« How would Saddam "not necessarily be in power" if Kerry'd been President? | Main | Political bingo »

Sunday, October 24, 2004

Kerry's claim to have held pre-Iraq War "meeting" with foreign leaders disputed by them

Tomorrow's Washington Times reports (hat-tip Redstate.com; boldface added):

U.N. ambassadors from several nations are disputing assertions by Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry that he met for hours with all members of the U.N. Security Council just a week before voting in October 2002 to authorize the use of force in Iraq. An investigation by The Washington Times reveals that while the candidate did talk for an unspecified period to at least a few members of the panel, no such meeting, as described by Mr. Kerry on a number of occasions over the past year, ever occurred.

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.

"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.

Read the whole thing, including the Kerry campaign's exceptionally feeble response:

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."

Integrity.  Integrity.  Integrity.  (Pocketa-pocketa-pocketa!)

Posted by Beldar at 10:36 PM in Politics (2006 & earlier) | Permalink


Other weblog posts, if any, whose authors have linked to Kerry's claim to have held pre-Iraq War "meeting" with foreign leaders disputed by them and sent a trackback ping are listed here:

» Kerry's Grotesque Lying About Meeting With U.N. Security Council from Capital Ideas

Tracked on Oct 25, 2004 12:04:49 AM

» Kerry Lie Exposed in Detail from Carnivorous Conservative

Tracked on Oct 25, 2004 5:43:38 AM

» The latest Kerry UNtruth from Pajama Pundits

Tracked on Oct 25, 2004 6:35:23 AM

» Kerry's Illness from Move The Rock

Tracked on Oct 25, 2004 7:27:29 AM

» It Was Actually A Meeting of The Secret-CIA-Hat Club from Acorns from an Okie

Tracked on Oct 25, 2004 2:53:06 PM


(1) rob made the following comment | Oct 24, 2004 10:51:44 PM | Permalink

This is a do-over of Christmas in Cambodia. I hope it makes an impression, but I'm afraid this will (1) languish in Washington Times and the conservative cable and talk radio media, (2) never break into the mainstream, and (3) not be seen by the average voter as a big deal.


(2) Wayne Moore made the following comment | Oct 24, 2004 11:30:59 PM | Permalink

One can easily understand why a mother on her deathbed would find it necessary to tell her 50+ year old son to remember "integrity, integrity, integrity". She should have started the process 50 years earlier.

(3) AzCat made the following comment | Oct 25, 2004 1:03:04 AM | Permalink

The Kerry dodge is already there in his press release: he met with representatives of the UNSC members which, they'll claim, is what he meant earlier. Of course that's not accurate but it will, unfortunately, pass the smell test for moderate voters.

(4) Palooka made the following comment | Oct 25, 2004 1:52:59 AM | Permalink

It's clearly a case of a great exageration (ALL versus SOME), but I am unsure many voters will be greatly effected. All? Some? At least he did meet with somebody, right? A little different than his Cambodian tales, where he was NEVER there.

I do have hopes that this will help the Cambodia issue come to the fore, as it should have months ago. I still marvel how he dodged that bullet. I mean, it's a GREAT story. A presidential candidate making up stories about secret CIA missions into Cambodia, carrying around bogus props and showing them to reporters, repeating those stories on the floor of the US Senate. That's a GREAT story.

(5) MaDr made the following comment | Oct 25, 2004 2:45:20 AM | Permalink

UNSC members or representatives - they're interchangeable like ribbons and medals. Kerry remembered hearing of MLK's assassination while serving in Viet Nam (7 months before he actually served there). His inter-boat flying pouch, VC. And where's that magic hat? Probably left it at his UNmeeting.

(6) Calliope made the following comment | Oct 25, 2004 3:48:17 AM | Permalink

I am a bit disappointed honestly. I really hoped this story would end up being something that would force the MSM to shine a bit of light on Kerry's compulsive lying. I don't think this makes that cut.

The MSM has been ignoring Kerry's lying for a year. Why would this particular story cause them to decide they have to cover it now? Had it come out within a few days of the debate (and why didn't it, BTW?) it might have helped. There is just enough ambiguity in it (he met with 'some' but not 'all') to get them off the hook.

Instead, my guess is this is going to be ignored just like the Swifties.

My guess is the Kerry campaign won't have to address this at all, or only in the form of a sneering Tad Devine a single ignoring softball question about it and talking about Bush's plan to cut Social Security by 45%.

(7) Dave Schuler made the following comment | Oct 25, 2004 5:21:34 AM | Permalink

Of course, they're all liars just trying to help Bush get re-elected. Hold it, that can't be right can it?

(8) Va Jim made the following comment | Oct 25, 2004 7:14:50 AM | Permalink

Like other things in politics, this expose' of Kerry's bald-faced lie isn't a "silver bullet"; but in my experience there aren't many political silver bullets. The public and the press is fickle; what was fatal to Hart merely grazed Clinton. This latest revelation is a tool that by itself is passive, properly used it can make some difference. How it's used remains to be seen.

