I don't really know what the protocol is on such matters.
Posted by: ctob at October 25, 2004 01:47 AM
He's not proud of it, its something he did in his younger, wilder days.
Posted by: Mantis at October 25, 2004 01:47 AM
Please review the following on my original August posts on this subject - and this additional VIDEO: John Kerry claims "I met with the Security Council of the United Nations"
During Kerry's appearance earlier this year at the UNITY Conference he repeated this lie and locked in the time frame for his purported "meeting" to be the week before the vote on Iraq in the Senate.
This delusional behavior of Kerry's is reminiscent of his Christmas in Cambodia. He invents these supposedly life altering events to justify his policial posturing. The man will say anything to advance his position as he's increasingly desparate.
John Kerry at the UNITY Conference (8/5/04)RealAudio (VIDEO Link)
For other formats, go to C-SPAN home page and select "Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) Remarks at UNITY Conference" under VIDEO/AUDIO "Recent Programs" in the middle of the page.
Segment begins 49 minutes into the program, during the Q&A period (fast-forward player to direct location) shortly following the Michael Moore gaffe
"I believe in my heart of hearts and in my gut that this president fails that test in Iraq. And I know this because I, personally, and others were deeply involved in the effort with other countries to bring them to the table. I met with the Security Council of the United Nations in the week preceding the vote in the Senate.
Posted by: Steven W. at October 25, 2004 01:51 AM
If I leave a steak out in the middle of the desert, and jackals eat it, it can be said that I gave the jackals the steak.
Similarly, the Bush administration willfully left 380 tons of the most powerful high explosives in the world (enough for 760,000 Lockerbies!!!) unguarded--to be collected by terrorists. He created a terrorist shopping spree.
The admin knew about this stuff--it was closely monitored by the IAEA. And they decided to guard the oil ministry instead.
People were still looting that facility as of last week. And Bush never, ever cared.
Please tell me again why Al-Qaeda is afraid of a man who has turned out to be the best thing that ever happened to them.
Posted by: Geek, Esq. at October 25, 2004 01:51 AM
Let me get this straight - you do understand that George Bush does not give the military daily marching orders, correct? You do understand that even Donald Rumsfeld is not in charge of logistics, in-theatre troop deployment and force structure right?
In your world, will John Kerry go to Iraq and sit in front of weapons caches with a Chinese Assault Rifle? Or will he fire every general in the US Army and replace them with all new, better generals?
Please, tell me.
Posted by: Bill from INDC at October 25, 2004 01:56 AM
Are you that obtuse? Really. Bush let Zarqawi take the explosives? What, he was asleep on guard duty at the time? Oh, right, 'George W. Bush GAVE TERRORISTS the "greatest explosives bonanza in history."'
No, see, Bush is not responsible for military mistakes made on the ground in Iraq. The buck stops at his desk, but only in the sense that he is responsible for the competence of his subordinates and they theirs on down the line. You could make the case that if Bush ordered the military to back away from an area against military advice and explosives disappeared, Bush let Zarqawi take the explosives. You know, something along the lines of what Kerry proposes to do with the whole area of Iraq.
Kerry on the other hand, appears to have lied. Directly to the public. Right on camera. Not mistaken, but lied about taking personal actions that did not occur. He lied to make a point. He lied to appear like he was in the loop. Not in possession of chancy intelligence about something and having to make a determination on what he should do. But lying about doing something that he didn't. Right on camera.
You really think the equivalence is there in the stories? That yours deserves legs and the one about Kerry lying does not? Bushs campaign won't even address your story as an issue of culpability at the presidential level any more than they did Abu Ghraib story. Kerry's campaign people will be spinning like dervishes by the morning news.
Posted by: Just Passing Through at October 25, 2004 01:57 AM
Gimme a break if the situation is as you just described that would imply incompetence of incredible proportions by far far more people than just Bush. You think Bush just said "Hey lookee at that ammo dump there. How bout we just leave it unguarded." That you even think such decisions are made by the administration shows you have no idea what your talking about. The military brass at whatever level this ammo dump falls makes most decisions such as this. You think logistics of the enemy are not one the primary concerns for each commander in Iraq? Please, get a grip, dude.
Posted by: ctob at October 25, 2004 01:59 AM
Pardon. Shouldn't argue with Bill's other guests in his living room. Bad form.
