John "Mr. Integrity" Kerry caught in a lie
 

I haven't heard the mainstream media spend any time on it, what with the missing Iraq munitions to blame on Bush, but an investigation by The Washington Times has debunked Kerry's claim that he met with the U.N. Security Council for hours, before voting to authorize the use of force in Iraq.
Here's the link, for those who are interested:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/natio...0600-3030r.htm


Kerry will say or do anything that may increase his chances of winning (e,g, the reference to Cheney's lesbian daughter in the third debate). It frightens me that he's that obsessed with winning.

So, what's yer point? For the Kool-aid drinking Democrats, Kerry is as pure as the driven snow, and nothing you can say will change their minds. For the Kool-aid drinking Republicans, they already know about his long string of lies, and nothing you can say can make them think he has an ounce of integrity in his heavily botoxed head. For the people who haven't made up their minds, they're asleep and don't want to hear you, as long as there's still bread and circuses.

All is futile.

dang it, lost my buzz, didn't I....

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=73739

Already been discussed, and torn apart as nitpicky.

The Kool-aid drinking Democrats think Kerry is the driven snow ... and the Kool-aid drinking Republicans already know about Kerry's long string of lies.

So the non-Kool-aid drinking Democrats must recognize that Kerry is not perfect ... and the non-Kool-aid drinking Republicans know that Kerry hasn't lied anymore than Bush.

Is that what you're getting at here?

Nicely articulated, and I generally agree...incidentally, you killed my buzz too. I have this fantasy about respect for differing opinions, ethics, compassion, and integrity existing in our political system...still naive after all these years I guess. Maybe it should be a requirement to hold office that the candidate doesn't want the job, and is held to one term.

Well, if you want to list lies used by Bush vs Kerry, I think we'll find some interesting results. lol

BTW, it wasn't a lie, but a simple attempt by the Bush-loving crazy Moony rag (heh) to put some spin on a non-news item.

Mr Mephisto

Next it'll be a headline story about how Kerry lied when he told Theresa that dress doesn't make her bum look big.

Lying about meeting every member of the UN is a big lie, but we expect it from the likes of Kerry.

The media didn't pick up on it because they were to busy trying to blame Bush for weapons missing in Iraq. Missing before the invasion, but that doesn't slow them down.

Find a quote where Kerry says he was "Meeting every member of the UN"

If you can't, you HAVE NO LIE.

So Kerry never said this: Because if he said that, and the people he claimed to talk to on the security council deny talking to him, then somebody is LYING. Given that Kerry claims the whole world wants him elected, what motivation would the security council members have to lie?

One: Kerry never said that he met with "all of the members of the UN."

Two: he said he met with all members of the SC when in fact he missed four. Is no one allowed a misstatement?

Three: this was all debated in another thread that you took part in.

Four: Has your sense of outrage grown weary from overuse?

One: We know what he said was wrong.

Two: We all assume that Kerry knows that he didn't meet with every member of the SC.

Three: We know that Kerry wanted us to make something out of the fact that he met with ALL of the members of the SC.

Four: None of us really care who he met with, but I cannot fathom why a normal person would try to impress us with such a gratuitious and provable stretch of the truth (lie).

Five: He didn't make this up b/c someone here is nitpicky or outraged. He did it because there is something about him that causes him to see himself in a certain way that often doesn't relate to reality (See, Kerry and Nixon's illegal Cambodian Christmas).

Six: Given the current reporting on this election, I've got sustainable outrage to spare.

Good, I'm glad that we can start calling these lies, distortions, and misstatements meaningless. Can I have a list please of the inconsequential lies told by the Bush Administration relating to any issue including the decisions that lead to war.

What was it that happens when one assumes?

See above statement.

See above.

See above.

What's funny is that many in the left feel the same way. Does that tell you something?

He did say he met with all members of the security council, and they say he didn't.

Sure, if he came out and said "oops, I was mistaken, sorry to have misled you." He hasn't.

Please debate the message, not the messenger.

What's the alternative? That he couldn't count that high?

why is this kind of nondebate interesting?
this is the kind of thing that is making me consider quite seriously retiring from this forum.
the level of discourse is idiotic.
i do not know what anyone gains from indulging it.