The first Kerry office spin sounds great: that Kerry "met with a group of representatives of countries sitting on the Security Council." Too bad Kerry actually said he met "with the entire Security Council". The truth-squad needs to push for those representatives names: is Theresa the African representative? Maybe the Kerry's gardener is the Mexican representative, because Mexico's ambassador sure didn't meet with Kerry. For that matter, push for what nations he claims to have met with; since I wonder if he knows who's actually on the Council.

The story could make a nice anchor point: on one hand pointing all the way back to Cambodia to show a consistent pattern of dissembly; on the other hand exposing Kerry's imaginary statesmanship for what it is. The Cambodia link needs at least one other, preferably two, similar untruths in the intervening period to make it effective. The other point needs a nice, simple listing of current coalition partners who've been disrepected by Kerry, and a simple listing of countries actually on the Council that Kerry's now disrespected. "Intergity, integity, integrity": now we know.

(9) observer made the following comment | Oct 25, 2004 8:40:53 AM | Permalink

Rather-esquely: This is one more small "connect the dots" datum that might be the final straw to break the information dam on kerry's dishonesty.

Also, it seems fair to ask if J."Integrity" Kerry and crew will start calling the U.N. interviewees "liars" and "malcontents" just like their approach to the Swift Boat Vets.

(10) Tom D made the following comment | Oct 25, 2004 8:45:51 AM | Permalink

News flash! Kerry is shameless liar! Story right under article disclosing that bears have been found to be polluting the woods. Sorry, Halperin doctrine will be applied here.

(11) TouchDown made the following comment | Oct 25, 2004 9:14:16 AM | Permalink

I agree with all the expressed views that MSM will yawn, grin and not cover anything negative re Kerry...that's their boy and they do not care that he has a terribly compulsive personality flaw of inadequacy which drives him to exaggerations and lies to pump up his own self image. This is very scary, boys and girls. There are lots of folks being manipulated by him and vouched for by a silent MSM. What's needed is a big shocker that can't be overlooked or underplayed...ie documented proof of a less than honorable discharge that had been expunged afterwards by the likes of Jimmy Carter.

(12) The Old Coot made the following comment | Oct 25, 2004 9:51:58 AM | Permalink

I must concur with Calliope and others...on a scale of 1-10 of Kerry's malfeasance, this is perhaps a 2. I've hardly seen a word of this in the MSM, Kerry's lackeys brush it off with practiced ease, and it will likely disappear into the black hole with his other lies.

Also sad to see some bloggers (are you listening Bill?) flogging this over the weekend, many just looking for traffic.

Our work remains the same: Calmly persuade undecideds and help friends and neighbors get to their polling places next Tuesday.

(13) duh made the following comment | Oct 25, 2004 9:59:24 AM | Permalink

Hey ya'll are smart. Answer this question..

What happened to the 350 TONS of high explosives that went missing in Iraq?

Don't ya think that's important.

since our troops are getting blown up with the stuff,, seems kind of important to me... not like the drivel about Kerry and the UN Sec Counsel?

(14) CERDIP made the following comment | Oct 25, 2004 10:37:58 AM | Permalink

>>What happened to the 350 TONS of high explosives that went missing in Iraq?

Is that all that went missing? That's only a dozen or two heavy truckloads, from *one* of several THOUSAND ammo depots. If that's all that went "missing" during OIF, then my hat's off to the coalition forces for keeping the lid on so tightly.

My fears were that there might be many thousands of tons of the 600,000 to 700,000 tons of ammo estimated to exist in Irag (back last May) go "missing" from all those depots - across the borders to Syria & Iran, maybe even Jordan. But it appears it was only 350 tons. Heck, back in the spring the Pentagon had estimated that around 130,000 tons had been destroyed by that time.

It's not often the Liberal American Media Establishment reports good news like this with such vigour.

(15) Where's The Beef? made the following comment | Oct 25, 2004 10:59:31 AM | Permalink

This story sheds light on the criteria and value of the global test as imagined by Kerry. The approval of the U.S. Congress? Not enough. The world's approval? No way. The UN's approval? Not precisely. The approval of the "entire Security Council"? Resolutions aside, nope.

A few members of the Security Council had granted Kerry an audience with their representatives. Kerry had his opportunity to privately persuade these undisclosed reps to support the resolution that he and they favored. Not enforcement, mind. They, too, voted for the use of military force before they were against its implementation.

Whether he really met with the "entire Security Council", or just with the few "grand" members, or just with le régime français utile, Kerry had been granted his opportunity to demonstrate his character and his effectiveness.

Did he fibgabulate about this before and during the debates? Yeap. Will he continue to do so? Sure.

