Good Reading
Florida Flag Fellow FL Folks
Buttons & Such

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Monday, October 25, 2004

Kerry lied, again. This time it was fabricated out of whole cloth to an international audience of millions of viewers, and it was designed to impact U.S. foreign policy. Mr. Kerry seems to have a serious problem understanding the truth, and also understanding that it is solely the province of the Executive to be the voice of the United States in foreign policy. Kerry's seeming unawareness of this Consititutional mandate (some call it "treason") first presented itself when he met with Madam Bingh of the VietCong "government" in France, while we were still at war with Vietnam; it comes up again just one week before the vote on the Iraq war. The Washington Times reports:
    "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. {ed.-- see the video}

    '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.

    {emphasis mine}

INDC Journal shows two other specific instances where Kerry claims to have met with the Security Council, and even where he claims that Germany was a part of the security council in 2001. Moreover, if Kerry left "the meeting" convinced that he could get the other allies on board, why did he then go ahead and vote for the war just one week later? Is it that he was not nearly as convinced as he would like us to believe, or that the meeting is an utter fabrication?

It's not a blow job in the White House, it's MUCH, MUCH more serious.