JOHN KERRY'S BIG LIE
Two stories, one from the Washington Times that clearly injures Kerry, and one from the New York Times that was intended to wound Bush, but won't.
Joel Mowbry of the Washington Times investigated this John Kerry claim in the second presidential debate:
"'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."
Kerry had made the same claim a year ago:
"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 Mowbry reports Kerry had no such meetings and no such understandings:
"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."
Like the memory of his secret and illegal mission to Cambodia on Christmas Eve in 1968 --an experience Kerry said on the floor of the Senate in 1986 had been "seared, seared" into his memory-- Kerry's memory of meeting with the entire Security Council, or even a majority of it, is simply whole clothe fabrication. A lie. A tall tale spun for the political advantage he hoped it would bring. Just like his tales of cross-border adventure in Cambodia.
So what first person account of John Kerry's can you trust? Answer: None that arrive without third party verification.
The second story concerns a big weapons dump in Iraq that the New York Times reports was looted after the war. Evidently no one is buying the "Bush let Osama get away at Tora Bora" line so a new angle is produced: "Bush let the munitions get away." From this voters are supposed to conclude that Bush is botching the war on terror and that John Kerry --with or without his Security Council meetings-- will do a better job. Which is exactly why overwhelming majorities of soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines prefer Bush over Kerry, I suppose. They want the C-in-C who in their judgment is less competent? Never mind what the uniforms think! Trust Josh Marshall! He knows all about what happened and how the Bushies tried to cover it up! Just like the last time Josh had it all figured out.
Now examine these two stories very carefully, for one of them speculates that certain munitions might have been looted, that they might have been looted after the war when American troops might have prevented that looting and that they might someday be used against American troops.
The other reminds us of direct John Kerry quotes, made to the national audience in the second presidential debate, which are shown to be lies.
Which story is going to have a greater impact on the presidential race? There is clear Bush momentum that is going to accelerate as the non-meeting with the Security Council story gets legs and reminds voters of Kerry's magic hat, his never falling down on the ski slopes, and his gun running to the anti-communists of Cambodia. More details to follow at RedState. |
