SECURITY COUNCIL MEMBERS DENY MEETING KERRY
Joel Mawbry
Special to the Washington Times
http://washingtontimes.com/national/...0609-9428r.htm
U.N. ambassadors from several nations are disputing assertions by Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry that he met for hours 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.
An investigation by The Washington Times reveals that while the candidate did talk for an unspecified period to at least a few members of the panel, no such meeting, as described by Mr. Kerry on a number of occasions over the past year, ever occurred.
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.
"This president hasn't listened. I went to meet with the members of the Security Council in the week before we voted. I went to New York. I talked to all of them, to find out how serious they were about really holding Saddam Hussein accountable," Mr. Kerry said of the Iraqi dictator.
Speaking before the Council on Foreign Relations in New York in December 2003, Mr. Kerry explained that he understood the "real readiness" of the United Nations to "take this seriously" because he met "with the entire Security Council, and we spent a couple of hours talking about what they saw as the path to a united front in order to be able to deal with Saddam Hussein."
But of the five ambassadors on the Security Council in 2002 who were reached directly for comment, four said they had never met Mr. Kerry. The four also said that no one who worked for their countries' U.N. missions had met with Mr. Kerry either.
The former ambassadors who said on the record they had never met Mr. Kerry included the representatives of Mexico, Colombia and Bulgaria. The ambassador of a fourth country gave a similar account on the condition that his country not be identified.
Ambassador Andres Franco, the permanent deputy representative from Colombia during its Security Council membership from 2001 to 2002, said, "I never heard of anything."
Although Mr. Franco was quick to note that Mr. Kerry could have met some members of the panel, he also said that "everything can be heard in the corridors."
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."
All had vivid recollections of the time frame when Mr. Kerry traveled to New York, as it was shortly before the Nov. 7, 2002, enactment of Resolution 1441, which said Iraq was in "material breach" of earlier disarmament resolutions and warned Baghdad of "serious consequences as a result of its continued violations."
Stefan Tafrov, Bulgaria's ambassador at the time, said he remembers the period well because it "was a very contentious time."
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.
In addition, second-hand accounts have Mr. Kerry meeting with representatives of Britain.
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."
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."
A U.S. official with intimate knowledge of the Security Council's actions in fall of 2002 said that he was not aware of any meeting Mr. Kerry had with members of the panel.
An official at the U.S. mission to the United Nations remarked: "We were as surprised as anyone when Kerry started talking about a meeting with the Security Council."
Jean-David Levitte, then France's chief U.N. representative and now his country's ambassador to the United States, said through a spokeswoman that Mr. Kerry did not have a single group meeting as the senator has described, but rather several one-on-one or small-group encounters.
He added that Mr. Kerry did not meet with every member of the Security Council, only "some" of them. Mr. Levitte could only name himself and Ambassador Jeremy Greenstock of Britain as the Security Council members with whom Mr. Kerry had met.
One diplomat who met with Mr. Kerry in 2002 said on the condition of anonymity that the candidate talked to "a few" ambassadors on the Security Council.
The revelation that Mr. Kerry never met with the entire U.N. Security Council could be problematic for the Massachusetts senator, as it clashes with one of his central foreign-policy campaign themes — HONESTY.
At a New Mexico rally last month, Mr. Kerry said Mr. Bush will "do anything he can to cover up the truth." At what campaign aides billed as a major foreign-policy address, Mr. Kerry said at New York University last month that "the first and most fundamental mistake was the president's failure to tell the truth to the American people."
In recent months, Mr. Kerry has faced numerous charges of dishonesty from Vietnam veterans over his war record, and his campaign has backtracked before from previous statements about Mr. Kerry's foreign diplomacy.
For example, in March, Mr. Kerry told reporters in Florida that he'd met with foreign leaders who privately endorsed him.
"I've met with foreign leaders who can't go out and say this publicly," he said. "But, boy, they look at you and say: 'You've got to win this. You've got to beat this guy. We need a new policy.' "
But the senator refused to do ent his claim and a review by The Times showed that Mr. Kerry had made no official foreign trips since the start of 2002, according to Senate records and his own published schedules. An extensive review of Mr. Kerry's domestic travel schedule revealed only one opportunity for him to have met foreign leaders here.
After a week of bad press, Kerry foreign-policy adviser Rand Beers said the candidate "does not seek, and will not accept, any such endorsements."
The Democrat has also made his own veracity a centerpiece of his campaign, calling truthfulness "the fundamental test of leadership."
Mr. Kerry closed the final debate by recounting what his mother told him from her hospital bed, "Remember: integrity, integrity, integrity."
In an interview published in the new issue of Rolling Stone magazine, Mr. Kerry was asked what he would want people to remember about his presidency. He responded, "That it always told the truth to the American people."