Posted by: Just Passing Through at October 25, 2004 02:00 AM
Funny, I think one should hold the President accountable for the strategic planning of a war and its aftermath. Especially when he was so eager to launch it.
The way it works in your community, I guess, is that Bush fans don't hold him accountable. Bush doesn't hold Rumsfeld and Rice accountable.
I guess no one in the Bush administration is to blame!
Myself, I prefer to live in the reality-based community. The one where those who start and plan wars are held accountable for the errors made therein.
Posted by: Geek, Esq. at October 25, 2004 02:03 AM
Hah! I scooped Drudge!
But seriously, while I don't think this story is a blockbuster, I wouldn't denigrate it, as many seem inclined to do.
The point is not just that that Kerry lied, repeatedly, to the voters (that in itself is sort of a "dog bites man" story...). He *also* lied openly about meetings with foreign diplomats that never happened. That means they know he lied. And these are the countries that he hopes to convince to send vast numbers of troops to Iraq.
I think it will take a couple days, but eventually he'll have to respond to this. If nothing else, it makes a decent commercial for the Bush campaign. President Bush, love him or hate him, does what he says he's going to do.
So my point is, yes, perhaps the significance was over-stated, and people's expectations were unwisely raised (not directly by Bill, but the conspiratorial undercurrent from this was very likely to get out of control). But I think this is not insignificant, and the last thing we should do is help Kerry bury it by pretending it is.
Posted by: LagunaDave at October 25, 2004 02:05 AM
I guess no one in the Bush administration is to blame!
I didn't say that. But your language was inaccurate and hyperbolic.
Posted by: Bill from INDC at October 25, 2004 02:06 AM
Just PAssing Through -
Shouldn't argue with Bill's other guests in his living room. Bad form.
Wrong! Argue away, please! I could use back-up a lot of the time!
Posted by: Bill from INDC at October 25, 2004 02:07 AM
Geek, look up the difference between strategic planning and tactical planning, who is responsible and at what level for each, and how the two definitions apply to deployment of an army and deployment of units in that army, and most importantly who is responsible for tactical and strategic erros in wartime.
The 'reality based community' you live in is anything but. Educate yourself.
Posted by: Just Passing Through at October 25, 2004 02:08 AM
I will say it - no one in the Bush administration is to blame if the claim that this amount or any significant amount of explosives has been lost (a claim only being carried by the NY Times at the moment by the way), is true. If true, someone is to blame for not securing them, but not the administration.
Posted by: Just Passing Through at October 25, 2004 02:14 AM
Or will he fire every general in the US Army and replace them with all new, better generals?
Yes! Huge robo-generals who interlock to form a giant weapons-guarding robot that will protect us forever and ever.
Posted by: Mantis at October 25, 2004 02:14 AM
Ah I had heard rumors that the Black Ops guys had secretly reconstructed Voltron...
Posted by: ctob at October 25, 2004 02:15 AM
The explosives story is a classic example of LeftMedia spin.
There were hundreds, if not thousands, of arms depots in Iraq. And if you read carefully, the US bombed this site, and it's entirely possible that most or all of the "missing" explosives went up in those attacks. It is pure speculation and spin to suppose that every ounce of explosives that was once inventoried there (before it was bombed) was removed after the US came into possession of the place.
It was reported that Hussein took steps to prepare for guerilla resistance immediately before the war, and in the early days. If the explosives were moved somewhere else, as the article itself suggests, then guarding the empty bunkers wouldn't have made much difference, would it? And the troops that inspected the place found no evidence of the explosives, so it seems quite likely that this is exactly what happened.
It seems obvious, as others have pointed out, that the President does not give tactical orders to troops in the field. Even assuming the alleged 40 truck-loads explosives were spirited away by terrorists after the US supposedly had control of the facility, how many similar criticisms could be levelled against other wartime presidents, say Lincoln or FDR, for some battalion commander screwing up somewhere? It's just a ludicrous argument.
Remember, at the time we were focused on finding far more dangerous things than conventional explosives that are readily available.
Posted by: LagunaDave at October 25, 2004 02:22 AM
A couple of other points on what I think is the major story of importance regarding the war on terror, before heading to bed:
The International Atomic Energy Agency publicly warned about the danger of these explosives before the war, and after the invasion it specifically told United States officials about the need to keep the explosives secured, European diplomats said in interviews last week.
