Kerry's Honesty: Who Did He Meet with at the UN?

Society Pakistan & World Affairs
1

** "John Kerry has repeatedly claimed to have met with the entire U.N. Security Council before a Senate resolution on Iraq in 2002, most recently at the second presidential debate where he said, “I went to meet with the members of the Security Council in the week before we voted…I talked to all of them.”

But it turns out that Kerry sat down with only four of the fifteen Security Council members — France, Great Britain, Cameroon and Singapore. What’s more, sources present at that meeting say that Kerry seemed worried that voting out of step with the U.N. would make him look bad.
A Kerry spokesman continued to call Kerry’s version of the meeting “a fact.” "
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,136655,00.html
**

Is this the same guy who keeps saying he wants to be straight and honest with the American people or did Al Gore somehow slip into Kerry’s body when he made these claims? Kerry did not talk to all of them. Presumably, he knows how many members are on the Security Council. At least, he must know there are more than four members.

2

So myvoice.. other than the honesty angle, what is the significance of meeting with 4 or all of them?

3

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Faisal: *
So myvoice.. other than the honesty angle, what is the significance of meeting with 4 or all of them?
[/QUOTE]

So you're asking me: Other than speaking directly to 60 million+ American voters during the Presidential debate and flat out lieing to them, what is my point?

Hmm.... I guess that's my only point.

During and after the debates, Kerry has more or less campaigned on the main theme that Bush has lied to them and that he will not.

4

But Kerry's lie did not hurt anyone or did he? having said that he must not generalise things based on a lesser count. Atleast not on that level.

But on the other hand, Bush's lie cost around 22,000 innocent Iraqi lives and 1100 US soldiers as well. That lie cost US and world very heavily. US lost sympathy of the world that it had after 9/11 and also lost the crediblity because of this Texan cowboy a**h*le.

5

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by myvoice: *
So you're asking me: Other than speaking directly to 60 million+ American voters during the Presidential debate and flat out lieing to them, what is my point?

Hmm.... I guess that's my only point.
[/QUOTE]
Well, thats fine. What I am asking is what is the whole significance of him meeting with SC in 2002? Why would he lie about meeting all of them when he met 4 of them, and how does it impact the US population? Leave the honesty part out and tell us the scoop on why him meeting with SC is so important?

Or is this the only LIE you can find out about Kerry??? I don't think so. If you try hard enough, I am sure you can find more. All politicians are habitual liars. What we always try to figure out is how their lies hurt the nation.

6

Talking about lies during presidential debate in front of 60 million Americans.
President Bush on 3rd debate: "Gosh, I just don't think I ever said I'm not worried about Osama bin Laden. It's kind of one of those exaggerations."

In news conference on March 13, 2002, Bush said when asked about the search for the al Qaeda leader: "So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him, we haven't heard much from him. ... And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don't know where he is. I — I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him."

mv, you didn’t mention this lie eh?

7

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by smooth_guy: *
But Kerry's lie did not hurt anyone or did he? having said that he must not generalise things based on a lesser count. Atleast not on that level.

But on the other hand, Bush's lie cost around 22,000 innocent Iraqi lives and 1100 US soldiers as well. That lie cost US and world very heavily. US lost sympathy of the world that it had after 9/11 and also lost the crediblity because of this Texan cowboy a**h*le.
[/QUOTE]

Man you hit the nail so hard it flew through the wall and out the other side. It missed Mr. mv head by a whisker of an inch. So be careful next time. Will ya?

8

you lost all credibility when the words Fox News appeared in your message

9

Basically why should members of the Security Committee meet with him? Frankly he is a lightweight in the Senate. And, he barely attends the meetings he is supposed to attend in the Senate, according to Annenberg FactCheck:

Summary
A Bush-Cheney '04 ad released Aug. 13 accuses Kerry of being absent for 76% of the Senate Intelligence Committee’s public hearings during the time he served there. The Kerry campaign calls the ad “misleading,” so we checked, and Bush is right.

Official records show Kerry not present for at least 76% of public hearings held during his eight years on the panel, and possibly 78% (the record of one hearing is ambiguous).