As importantly, did Kerry pass or fail his own global test? In his own words, just what did he have to say to the handful of reps with whom he met? Was it starkly different from what he had said in the Senate or in various public forums at that time?

World class fibbers never lie, they just feign away.

(16) crazy made the following comment | Oct 25, 2004 11:23:20 AM | Permalink

The real story is not whether or not he lied about how many ambassadors he met with, it's what the purpose of the meeting(s) really was.

Sure he wanted to see how serious they were in holding Saddam accountable. He was undoubtedly lobbying France and others to OPPOSE and UNDERMINE American foreign policy - just as he's done for the last 34 years.

(17) jackson white made the following comment | Oct 25, 2004 12:36:21 PM | Permalink

The real story is the subtext. Kerry's constant lying and distortions show what, when I practiced, we called a common pattern or scheme. It goes directly to character in this instance, and it is unsettling.

(18) Kalle (kafir forever) made the following comment | Oct 25, 2004 12:59:06 PM | Permalink

Is it legitimate for a senator to secretly negotiate foreign policy with representatives of other countries, without being an envoy of the President?

Isn't that a prerogative of the executive branch of government?

(19) jukeboxgrad made the following comment | Oct 25, 2004 1:28:03 PM | Permalink

"But it appears it was only 350 tons. Heck, back in the spring the Pentagon had estimated that around 130,000 tons had been destroyed by that time."

Cerdip, you (and the administration) are being disingenuous by comparing this stuff to ordinary ammo. It's not the same. It's far more dangerous. (This is confirmed in the NYT report and elsewhere.) That's why it was under seal by the IAEA. That's why they repeatedly warned us about this stuff, both before and after the invasion. We knew exactly where it was. We just didn't pay attention. Pure criminal negligence. Why did it get lost? Because we sent 50 tanks to surround the oil ministry.

Also, it's pretty clear the administration has been trying to keep this story under wraps. Why would that be if, as you claim, it's only a drop in a bucket?

These missing explosives are potentially the equivalent of 600 Hiroshimas (given that one pound killed 170 at Lockerbie). Nice to know that what really upsets you today is the idea that Kerry overlooked Mexico, Bulgaria and Columbia.

(20) Jenjis Kahn made the following comment | Oct 25, 2004 1:37:30 PM | Permalink

Bingo, Jackson White.

Look close at Kerry's record and a consistent pattern of lying becomes clear. Another example?

Kerry stated:
"I mean, I was in Safwan. I went there when the signing of the armistice took place at the end of the war." [2001 O'Reilly Interview].

That's a lie. The permanent cease-fire was signed on March 3, 1991 after a two hour meeting between US, Saudi, and Iraqi commanders at Safwan Airfield, in occupied Iraq.

It was on March 16, 1991 that a delegation of Senators including Kerry arrived on the border outpost of Safwan, Iraq, to meet with the US Army's 1st Armored Division NOT to witness the "signing of the armistice".

[all credit to "Bandit"]

Who cares?

Let's carry the story forward. Same 3/17/91 article:

In March, 1991 Kerrys says:
"Gen. Schwarzkopf wants to get everybody out as soon as he can," Kerry told a group of soldiers from Massachusetts, predicting that as many as 5,000 to 8,000 soldiers a day could begin coming home between now and Easter.

The senators said President Bush has left open the door for involvement should Iraq use chemical weapons to quell the rebellions. But most appeared to favor turning again to the United Nations for guidance.

Kerry, who voted against the use of force in the gulf, said yesterday he has no regrets about his vote. But as he chatted with soldiers, he added he was "delighted by the outcome" of the war.

However Three Months Later Kerrys Says:
Three months after hostilities ceased, John Kerry attended a meeting of local Democrats in Gloucester, Massachusetts, and conceded. “I’m not convinced,” he said, “given the nature of Saddam Hussein,” that a peaceful resolution to the Kuwait invasion had been possible. Then he attacked Bush for leaving Hussein in power: “This administration, having likened Saddam Hussein to Hitler, having committed troops in the war against him, actually sided with Hussein in the aftermath of the war. That is a disgraceful chapter.” [pages 254-267 of John F. Kerry: The Complete Biography by the Boston Globe Reporters Who Know Him Best:Hat tip American Future blog]

(21) CERDIP made the following comment | Oct 25, 2004 1:47:47 PM | Permalink

Jukebox, you need to get your information from places other than the NYT. Yep, it was high explosives: RDX, HMX & PETN are standard military grade high explosives. Far more powerful than dynamite, TNT or DNT. That's why militaries all over the world use them. Those are the explosives that will be found in bombs and artillery shell at every ex-Iraqi Army or ex-Iraqi Air Force ammo dump.

In fact, the PETN is the unstable sibling in the bunch, and is usually found in things like Det cord, where it is embedded in a non-explosive matrix to control the flame front, and lend it stability sufficient to deal with approximate rough handling.

