Monday, October 25, 2004

Kerry Lied about Meeting with U.N. Security Council

The Washington Times is reporting that, contrary to numerous statements Senator Kerry has made on the campaign trail, he did not meet with all members of the U.N. Security Council just a week before voting in October 2002 to authorize the use of force in Iraq.

Kerry has made this claim at least twice, once in December, 2003 before the Council on Foreign Relations in New York, and once at the second presidential debate earlier this month. Each time, Kerry cited his meeting "with the entire Security Council" as proof of his attention to international concerns and his superior understanding of foreign policy. The only problem is, it isn't true.
Ambassador Andres Franco, the permanent deputy representative from Colombia during its Security Council membership from 2001 to 2002, said, "I never heard of anything."
Adolfo Aguilar Zinser, Mexico's then-ambassador to the United Nations, said: "There was no meeting with John Kerry before Resolution 1441, or at least not in my memory."
Could they have forgotten?

Stefan Tafrov, Bulgaria's ambassador at the time, said he remembers the period well because it "was a very contentious time."
Maybe the U.N. has a record of the meeting?

Asked whether the international body had any records of Mr. Kerry sitting down with the whole council, a U.N. spokesman said that "our office does not have any record of this meeting."
Did he speak to anyone?

After conversations with ambassadors from five members of the Security Council in 2002 and calls to all the missions of the countries then on the panel, The Times was only able to confirm directly that Mr. Kerry had met with representatives of France, Singapore and Cameroon.
France, Singapore and Cameroon, now that's an alliance! Not even his friends the French are willing to lie for him:
Jean-David Levitte, then France's chief U.N. representative and now his country's ambassador to the United States, said through a spokeswoman that Mr. Kerry did not have a single group meeting as the senator has described, but rather several one-on-one or small-group encounters.

He added that Mr. Kerry did not meet with every member of the Security Council, only "some" of them. Mr. Levitte could only name himself and Ambassador Jeremy Greenstock of Britain as the Security Council members with whom Mr. Kerry had met.
Powerline had hinted at this story on Saturday as a potential "serious problem" for Kerry, but I don't know if the MSM will let it rise to that level. I do think that it shows serious flaws in Kerry's character and is more evidence of his tendency for self-aggrandizement and his willingness to lie to make political points. He lied (or at least remained silent) about his ancestry so that he could be seen as "Irish" in Boston; he lied, on the floor of the Senate, about being illegally ordered into Cambodia on Christmas Eve, 1968 in order to attack then-President Reagan's Latin American policies and, more recently, he lied about receiving endorsements from unnamed "foreign leaders".

All of these lies have since been recanted by the Kerry campaign. You can add to this list further allegations regarding the entirety of his service in Viet Nam, including the manner in which he won the three Purple Hearts that sent him home early. All of this is particularly ironic coming from a candidate who has repeatedly charged that President Bush has lied to the American people and who has claimed that among his mother's last words to him were "Remember: integrity, integrity, integrity."

So, given all this, how does the Kerry campaign respond to these latest allegations?
When reached for comment last week, an official with the Kerry campaign stood by the candidate's previous claims that he had met with the entire Security Council.

But after being told late yesterday of the results of The Times investigation, the Kerry campaign issued a statement that read in part, "It was a closed meeting and a private discussion."

A Kerry aide refused to identify who participated in the meeting.
The statement did not repeat Mr. Kerry's claims of a lengthy meeting with the entire 15-member Security Council, instead saying the candidate "met with a group of representatives of countries sitting on the Security Council."
More backtracking, and more secrecy. This story does shed a light on Kerry's character, and its not very flattering.

More Commetary on Kerry's Latest Lie

Blogs for Bush
Kerry being a liar is nothing new. Kerry's campaign is sinking on its own without this story
The Kerry Spot
This story feels like a rerun of his claim of support from "foreign leaders." Under Kerry's rules, he is allowed to cite these private conversations to promote himself and his candidacy, but no one is allowed to ask him questions about those meetings, because they're "private." (which tipped the story to Powerline)
This isn't gotcha: it directly undermines a key element of the Kerry mythos. After a public lifetime of anti-Americanism and fecklessness, Kerry knows that he needs drive home the five points listed above in order to convince the American people of his fitness to represent and lead our nation abroad. How to square this with that? How to explain the big lie? How to dismiss the appropriation of -- and believe us, the insult to -- these nations with whom Kerry will purportedly work and ally? How to pretend that this is the act of a man laying claim as a central campaign theme the pretense to superior diplomacy, and yes, honesty? How to explain that nettlesome Iraq war resolution vote now? What does John Kerry say? Does he forthrightly acknowledge his error? Or, like the loudmouthed teenager caught bragging about romantic conquests never made, does he simply pretend it never happened?
Captain's Quarters
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.
INDC Journal
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.
John's bogus (UN) journey
For those of you feeling a bit let down after all the hype, here's two more stories that should light a fire under you.

Kerry refuses interview with Bob Woodward about what he would have done at certain key points on Iraq.

John Kerry was given money by an Albanian terrorist organization known as the Kosovo Liberation Army.