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx@DocID=241.html

Why should leaders of the World NOT meet with him? Well frankly he is not really a legislative dynamo either! Here is a comprehensive record of all bill passed that he authored during his Senate tenure. Almost laughable:

S.791: Authorizes $53 million over four years to provide grants to woman-owned small businesses. (1999)
S.1206: Names a federal building in Waltham, Massachusetts after Frederick C. Murphy, who was killed in action during World War II and awarded (posthumously) the Medal of Honor. (1994)
S.1636: A save-the-dolphins measure aiming “to improve the program to reduce the incidental taking of marine mammals during the course of commercial fishing operations.” (1994)
S.1563: Funding the National Sea Grant College Program, which supports university-based research, public education, and other projects “to promote better understanding, conservation and use of America’s coastal resources.” (1991)
S.423: Granting a visa and admission to the U.S. as a permanent resident to Kil Joon Yu Callahan. (1987)
H.R.1900 (S.300): Awarded a congressional gold medal to Jackie Robinson (posthumously), and called for a national day of recognition. (2003)
H.R.1860 (S.856): Increased the maximum research grants for small businesses from $500,000 to $750,000 under the Small Business Technology Transfer Program. (2001)
S.J.Res.158: To make the week of Oct. 22 – Oct. 28, 1989 “World Population Awareness Week.” (1989)
S.J.Res.160: To renew “World Population Awareness Week” for 1991. (1991)
S.J.Res.318: To make Nov. 13, 1992 “Vietnam Veterans Memorial 10th Anniversary Day.” (1992)
S.J.Res.337: To make Sept. 18, 1992 “National POW/MIA Recognition Day." (1992)
http://www.factcheck.org/article282.html

Kerry SAYS all the things that Liberals want to hear, but the fact is that his record of achievement is rather pitiful, both on Legislative issues, and on Committee issues. At some point you have to ask, is this guy even qualified? On the other hand, he and Senator Edwards both have great hair.

10

Faisal: Basically, you’re asking me to surmise why Kerry and his advisors felt that the statement during the debate and at other appearances of him meeting with all the UN Security Council Members was important, even though it was a lie.

First, given the preparation and careful planning that occurs, we can surmise that the statement was carefully considered and deemed important by the Kerry team. Putting the statement in context of the main issues at the time, the statement, if true, could help Kerry in a couple areas.

  1. Kerry claims that he can build better UN and foreign support for our war on terror. His claim that he met with all UN Security Council Members before voting on the war authorization is an attempt to bolster the bigger argument/claim. Makes him sound like an engaged statesman who has some established relationship with these representatives.
  2. Kerry also was trying to argue that he is not a flip-flopper and that his position on Iraq was consistent throughout. His claimed meeting with the entire Security Council is designed to bolster that claim. He makes it sound as if he was “in synch” with the UN at the time he voted for the war authorization. Thus, he can try to more credibly argue that he voted for the war before it happened but was still against the war when it happened.

The thing about Kerry that you need to remember is that he needed to re-invent himself for the debates and try to sound coherent against a backdrop of inconsistency. Many Americans got their first introduction to Kerry during the debates. A meeting with the entire UN Security Council sounds much more impressive than him having individual meetings with the UN Ambassadors from Cameroon, France, Great Britain and Singapore . By that time, we didn’t even serve “French Fries” anymore in America, Bush was busy working out invasion plans with Tony Blair (not the Ambassador) and most Americans would not be impressed that a President would define his foreign policy based upon the inclinations of ambassadors from Cameroon and Singapore.

Compare these two statements:
Statement 1 (LIE):
"I went to meet with the members of the Security Council in the week before we voted...I talked to all of them."

Statement 2 (TRUTH):
“In the week before we voted, I talked to the UN Ambassadors for Singapore, Cameroon, France and Great Britain.”

If he had spoken the truth, the very well behaved audience would probably have busted out laughing along with all the TV viewers.

EDIT: And for the peanut gallery, try to stay focused on the topic for once. We are talking about a specific lie made by Kerry during the debate. If you are not interested in discussing it, just go away. If you want to open a thread comparing the abilities of the respective candidates to lie, go ahead.

11

If we were comparing Kerry to some legislative juggernaut, policy wonk or experienced public servant than all this stuff might matter. But we are comparing him to a president who spent most of his adult life goofing off while Kerry gave service to his country. A person whose knowledge of issues and foreign policy 4 years ago was equal to that of an average freshman college student. Someone who has virtually NO achievements or successes to point to in 4 years. Bush was the least qualified person in my lifetime to become president. It's almost as laughable for Bush supporters to compare his liftetime achievement awards to Kerry's as it is to call Kerry a liar.

12

my my the Pubes are getting desperate by the hour

first military service.. now lying? am I the only one who sees the irony in the attack pattern of the Republicans?

13

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by myvoice: *
Statement 2 (TRUTH):
“In the week before we voted, I talked to the UN Ambassadors for Singapore, Cameroon, France and Great Britain.”
[/QUOTE]
May be he did talk to the rest of them on the phone.. I mean, how do we know one way or the other?

Or he could have worded it differently, like "I went to meet with the members of the Security Council in the week before we voted...I talked to almost all of our important allies". He can still make the same point, as generic statements are hard to disprove. He did say he "talked", and not "met".

