Kerry the Diplomat? Uh, no.

The Washington Times reports the results of an investigation into John Kerry’s repeated claims that he met with all the members on the UN Security Council during the run-up to the war in Iraq:

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.”

That’s gonna hurt.

More coverage:
Redstate (and still more)

11 comments

  1. Alex

    Well, it’s not as if lying is anything new to Mr Kerry.
    His behavior with regard to the POW/MIA fast track to closing the book on the matter once and for all, led to his cousins securing a 980 million dollar contract with Vietnam, speaks volumes. At the time, there was more than enough evidence to suggest that there were POW’s and MIA’s still held.
    Plus ca change, plus ca reste la meme.

  2. Chet

    That’s it? That’s your devastating October surprise?
    You guys need to open a newspaper. I’d like to see some reactions to the developing story that the US pressured the Iraq Interim government not to report the loss of 350 tons of RDX explosive to the IAEA and, by extension, the American people. That loss was entirely preventable with a little better planning of the occupation – instead, it was allowed to fall into the hands of the insurgency.
    Don’t worry, though. They’re giving it back – piece by piece, in roadside bombs used againt our troops.
    When Bush lies, people die.

  3. Prakk

    Easy to win debates when you make things up. Do we go back an rescore it now a Bush Victory? It’s much easier to understand all the faces Bush made in the debate. He must be saying in his head, “What the…….?”
    Hugh McBryde

  4. Puddle Pirate

    Conservative Chet piped up and squawked:
    That’s it? That’s your devastating October surprise?
    I must admit that it doesn’t hold a candle to voter fraud. Damn us Republicans and our law-abiding ways! Maybe we ought to try the Democrat strategy of stealing elections or litigating our way to victory. Now watch for Chet’s weak retort about Florida four years ago … 3, 2, 1 …
    That loss was entirely preventable with a little better planning of the occupation
    … if you assume the explosives disappeared after we took control. Which is in doubt.

  5. deadscot

    Prakk – Those looks on the President’s face during the debates were more of a ‘Damn, who leaked the real numbers to the democrats?!? Much like his mock humor at owning a lumber company. Got wood?
    PP – So the scandal may be that Kerry sat down and had an informal, off-the-record meeting with representatives of the security council? I’m not thrilled about closed door meetings because it brings back memories of Cheney’s energy meetings, but I would rather have him meeting with them than not meeting at all.

  6. Puddle Pirate

    The scandal is that Kerry lied about his performance of a central part of his foreign policy. Repeatedly. On the record. Knowing it was easily verifiable.
    That’s oh-so-encouraging.

  7. Chet

    Damn us Republicans and our law-abiding ways!
    Too bad you forgot to tell your Sproul Group about your ways. They’re under investigation for massive voter fraud in, what, seven states now?
    .. if you assume the explosives disappeared after we took control. Which is in doubt.
    That’s not what the IAEA seems to think, nor anyone connected to the story. It’s very clear when the explosives were taken – when they were completely unguarded during our disasterously unplanned occupation.
    The scandal is that Kerry lied about his performance of a central part of his foreign policy.
    How many people died as a result, here, if it turns out that Kerry lied? (Which, at this point, only a very dubious argument can be made?)

  8. Puddle Pirate

    How many people died as a result, here, if it turns out that Kerry lied?
    None yet, but give him time. If he’s elected, millions in Iraq are screwed. Followed by another 9/11 or worse here, which seems to be the only people that count judging by your qualified question above.

  9. Chet

    If he’s elected, millions in Iraq are screwed.
    There’s no indication that Kerry plans any kind of premature Iraq pullout.
    On the other hand, there’s no indication that the Bush administration will be able to accomplish anything but a premature pullout. They just don’t have the connection to reality to pull it off, as evidenced by their reactions to the IAEA story – “wasn’t our fault; isn’t really that bad,” etc.
    This is not an administration that cares about reality. This is an administration that believes they can create their own reality. They said as much to Ron Suskind.
    I’m sorry, but I don’t understand why anyone would trust these people to accomplish anything. Doesn’t the belief that you can create your own reality constitute “crazy” in your book?

  10. Chet

    Oh, you mean that so-called “search” by the 101st Airborne? Too bad (for you and Bush) that it wasn’t a search at all, according to Lai Ling, an NBC news crewperson who was there with the 101st Airborne:
    No. There wasn’t a search. The mission that the brigade had was to get to Baghdad. That was more of a pit stop there for us. And, you know, the searching, I mean certainly some of the soldiers head off on their own, looked through the bunkers just to look at the vast amount of ordnance lying around.
    Good luck trying to pin your refutations on a “pit stop.” Estimates of the number of buldings at the Al Qa Qaa complex range from 80 to 1000. And you think a 24-hour pit stop counts as a thorough search of the premises?
    And, of course, the major problem for your pet theory – “they were gone when we got there” – is that the 3rd Infantry Division was there a week before the 101st Airborne, and they did ascertain that the explosives were present.
    Going down in flames? Looks like a bombshell, to me.