At the risk of over simplifying, they all do (lie), and they all are (obsessed with winning). That is why they are politicians. Give me one elected official that ISN'T a snake in the grass, power hungry, lying SOB...

Can't do it can you?

Douglas Adams hit the nail on the head... elect the guy that doesn't want the job, because he is the only one that isn't corrupt.

Let's see. Kerry misled us about the fact that he didn't actually talk to Bulgaria when he implied that he had. And Bush misled us about the fact that his claims of WMDs in Iraq were weak, and he was made aware of this before he made those claims.


I made a mistake about how I talked about the war. The President made a mistake in going to war. Which is worse?

Well, when Kerry is elected, he can always release Saddam and reinstall him to power....

It's a shame that you cannot defend your argument with anything other than nonsense when it is demonstrated that your priorities are bent.

How do you figure? Kerry has repeatedly said we were wrong to invade Iraq. "Wrong war, wrong time, wrong place." So if it was indeed the wrong war in the wrong time and at the wrong place, why shouldn't Kerry reinstall Saddam to return things to the status quo?

I'm not even going to waste my time with such a ridiculous question.

I don't blame you. I couldn't stomach defending Kerry either.

Classic humbuggery.

It's like me asking you "When did you stop beating your wife?"

It's an old political trick, and is quite transparent.

Are you honest, HONESTLY, saying (on record) that Kerry will reinstate Hussein?

I think not. So stop being silly.


Mr Mephisto

Hey Opie, I'll grant you a conditional license to use my intellectual property for your sig, but please use the whole quote, don't take my words out of context. Thanks.

:lol:

I'm sorry, but I believe out-of-context is par for the course around here. Just ask Ustwo.

Opie, I'm not kidding.

Nope, what I'm saying is that reinstating Hussein is the logical conclusion of Kerry's argument.

I believe you do not understand the concept of intellectual property. This is a public forum. Your comments in my sig do not fall outside the realm of fair use.

Sigh...Kerry, wrongly in my opinion, has always supported the invasion of Iraq. His disagreement comes with the timing and the lack of diplomacy/allies. This has been stated and restated ad naseum by the candidate and on this board. I can post a factcheck.org document that supports this if you'd like.

Sometimes this feels like a huge waste of time.

< mod>
Two things. First, if I'm not mistaken, it IS wrong to intentionally misrepresent someone by quoting that person out of context.
Second, Opie and Daswig, you two have been going at it in a few different threads now. Either calm down or one of us will have to do it for you.
< /mod>

Logical in your mind maybe. Laughable in most other people's minds I should imagine.

Mr Mephisto

OK, then let me ask you this. There are people who say we invaded Iraq both at the wrong time, and for the wrong reasons (ie Saddam was not a threat, because there were no WMDs). Aren't these generally the same people who are screaming that Bush screwed up by not protecting those sites, because terrorists could get ahold of the stuff to hurt us? Isn't there a bit of a dichotomy there? I mean if we unjustifiably invaded because Saddam didn't have WMDs to give to terrorists, but Bush didn't do anything to protect the stuff Saddam had that terrorists wanted, which is it? Can it in fact be both ways?

There is no disconnect between the ideas. One can wish that we hadn't invaded Iraq at all, but as that is no longer an option we had better do everything that we can to protect the lives of our soldiers. Understand?

But wouldn't that make the person with that opinion wrong on the first count about not invading in the first place? I mean, hey, if there is stuff there that poses such a danger to us, wasn't going in justified?

One of the talking heads I heard while channel surfing said only one pound of RDX was used to bring down Pan Am 103, and there are tons of the stuff supposedly missing. Didn't this pose a danger to us too?

I'm losing you now. How does this equate to suggesting (actually stating) that the "logical" [sic] extension of Kerry's policy is to reinstate Hussein?

You can't honestly be arguing that. I know you don't believe Kerry wants to do this, so the whole basis of this latest twist to this thread is just provocation. I believe it's called trolling in Internet parlance.

Mr Mephisto

I understand what you're getting at, but this stuff was known to and sealed by the IAEA....obviously, this was one situation where Saddam was following sanction guidelines and can't fairly be classified as a cause for war.

Fair point.

BTW, what do you make of the UN sealed WMD bunker?