An investigation by The Washington Times reveals that while the candidate did talk for an unspecified period to at least a few members of the panel, no such meeting, as described by Mr. Kerry on a number of occasions over the past year, ever occurred.
I don't think it will be a big deal. And we all know the Washington-Times is a conservative republican news media outlet. Just look at their web site.
It certainly won't be a big deal after Kerry loses the election next week.
Landshark "gets it".
Alright, this story has been debunked...
Atrios BlogspotThe WashTimes is calling Kerry a liar by saying he said he met with the entire Security Council and the WashTimes has found that he didn't meet with the representatives of Mexico, Colombia and Bulgaria.
Kerry's exact quote:
So I sat with the French and British, Germans, with the entire Security Council, and we spent a couple of hours talking about what they saw as the path to a united front in order to be able to deal with Saddam Hussein.
What the WashTimes didn't stop to think about is that maybe Kerry meant the permanent Security Council, who is the US, French, British, Russians, China.
Nothing will be a big deal for Bush if he wins either.
Expect a huge deficit when he leaves office with a smile on his face and you have that "why did I vote for him" look on your face.
Kinda like Clinton huh McBragg?
Clinton left with a hugh surplus and a (still) growing economy.
How does a "hugh" surplus help the nation?
So, he met with Russia and China? Face it, Nbadanallah, the guys a ing liar...and, has been one for many, many decades.
Bush lied and people died and keep on dieing, but that doesn't seem to register with you or you are just so far up W's ass you can't see the forest from the trees.
Wanna use rhetoric Dan? Funny you should keep calling Bush a liar cause Kerry invented the term. You are so far up Kerry's ass, you can't tell the turds from the hemmorhoids.
Demoncratic diversion #1,233,324,212.
Oh, and President Bush hasn't lied about anything related to the war in Iraq or the war on global terrorism and, just because you continue to say so won't change that fact.
Oh, and President Bush hasn't lied about anything related to the war in Iraq or the war on global terrorism and, just because you continue to say so won't change that fact.
Yeah, so those WMD's and Al-Queda connections are gonna pop up at any time now.
They already have and you missed it...
Yeah, so those WMD's and Al-Queda connections are gonna pop up at any time now.
Damn, pay attention, will ya?
What has Kerry lied about that led to the death of 10,000+ innocent civilians?Wanna use rhetoric Dan? Funny you should keep calling Bush a liar cause Kerry invented the term. You are so far up Kerry's ass, you can't tell the turds from the hemmorhoids.
They already have and you missed it...
Stay off Fox News for awhile. They haven't found any Al-queda connections or WMD stockpiles in Iraq.
Let's turn this around. Kerry lied when he testified before the Senate during Vietnam that our troops were torturers, murderers, etc. Meanwhile, our troops were being murdered and tortured by the Vietnamese. Kerry lied, and people kept on dieing (a lot more than have died on Bush's watch).Bush lied and people died and keep on dieing, but that doesn't seem to register with you or you are just so far up W's ass you can't see the forest from the trees.
Didn't you just post a thread about 380 tons of explosives? How many tons does one need to qualify one's self as a holder of WMD?Yeah, so those WMD's and Al-Queda connections are gonna pop up at any time now.
Your logic assumes that the prisoners would not have been tortured anyway by the North Koreans. False logic. John Kerry was trying to bring as many of our POWS/MIA's home while Nixon and Ford just ignored the problem.Let's turn this around. Kerry lied when he testified before the Senate during Vietnam that our troops were torturers, murderers, etc. Meanwhile, our troops were being murdered and tortured by the Vietnamese. Kerry lied, and people kept on dieing (a lot more than have died on Bush's watch).
No surprise.
Just because terrorists may have the neccessary ingrediants for a crued WMD now doesn't mean they had them when W and the Neocons were justifying this fiasco in the first place.Didn't you just post a thread about 380 tons of explosives? How many tons does one need to qualify one's self as a holder of WMD?
yeah. I'm going to mix up the proper "ingrediants" and enjoy a fine margarita tonight.
Maybe then danny boy's posts will make sense.
Innocent civilians? You want to talk about innocent civilians???? I notice you didn't mention the 3,000 innocent civilians killed in New York on 9-11 so I guess they were not innocent in your eyes. Goddanm Americans. They deserved it. I think Kerry's lies about Vietnam definetely led to the encouragement of people like Osama and Sadaam. They saw him as an ally and still do. Oh, and by the way, you're on that list too!
Okay, a couple of more things about this so-called "meeting" with the UN Security Council.
Who invited the Junior Senator from Massachussetts to speak to the UNSC and why -- particularly before he was a candidate for President? And, Germany didn't join the Security Council until 2003. Ooops!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