Officials in Washington said they had no answers to that question. One senior official noted that the Qaqaa complex where the explosives were stored was listed as a "medium priority" site on the Central Intelligence Agency's list of more than 500 sites that needed to be searched and secured during the invasion. "Should we have gone there? Definitely," said one senior administration official.
The Bush administration itself, and not just the military commanders, knew this stuff needed to be guarded.
Either the administration is the least competent in the history of mankind, or they are lying and there is a big coverup underway. I myself am torn.
Posted by: Geek, Esq. at October 25, 2004 02:27 AM
I hate to say this but I don't think this will do anything to Kerry's campaign.
This campaign is so entrenched on both sides. People who are voting for Bush know damned well why we are doing so. People who are voting for Kerry couldn't care less if he lies because they simply hate Bush so much that it doesn't matter what Kerry does at this point. It shouldn't be "Anyone but Bush" but "Anything but Bush" - any lie, cheat, fib, exaggeration. They're not going to budge an inch and neither are we.
And then the "undecideds". Frankly, I think that anyone who is "undecided" by now is either an idiot, completely ignorant of ANYTHING going on in the last three years, or simply lying to the pollsters because they want to be left alone. If they're idiots, then they won't be reading the newspapers. If they are ignorant, then the same applies and they will simply not hear of it. If they're lying, they're already entrenched like the rest of us.
I blogged more about it but I'll tell you this: It would take pictures of Kerry in bed with the farmer's daughter, or the farmer's livestock, to start making a scandal bigger than the ones already uncovered with his previous lies. I can't see this playing out any bigger than the other scandals which have come out which include possible charges of treason, were he not a candidate for President.
The fact that we discover that he didn't meet with a few ambassadors at the United Nations simply doesn't do it for a political scandal in this atmosphere.
I suppose that the real story is that the country is in such a terrible divisive state that this isn't considered a real story anymore. But people never look at the bigger picture and, even though I'm voting for Bush, I really couldn't care less about this story.
Posted by: Banagor at October 25, 2004 02:28 AM
I think NYTimes story is a rehash of , or perhaps a more specific instance, something that was widely reported during the initial fighting. At least I seem to remember stories of all kinds of ammo dumps being looting when the looting was oging on. If you read the story you'll notice they have no idea whether it was during the looting or what.
Posted by: ctob at October 25, 2004 02:28 AM
Care to explain why the Bush administration/the CPA was uninterested in the fate of these munitions? Why did it take those perfidious UN folks to press the issue?
And, if there simply weren't enough troops to secure all of this stuff--whose fault is that?
Posted by: Geek, Esq. at October 25, 2004 02:33 AM
Well, ludicrous or not, the argument works for the 'reality based' community.
I do hope that Kerry makes an attempt to tie the explosives to the administration this week for the edification of the 'reality based' community. Kerry won't though. Even Kerry didn't run Abu Ghraib as an issue against the administration itself. The MSM did, but it played well with the 'reality based' community for a while when nothing else was handy that would play for the 'non-reality based' community of Kerry supporters.
I also hope Bush makes good mention this week of Kerry's lie during the debate for the edification of the other 95% of the population, including the vast majority of democrats, that make up the 'non-reality based' communities on both sides of the aisle.
Posted by: Just Passing Through at October 25, 2004 02:38 AM
Gee, I guess it must be because they secretly wanted the terrorists to get them or something.
You are as selective in your reading of the article as the authors are in picking and choosing what to report.
The target was medium priority. That sounds about right. It wasn't a nerve gas factory or anthrax farm or nuclear reactor. Conventional explosives are dangerous, but there is no shortage of them available.
And the article also says CentCom checked out the site:
A senior Bush administration official said that during the initial race to Baghdad, American forces "went through the bunkers, but saw no materials bearing the I.A.E.A. seal."
It also says that the site was bombed and there was evidence of explosives blowing up.
Also note that the "senior officials" they quote are not necessarily the ones with responsibility or knowledge of what went on. Basically they asked "There was a big warehouse full of explosives? Should we have searched it?" And the answer was, yes, we did.
And, if there simply weren't enough troops to secure all of this stuff--whose fault is that?
Well, we could start with France...
