Running Scared: Observations of a Former Republican
[Home] [Former Republican] [About the Authors] [RSS Feed] [Pointless Vanity]

"Losing my faith in humanity ... one neocon at a time."

Monday, October 25, 2004

Update on the "KERRY LIED!" Story

posted by Jazz at 10/25/2004 04:07:00 PM


Regarding my previous entry on the Washington Times "bombshell" earlier today, I was advised in comments by Tacticus to go check out for the truth of the matter. I have done so. (Brief aside... I'd never seen the Tacticus blog before, but it looks pretty good. A variety of contributors with different points of view, largely on political topics, which I'll be taking a longer look at this week and probably blogrolling. Check it out.)

What I found there gives some indications which might add some weight to the right side's argument, but it still seems far from conclusive. I hate being put in the position to act like a politician, but I can address some of their quotes. Please take a look at their quotes to decide for yourselves.

Almost all of the quotes talk about meeting with "members of the security council" and "the security council" but at no point does it specifically say that it was a meeting of the entire security council at one time. Also, in many of the quotes which redstate lists, Kerry specifically says, I met with "... the Germans, the French, the British..." which, to me, still sounds like it would be referring to individual meetings.

To give fair play to the other side, however, he does say on more than one occasion, (and I'm just giving redstate the benefit of the doubt, assuming that each and every quote is 100% dead on accurate without fact checking them) that he met with the "entire security council."

Now, a case could still be made that he was referring to all of the members of the permanent council, none of which have denied talking to him. But for the moment, let's play devil's advocate and assume that he fully intended to imply that he had spoken to all fifteen members of the council who were onboard at that time. Fair enough. He claimed to have met with fifteen of them while in reality he only met with eleven or twelve. Here, we have caught Kerry in at least an exaggeration, or if you prefer, and outright lie.

What was he lying about? He's talking about the fact that he took the time and effort to go meet with the members of the UN Security Council to discuss the important Iraq resolution before the vote. The number of people he talked to may have been off, if he skipped the all important Bulgarian delegation, but he did what he was claiming to have done.

Second, and in my opinion, far more important point - let's say you are the Washington Times and you are looking to bring up an October Surprise to help your guy out. And "your guy" is the Bush-Cheney team. Is the issue of lying, honesty and credibility (because that's all there really is left to this story once you concede that Kerry really did meet with most of the UN delegates to talk about the resolution) really the issue you want to bring into a fight? If Bush is your boxer, you're going to walk into the ring and lead out with a jab saying, "Kerry said he met with 15 members and he only met with ELEVEN!"

Your opponent is now going to pull back his right fist to the vicinity of Omaha and unleash a set of haymakers that will break every bone in your body. Both Bush and Cheney have been caught dead to rights on so many blatant lies over the course of their administration that it's staggering. We don't' even have to search back past the last few weeks and the debates!

Bush: "I don't think I ever said I wasn't concerned about bin Laden. That must be one of them, what ya call'em?.. ex zag ree ayshuns!" (Cut to film of Bush saying exactly that at a press conference.)

Cheney: " No, no. I never said that it was pretty well confirmed that Saddam met with Al Queda terrorists..." ) Cut to "Meet the Press" interview where Cheney is saying, "'s pretty well confirmed that he met..."

Seriously now. Is this the fight that you want to drag Bush into with eight days to go? The Washington Times may have done more harm to Bush than good in their effort to help him. I'm not going to argue that Kerry is some sort of pillar of honesty. He's a politician and, facts be known, I still don't even like him. Living in a blue state where my vote doesn't count anyway, I'm still tettering on the edge of voting for the Libertarian candidate just to make a statement. But this "revelation" by the Washington Times is still, I'm afraid, a real yawner.