Point is, in 2002, he was just a US Senator who had Presidential ambitions. World nations could care less about him or his opinions. Its only when one is elected President, that the paradigm shifts, so despite all the bravado of "talking" to UN SC, anyone who reads it pretty much knows whats happening. Plus, you are quoting FoxNews, who, as we all know, is prone to spinning stuff in a particular way as well to push this story, and even the link you provided stopped after a grand total of 2 paragraphs and then started on a cartoon. So, unless you have some other interesting "Kerry Lies" to keep the interest alive, this one doesn't seem to be going anywhere.

14

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Faisal: *
May be he did talk to the rest of them on the phone.. I mean, how do we know one way or the other?

[/QUOTE]

If you listened to the news last night, you would know that the rest of them have denied talking to him. So either they are lying or he is lying. Since they are not running for President and since most probably don’t support Bush, my guess is that it is Kerry who is lying.

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Faisal: *
Or he could have worded it differently, like "I went to meet with the members of the Security Council in the week before we voted...I talked to almost all of our important allies". He can still make the same point, as generic statements are hard to disprove. He did say he "talked", and not "met".
[/QUOTE]

Still a no go. UK, France, Cameroon and Singapore hardly constitute “almost all our important allies.”

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Faisal: *
Point is, in 2002, he was just a US Senator who had Presidential ambitions. World nations could care less about him or his opinions. Its only when one is elected President, that the paradigm shifts, so despite all the bravado of "talking" to UN SC, anyone who reads it pretty much knows whats happening.
[/QUOTE]

Exactly right. The claim Kerry made didn’t sound plausible to me at the time he made it. I’m a little surprised it took the media and/or the Bush campaign this long to ask the UN Ambassadors of Security Council members whether Kerry met or talked to them. But, since you and I both find it implausible that he would have met with them, why do you find it so hard to acknowledge that Kerry lied about it?

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Faisal: *
Plus, you are quoting FoxNews, who, as we all know, is prone to spinning stuff in a particular way as well to push this story, and even the link you provided stopped after a grand total of 2 paragraphs and then started on a cartoon. So, unless you have some other interesting "Kerry Lies" to keep the interest alive, this one doesn't seem to be going anywhere.
[/QUOTE]

I have no doubt that Fox will push this story in the coming days. I certainly don’t expect CBS to carry it or see an election eve 60 Minutes break the story. Nor will it be in the NY Times or the Guardian. That Kerry lied is pretty well established. If Fox is the only network that thinks the fact of Kerry lying is newsworthy, so be it. Thankfully, it has one of the largest audiences in the US and voters will get the story, as always…..fair and balanced.

15

As I said before, lies by politicians don't interest me all that much, cz pretty much all of them (just as all of us) lie at some point or the other. What we should, therefore, consider is the magnitude of the lie and how did it hurt the nation. A politican trying to sound more important than he actually is, is definitely a lie, but hardly an earth-shattering occurance.

Sure, you and other Reps will rejoice and say "see, he is not such a straight-shooter himself", but the fact is, as we all know, majority of people who will vote for Kerry, won't vote for him because they like Kerry or think that he has never told a lie before, but because their dislike for Bush is much higher. From day one, Republicans have launched a concerted media campaign to portray Kerry as a flip-flopper on Iraq. So much so, that I am pretty sure every single voter on November 2nd, would have heard about it and kinda agree that Kerry shifted positions, and Kerry's flat denial during debates that he ever flip-flopped would also be a lie too, but seems like none of likely Kerry voters could care less about it. In my view, that is an even bigger issue than he saying he met a few more Ambassadors in 2002, when he only met 4. Its hard to make a intrinsic connection on whats the big deal about these meetings anyway.

16

Yawn, zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

17

Looks like analysts in GOP camp carrying microscopes to find minor differences in Kerry’s statements which have no importance whatsoever.

While on the other hand news on all the national networks are enough to reveal Bush’s lie, unintentionally. The facts are facts, they are happening, they become news automatically. Sorry georgie we can’t help you on that, your deeds are coming back to haunt you baby :hehe:
First FBI report that president was told on August 6, 2001 about alqaida’s terrorist plans and suspecious flight students in mid-west, then 9/11 commission report (no alqaida-iraq connection), then Iraqi WMD report from intelligence, then vaccine crises and now stolen stock pile of explosives. Good work baby :k: Dubya all the way !!!

18

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by myvoice: *

So you're asking me: Other than speaking directly to 60 million+ American voters during the Presidential debate and flat out lieing to them, what is my point?

Hmm.... I guess that's my only point.

[/QUOTE]

Is the purpose of this thread to justify Iraq war, Afghanistan War, the brezel attack, Bushs Insanity and the WMDs and and and?!

Then there is no point you have.

19

myvoice bhaijaan, :clap:

You just turned over a few undecided voters Bush’s way. Kudos.