There is no evidence that lack of troops was a problem. If it was a problem, the military commanders in question have said on the record that they received everything they asked for in the way of troops and weapons, and that President Bush specifically asked them whether they had everything they needed before giving the order to proceed, and they replied in the affirmative.
Compare and contrast with Clinton's refusal of direct requests for support from officers in the field in Somalia...
The site was searched and the explosives weren't there. I mean, was President Bush supposed to go and personally inspect the place, just to be sure the troops who searched it the first time without finding anything didn't miss something?
Now, it's possible that Hussein didn't move weapons and explosives somewhere else (as he was reported to be doing at the time, and the article itself suggests he did), that none of it was destroyed when the place was bombed (as seems obvious a great deal was), and that every gram of material was just sitting there when our troops arrived to search the place, and that they overlooked it.
If so, then somebody screwed up, but it wasn't President Bush.
Posted by: LagunaDave at October 25, 2004 02:56 AM
Sorry Bill but unless anybody can get confirmation on Britain, Russia, and China, then even I am not really interested in this one. I almost have to side with Kos on this one and that normally makes me want to drink gasoline.
Posted by: Elric at October 25, 2004 03:16 AM
Isn't it more than a bit ironic that the same Left that accepts the magical disappearance of Saddam's WMD now insists that there were conventional explosives at that ammo dump when the war started? The 'insurgents' were wily enough to loot an ammo dump but Saddam was too stupid to hide his stocks of WMD. Suuuuure....
Posted by: Al Superczynski at October 25, 2004 03:41 AM
The KLA story is starting to break.
Posted by: veritas at October 25, 2004 04:09 AM
You know, when I read some of the comments here, I find myself wondering: why do some blog-commenters think they have licenses to behave like total assholes/cunts toward their hosts?
I don't mean disagreeing with the blogger. Disagreement is not bad. But the snooty, condescending, at times vicious insinuations: what the fuck is up with that?
Bill, you really need to implement comment registration, and start tossing some of the left-wing AND right-wing cretins who think it's their job to condescend and sneer at you out the window.
"Out you pixies go, trough da door or trough da winda!" as the bartender said in "It's A Wonderful Life!"
Posted by: Dean Esmay at October 25, 2004 04:44 AM
Posted by: Geek, Esq."
"Myself, I prefer to live in the reality-based community. "
So why don't you?
"The one where those who start and plan wars are held accountable for the errors made therein."
Then hold Saddam accountable.
So much for your demented "reality".
Posted by: Sharpshooter at October 25, 2004 05:43 AM
No one understands Kerry's nuance or turns of phrase. What he was referring to was his (closet National) Security Council which he'll publically announce on Nov 3, win, lose, or draw. Maybe there's a restaurant in NYC where the regulars are called the "Security Council". Maybe he was just being a little loose with the term "representatives" - like Disney's Epcot's foreign restaurants and exhibits are representatives of their country.
That's it. Just a simple misunderstanding.
Posted by: MaDr at October 25, 2004 05:53 AM
I think the story matches Bill's tease. Too many people are so desperate for a big "gotcha" that they'll create their own hype.
Interesting story; one that supports the argument that Kerry puffs (and outright lies) his assertions. Unfortunately, missing bombs will overwhelm this one. It will get some over-all MSM play I think, but in a relatively dismissive manner.
Posted by: notthisgirl at October 25, 2004 05:57 AM
Note that in the same breath of air, Kerry also mentioned Hans "Iran has the right to enrich uranium" Blix.
Posted by: hm at October 25, 2004 06:25 AM
Laguna Dave ~ You beat me to debunking geek's lame efforts, and did so more thoroughly than I had intended. Tip o' the hat to you, sir!
I would only note that geek is playing the same old misdirection play in attempting to change the subject. The topic is Kerry's claims, and their obvious falsity.
The geek would have us joust at chimera.
Posted by: Adjoran at October 25, 2004 06:26 AM
Sorry Bill but unless anybody can get confirmation on Britain, Russia, and China,
Hold your magic hat. From what I understand, it's in the works.
Posted by: Bill from INDC at October 25, 2004 06:42 AM
I can't see this playing out any bigger than the other scandals which have come out which include possible charges of treason, were he not a candidate for President.
Where did I promise you that it would?
