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?

We both looked over the Duelfer report, and there were lots of materials mentioned in there that were already declared to the UN weapons inspectors. I think that the sealed chemical weapons bunker is exactly what this giant explosives cache was...a known quantity.

Saddam had taken 35 tons of RDX from the sealed site while the inspectors were gone (this was NOT in the month before the war, but 2002, IIRC). If he could do that, what would have prevented him from breaching the WMD bunker if he wanted to give them to terrorists? It's not like he was concerned about the safety of his own people or the terrorists like we are concerned about our troops, is it?

Why were those WMDs not destroyed in the TWELVE YEARS between gulf war 1 and 2?

And (if true) this is worse thatn Bush's 200 billion dollar lie??

No one is claiming that Saddam was acting in "good faith" but, as I've always said, the fact that Bush isn't jumping on this is a pretty good indication that it isn't very exploitable. Really, he could have breeched it, but he didn't.

We hear that Saddam just wanted to shake the sanctions as soon as possible. Why would he touch the chemical weapons that he had given up to the UN? Of course, we're both just reading tea leaves here. I don't claim to have very much insight into the mind of Saddam Hussein.

Dude....Bush is as stupid as a bag of rocks, and I'm STILL voting for him because IMHO Kerry is such an evil little f*cker. His stupidity is not necessarily a bad thing, but still, it exists. Bush's lack of intellegence doesn't mean the opportunities he's passed up were bad opportunities.

Dane Bramage, if you read post #6 of this thread, you'll observe that you are preaching to the choir. It's easy enough to identify the problem, endemic generally to our system of government and in particular to the candidate selection process, that we generally don't get one good presidential candidate, much less a choice between two good ones. The tough part is to come up with something better and then to implement it over the strenuous objections of those with much money and power who like things the way they are. Good luck with that. Regrettably, my vote will be cast on the basis of my conclusion about which is the lesser of two evils.

mmmm...wonder who you're voting for Flyguy. Your sweeping statement is innacurate on a number of grounds, albeit that you correctly recited a Kerry talking point...moreover, it doesn't address my comment that Kerry will say or do anything to be elected (I know, this can be said of Bush too), and that I find this to be scary.

Bush spending 200+ billion on a bogus war (that has been proven more than once, by the CIA, Rumsfield, and others under Bush's wing) is inaccurate?

Seeing that the only words coming out of Bush's mouth are terrorism, 9/11 and the Patriot Act, and all of us pretty much knowing that this is the ONLY thing he has to run on and that he has to depend on the gullibility of the right who need everything spoon fed to them because apparently they can't think for themselves, I'm seeing from my end that Bush is the one who will say anything to get elected.

I want someone who will tell me how he wants to make the county better. Not try and scare me to death and say "vote for me or die by a terrorist’s hand."

Come on now...it's not like he doesn't have a cast of wacky conservative cut ups to prop him up. Wasn't he elected partially on the strength of his advisors?

Does anyone else here think that Kerry's lie, miststatement, or whatever the hell you want to call it, is really unimportant in the whole scope of things? And that there are much bigger issue's right now than the fact that he said all when he forgot/lied that he met all of the SC when he missed 4(?) out of at least 15 members? Both candidates lie or mislead people to make themselves look better... thats how this stuff works. Hell... just watch any comercials for either candidate, most of them tell only one side of a story.

For instance, the only one that comes to mind at the moment is the one that accuses Kerry of Voting against giving our troops better armor. (this is the one i see the most) But what they dont tell you is that the money that was going towards new armor for troops was only 1/3 of 1% of the $87 Billion that was being voted for (about 300 million). And that over 40,000 troops were sent without the best-grade body armor in the first place. In addition, they also make it look like Kerry voted "No" on seperate points, but there was only ONE vote.

I Have no doubt there are similar instances where Kerry does that same kind of thing, I just havn't seen any. The point being that there ARE more important issues.

WHAT?!!!

A biased political advert?!


Aren't both sides guilty of this?


Mr Mephisto

Umm... thats what I was getting at =P I said both parties use those tactics. I just used that one as an example as it stuck in my head the most.

The war against Iraq (and the cost of it, which isn't 200 billion yet) can only be criticised with the benefit of hindsight, and Kerry admitted as much in one of his several positions taken on that issue. The simple fact is that in a post 9-11 environment, ANY sitting president could not ignore the intelligence that Saddam had WMD's, or run the risk that the intelligence was innacurate. I think I stand with most of the electorate in holding the opinion that the war of terror is better fought offensively elsewhere rather than defended here. You can justify a failure to have a plan to "win the peace", but any plan would have been problematic, since it could not have effectively been carried out quickly enough for us to be seen as liberators instead of occupiers.

As for the campaign of fear, I'm still trying to shake off Kerry's statement that our soldiers are being killed with the 380 tons of missing munitions...a frightening mantra we'll no doubt here ad nauseum until election day...when the fact of the matter, as discussed at length in another thread, is that the munitions likely went missing before our G.I.'s first arrived at the storage facility, any responsibility for this is with the commander of the ground forces, and no amount of troups or strategy could ever have eliminated the threat of diverted munitions in the first place.

There were plenty of people who criticized the war prior to it's commencement, myself included. Some of us didn't buy that Saddam Hussein was a real threat to the security of the US. The idea that invading a secular middle eastern country actually increases our security is also debatable. Some would say that the US government has been a pretty effective recruiter for Islamic extremists.

Of course, this has been debated over and over and is more than a little off-topic.

OT, as you point out, and two sides to the story. As with Reagan's controversial strategy to end the Cold War, only time will tell whether or not we are better off for having gone to war in Iraq.