Posted by: Bill from INDC at October 25, 2004 06:44 AM
Not only were the Germans not on the Security Council in 2002, but Singapore, whose ambassador Kerry apparently DID meet (according to Captain Ed) was on its way out, i.e. was no longer on the Security Council when push came to shove in 2003.
Posted by: hm at October 25, 2004 07:21 AM
Hmmm, what was it again that Kerry's mother told him on her death bed?
Posted by: hm at October 25, 2004 07:41 AM
I think this is significant in only that it is one more example of Kerry's tendancy to lie and exaggerate, but I don't see the MSM caring about this one. I don't know that it has enough legs to reach the people it will matter to. I know I don't need this revelation to tell me that Kerry is the wrong man to be president.
Also, the general defense from the lefies is going to be "so what if he lied about this, he didn't lie about WMD's and start a war blah blah blah"
Of course they are ignoring the fact that if a man is willing to lie about things like this, then he will be willing to lie about the important stuff.
Posted by: Just Me at October 25, 2004 07:44 AM
This speaks volumes about Kerry's arrogance and lack of judgement, any way you cut it. Why on Earth does he proudly trumpet the fact that he has secretly, "behind closed doors" injected himself into critically important, exceedingly delicate negotiations regarding US foreign policy?
A long time ago, he proudly testified to the Senate about his meetings with leaders of the Viet Cong during the Paris talks.
A few days ago, he proudly claimed to have met with the entire UNSC just prior to a crucial vote.
Just who does he think he is? If (gag) he becomes POTUS, will he encourage other Naval officers and/or US senators to conduct similar discussions, especially during wartime? Hey, maybe if ALL the senators had held private 2-hour meetings with the whole UNSC, they could have voted to go to war and then not fund it, too! Sheesh.
Posted by: Sue-USA at October 25, 2004 09:27 AM
This story is not going to go any place. It just isn't big enough.
People who already believe Kerry lies or at least shades the truth need no more proof. And for those that don't believe he is a liar will not be convinced by this story. Belgium? Mexico? Sorry guys, ain't gonna happen.
I would suggest we keep focused on GOTV and not this story -- it is a distraction.
Posted by: Right of Center at October 25, 2004 09:45 AM
"And I left there convinced that the U.N. was prepared to be deadly serious about this."
The idiocy of this statement speaks for itself.
Or maybe he meant 'deadly serious about opposing the US'.
Posted by: Noah D at October 25, 2004 09:55 AM
This story is not going to go any place. It just isn't big enough.
Oh, the irony of self-fulfilling prophecy.
Posted by: Bill from INDC at October 25, 2004 10:00 AM
There is nothing that Kerry won't lie about...he is pathological.
And his campaign thinks nothing of using intimidation and thuggery to try to win the election.
One more reason to fear a Kerry presidency: he would be more corrupt than Nixon, but would have the MSM to protect him. I fear for our democracy if Kerry is elected.
Also, imagine this scenario: thanks to Kerry, we experience another catastrophic terrorist attack on our soil...and Kerry declares Marshall Law, suspends future elections until further notice, and in essence seizes some measure of dictatorial power...I admit that sounds far fetched, but I would have never imagined the levels to which Kerry has stooped up until now, either...with Kerry, he keeps reaching new lows...
Posted by: Another Thought at October 25, 2004 10:04 AM
Bill I hope you are right. But Sadly, I just don't see this getting any traction. If the meeting *did not* take place at all then it would be a big story. But there is enough wiggle room here. He met with some (or the improtant ones).
Posted by: Right of Center at October 25, 2004 10:13 AM
But Sadly, I just don't see this getting any traction
I'm not saying that I agree or disagree either way, but I do think it's interesting when you think about how the line blurs between just commenting on the media, and having the commentary itself actually influence the media.
Bloggers (and to some extent commenters) haven't fully grasped that they are the media.
Posted by: Bill from INDC at October 25, 2004 10:19 AM
yikes. That post sounds like an URR-DU post!
Posted by: Right of Center at October 25, 2004 10:20 AM
Well that I will agree with! But part of the 'influence' is in vetting the meme.
And *we* (Our side) benefits from the vetting as well as the other side.
Nothing would please me more that this story become a big one. But where this media (blogs) must different than old media is in the *process* of the vetting.
It is (may I say) an old media ploy to flogg a story to 'get it someplace'.
If this meme is no good, the negetive result of vetting will save our side precioius time.
Posted by: Right of Center at October 25, 2004 10:24 AM
p.s. I will also say that the more critical vetting of things like this give conservatives an advantage in the blogsphere.
I think we are more pragmatically critical than our liberal firends.
Posted by: Right of Center at October 25, 2004 10:28 AM
Of course, as we all know, U.N. diplomats are nothing but lying, dictator-appeasing, terrorist-sympathizing, non-parking-ticket-paying aristoboobs. So, I mean, why should we trust their word over that of a Real American™? Oh, I know, John Kerry is at least five-thirds French, but at least he lives here now. Shouldn't that give him more credibility than a bunch of hardcore Euro-trash? I may be a bit presumptuous to question the veracity of claims made by any source in a fair and balanced Sun Myung Moon-owned paper like the Washington Times, but is its right-wing-shillhood enough to overcome the credibility gap created by its reliance on shoddy sources like the U.N.?
Posted by: Walter Sobchak at October 25, 2004 10:28 AM
Of course, as we all know, U.N. diplomats are nothing but lying, dictator-appeasing, terrorist-sympathizing, non-parking-ticket-paying aristoboobs. So, I mean, why should we trust their word over that of a Real American™?
I don't believe I've ever said that about all foreign diplomats to the UN, though perhaps implied much of it about the UN itself, a broken, corrupt organization.
And anyway, your analysis is emotional and extrapolative to an uncomfortable degree.
Not to mention dissonant, considering your unwavering focus in the previous Swift Boat thread on the importance of "motivation" for people to lie.
Try again, Walter.
Kerry's got sociopathic tendencies.
Posted by: Bill from INDC at October 25, 2004 10:39 AM
Walter what motivation do the UN doplomats have to lie about this one?
But I do not at all disagree that the organization is corrupt, but I am not really certain what lying about the meeting with Kerry would gain any of these people.
Posted by: Just Me at October 25, 2004 10:54 AM
Walter what motivation do the UN doplomats have to lie about this one?
But I do not at all disagree that the organization is corrupt, but I am not really certain what lying about the meeting with Kerry would gain any of these people.
Posted by: Just Me at October 25, 2004 10:54 AM
First of all, I would hardly call my comment an "analysis". More like an intentionally over-the-top, sarcastic counterpoint to all the breathless hand-wringing going on over what may or may not even be a credible story in the first place. Using, by the way, the same terminology (dictator-appeasing, terrorist-sympthizing, etc) I hear thrown about constantly by right-wing pundits and bloggers with regard to the U.N.
Kerry's got sociopathic tendencies
Speaking of emotional and extrapolative to an uncomfortable degree... you've gotta be kidding. Sociopathic, Bill? I'm sorry, but how is that different from "Bush=Hitler"? If the "moonbats" said "Bush has Hitleresque tendencies", you'd be fine with it? Come on, man... a little perspective.
Finally, what the fuck does the Swift Boat thread have to do with this? I wasn't talking about the motivation for people to lie at all. I was talking about the motivation for people to say something they believe is true, regardless of any after-the-fact assessments of the truthfulness of their statements. My point was not even remotely that Kerry should be given a free pass if indeed he knew what he was saying was false; it was that his testimony should be viewed in the context of the time, rather than 20/20 hindsight. If you really think I was arguing that people should be allowed to lie just because they have good intentions, then you need to read what I wrote just a tad more carefully.
Posted by: Walter Sobchak at October 25, 2004 11:05 AM
Easy to win debates when you make things up. Do we go back an rescore it now a Bush Victory?
Posted by: Prakk at October 25, 2004 11:05 AM
Kerry's got sociopathic tendencies
Walter, that's not meant as hyperbole. People that make stuff up out of whole cloth (Cambodia, UN, hunting trips, etc.) creep me the Hell out, and have some sort of mental condition that varies from "normal." A sociopath has no compunction about lying - it's why I said "sociopathic tendencies."
Perhaps he's a narcissist and I'm misdiagnosing - but he's fucking crazy for saying the things that he says. It's bizarre. You make up your own word that's appropriately descriptive.
I'm not going to get into the rest of your muddled argument, because you're getting emotional today, and frankly, I don't have the energy.
Posted by: Bill from INDC at October 25, 2004 11:19 AM
I'm not going to get into the rest of your muddled argument, because you're getting emotional today
Well, I'm not a big fan of having my integrity questioned or my arguments grossly misinterpreted and then thrown in my face. Please tell me which part of my comment was so "muddled" that you couldn't understand what I meant, and I'll try to clarify it. Of course, I'm sure what you mean by "muddled" is "not in agreement with me", but if it really is unclear, I'll do what I can.
Posted by: Walter Sobchak at October 25, 2004 11:26 AM
It is an interesting story. The WashTimes did not seem to go very in depth though - the Boston Globe interview is very supportive of their argument. I would like to see Kerry provide more information as to who he met with. You can say that, technically, it is the Nation as a whole that is a 'member' of the Security Council (so he may have met with anyone representing those Nations), but he is making it sound like he met with official representatives, and it was a formal meeting.
Posted by: Rollins at October 25, 2004 12:02 PM
Such a sane, thoughtful comment.
I didn't know you had it in you!
(kidding, kidding ... sort of) ;-)
Posted by: Bill from INDC at October 25, 2004 12:13 PM
Kerry Haters had this story in August.
Posted by: Pat Curley at October 25, 2004 12:43 PM
Posted by: Cody at October 25, 2004 12:53 PM
This is horrible. When I hear about something like this, it is sure to remind voters of the fact that Bush has lied to. He really screwed up when he said we attacked Iraq because they didn't let the inspectors in and this is going to remind people that he is dishonest. Ofcourse, wingnuts will glaze over it as they can't comprehend that Bush is big liar, but hey, wingnuts and logic don't mix, kinda like bush and small government.
Posted by: sid at October 25, 2004 01:06 PM
"Hold your magic hat. From what I understand, it's in the works."
Cool, that makes me feel a bit better. I guess I'm "bleh" about it so far just because the story seems to have been reported a bit too early for a newspaper. I would have prefered they got all their ducks in a row first. Good luck with the story in any case.
Posted by: Elric at October 25, 2004 01:13 PM
The missing explosives are potentially the equivalent of 600 Hiroshimas (given that one pound killed 170 at Lockerbie). Nice to know that what really upsets you today is the idea that Kerry overlooked Mexico, Bulgaria and Columbia.
Posted by: jukeboxgrad at October 25, 2004 01:51 PM
"Walter, that's not meant as hyperbole. People that make stuff up out of whole cloth (Cambodia, UN, hunting trips, etc.) creep me the Hell out, and have some sort of mental condition that varies from "normal." A sociopath has no compunction about lying - it's why I said "sociopathic tendencies.""
I agree with this. Honestly what point is there in lying about this kind of stuff? And if you do, what else are you going to be willing to lie about? I would trust the guy who lies to get out of trouble more than the guy who makes crap up just because it makes him feel more important.
Posted by: Just Me at October 25, 2004 01:52 PM
somebody screwed up, but it wasn't President Bush.
Sounds like the Bush campaign has a new slogan....
Posted by: zota at October 25, 2004 01:56 PM
One other thing though, Bill. Just because people feel this story is either under researched or unimportant doesn't mean you should lose your cool on other blogs' comment threads. You know that's bad form. I'm sure you put some work into this and maybe if it gains steam, we'll all become interested. If not, well, not all stories work out. If it helps you, go find a dark room, scream your lungs out, then take a deep breath.
Everybody is mentioning it so it's not like it's going unreported. It doesn't add to, and more likely would subtract from, the exposure if we all ran around going "OMFG KERRY LIAR, LIAR LIAR AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!" That's why I've always liked the right side of the sphere, we tend not to do that. Don't you remember how everyone, including yourself, took an initially skeptical tone regarding the Rathergate stuff? Same deal goes here.
Posted by: Elric at October 25, 2004 01:58 PM
First the "puppies" ad, now this...
You do realize you're being laughed at by more than the hard core Kerry supporters on this stuff, don't you?
When we're not crying or raging about the latest evidence of what a f&%#-up the Iraq adventure really was right from the start...
Posted by: A Hermit at October 25, 2004 04:08 PM
Kerry's response even more damning than original story:
"If Kerry voted against the congressional resolution and then the U.N. Security Council subsequently voted for a tough resolution, Kerry would look like a real wimp," said one source, who contends that Kerry was trying to weigh the politics of his upcoming vote.
"He didn't want to be out of sync," said this source. Had Kerry voted against the congressional resolution when it turns out even Syria voted for Security Council Resolution 1441 (search) in November 2002 authorizing the return of weapons inspectors, "he would really have looked ridiculous," the source added.
Posted by: buzz harsher at October 25, 2004 04:27 PM
Steven W., I went back and checked and it looks like you get the gold star for starting the story; it was your post over at Free Republic which alerted Kerry Haters to the story. Good job! We have given you credit on our blog.
Posted by: Pat Curley at October 25, 2004 04:47 PM
The "sociopath" question is certainly on the table. But sociopaths, though lacking remorse, still know when they're lying; and will keep lying even when they know YOU know they're lying. Clinton was like this. He'd dance like hell but he never lost track. More than a few million found this to be a rather charming trait that he brought to the presidency.
A psychopath doesn't think they're lying. That's what bothers me most about traits I see in Kerry. I don't think he knows when he's lying. It's all about him. He is The Truth. The oedipus and narssistic pathologies seem to permeate this guy. The detachment from reality. The vanity and self absorption. The obsession with celibrity and appearance. The lack of conscience. The predatory history. The absence of any constructive work product. The absence of remorse. Am I the only one getting these impressions?
Posted by: willem at October 26, 2004 12:17 PM
Just wanted to say you make some good points here, and the quote you posted is more troubling than the other ones I've seen. It's not enough to convince me that Kerry makes things up out of "whole cloth," or that he is somehow uniquely disturbingly cynical among Presidential candidates. It's certainly not enough to change my vote at this late date. But it's the first time I've gotten even a glimmer of a sense of why some conservatives are so negative about Kerry, and it bothers me enough that I'm making a mental note of it. Something to watch out for.
Posted by: Rick Taylor at October 26, 2004 03:36 PM
Roger simon has made an important distinction about John K.He is not just a liar,but a pathological liar.He tells lies which can be easily checked,and exposed,when he could easily tell lies which would be tough to catch and which would serve his purpose as well.His entire campaign is based on"I served and protected my country as a young man...",when he must have known such claims would bring a storm down on his head.He leid about being in Cambodia on Christmas Eve,about being the only boat to return to pick up Rasmussen,about the CIA agent,about being at the game when Buckner booted,about the Security Council meeting,about meeting in Paris with both sides,about not testifying that he had committed atrocities ,etc.It is important to understand,these are not just lies,they are lies told deliberately at the edge,it is "catch me if you can".Such people are dangerous in any walk of life.They are self destructive and they take everyone near them with them.If he becomes CEO of the U S we,and the rest of the world are in for big time trouble.I had one such unfortunate in an organization I headed,and it took us years to figure out what he was doing.Most people near him just payed no attention to anything he said,but he nearly wrecked one co worker,whom he convinced to sell his home and move to a new job in a new company which had never heard of him.A few years later ,the poor guy committed suicide as all the lies finally caught up to him.
Posted by: john morrissey at October 26, 2004 04:48 PM
Bush and Cheney are the biggest liars of all. Cheney looked Edwards in the face and told him he had never met him before that debate.
Yet we have VIDEO clearly proving that not only did they meet, but they had breakfast and sat next to each other. They met on several occasions.
If that's not blatant lying, I don't know what is. Both the candidates exaggerate, but Bush takes the taco.
Posted by: angrydem at October 29, 2004 11:51 AM
Posted by: blackjack at October 29, 2004 03:55 PM
Posted by: john morrissey at October 26, 2004 04:48 PM:
That's not lying. He said he didn't recall ever meeting Edwards, and there's no reason not to believe him. Edwards was a lawyer who had gotten into politics, and he was small potatoes then as far as Cheney was concerned.
Back to the original topic: Kerry lied - no surprise.
Prediction: MSM will not give this fact the attention it should get prior to the election because they don't want the undecided voters going with an honest, effective man who will keep the terrorists attacking on foreign soil.
Posted by: Luxtfan at October 29, 2004 09:06 PM
Posted by: slots at October 30, 2004 08:29 PM
Posted by: slots at October 31, 2004 11:11 AM
Posted by: coffee at November 2, 2004 06:57 PM
Posted by: ambien at November 4, 2004 07:51 AM