RDX is found in bombs and shells, and is the explosive ingredient found in C-4, Plastique, Semtex and other plasticized explosives. RDX & HMX were developed by the Allies during WW2.

The reason why the ammo dump in question was under seal was because it was at an IAEA inspected site. Nothing more.

(22) Calliope made the following comment | Oct 25, 2004 2:29:29 PM | Permalink

Admittedly, one has to read all the way to the third page of the NYT article to get to it, but:

"A senior Bush administration official said that during the initial race to Baghdad, American forces "went through the bunkers, but saw no materials bearing the I.A.E.A. seal." It is unclear whether troops ever returned.

By late 2003, diplomats said, arms agency experts had obtained commercial satellite photos of Al Qaqaa showing that two of roughly 10 bunkers that contained HMX appeared to have been leveled by titanic blasts, apparently during the war. They presumed some of the HMX had exploded, but that is unclear.

Other HMX bunkers were untouched. Some were damaged but not devastated. I.A.E.A. experts say they assume that just before the invasion the Iraqis followed their standard practice of moving crucial explosives out of buildings, so they would not be tempting targets. If so, the experts say, the Iraqi must have broken seals from the arms agency on bunker doors and moved most of the HMX to nearby fields, where it would have been lightly camouflaged - and ripe for looting."

So the material wasn't there when we got there, and the article in question speculates it was removed prior to the invasion.

I really have no idea what anyone thinks Bush should have done about this. Invaded quicker perhaps? Performed pre-war missile strikes?

I'm guessing they had more important things to do than worry about conventional explosive stores - especially as they believed at the time there were chem/bio weapons about. Just a guess though.

(23) Porcell made the following comment | Oct 25, 2004 3:30:06 PM | Permalink

While the meeting with present U.N. Security Council members is quite questionable, we know for sure that he met with Madame Binh, Foreign Secretary of the Viet Cong, in 1970 and Communist Nicaraguan Sandinista leaders in the eighties. Let's give Kerry credit where it's due in the field of foreign relations.

(24) M. V. Houston made the following comment | Oct 25, 2004 6:17:02 PM | Permalink

Truth does not matter to the Democrat voter. Look at how much Clinton lied. They did not care then, Don't care now. Kerry is a constant rapids river of lies and everyone including the Democrats know it. The proof is in all of the video and transcripts. Just ask one of them about his Kerry's lies. The answer is always, Oh well all politicians lie. This is just the sad truth of the Democrat party. This U.N. Meetings thing will not matter to them either...

Hopefully this will change the undecided's minds. They have much better values so I think it will...

(25) Lee Shore made the following comment | Oct 25, 2004 9:23:05 PM | Permalink

CERDIP on October 25, 2004 01:47 PM

Good post, guy. Jukebox is trying to change the subject and is clearly (deliberately?) confusing the conventional HE compression charges used in nukes to create a supercritical mass with the nukes themselves. "Potential," LOL.

(Oh wait -- sorry, he's not that sophisticated. Juke is naively extrapolating from the 1 lb. of plastique used in the Lockerbie atrocity that killed 170 passengers to the number that he imagines would be killed by 640,000 lb. of RDX/HMX, etc. and calls it "600 Hiroshimas" (about 60,000,000 deaths). LMAO! It doesn't work that way, Poopsie.)

The coalition forces have destroyed or secured for destruction 400 THOUSAND TONS of explosive ordnance of all sorts. That's three orders of magnitude (that's 1,000 times, Jukebox and other math-challendged folks) more than was allegedly lost in the IAEA-monitored site.

Ohhhhhhhh, Kerry is really getting desperate to clutch at this straw.

And BTW, Calliope, the "experts" the NYT reporter quotes had their heads totally up their a$$es in suggesting that the explosives might have been taken out and spread around in the fields "for looting." That makes absolutely zero sense -- if they were going to get blown up anyway, why not leave them the hell in the bunkers? And if they removed them, why not cart them away and distribute them to the Baathist faithful? (they did, in fact, do this in many cases, which is why Iraq is paved with weapons -- Saddam really shat in his nest before he headed for his cave).


(26) jukeboxgrad made the following comment | Oct 26, 2004 4:26:20 AM | Permalink

"Jukebox, you need to get your information from places other than the NYT."

David Kay is the CIA's former chief weapons hunter in Iraq. Is he also a source you dismiss? If so, please explain how your credentials compare with his. According to the LA Times Kay said "HMX and RDX were 'superb explosives for terrorists' because they were stable compounds that could be transported safely and used for large-scale attacks." More valuable to terrorists than ordinary shells, in other words. So the "it-was-only-a-drop-in-the-bucket" defense does not apply. This material is different.

Also, we knew this stuff was there (unlike lots of other stuff that took time to uncover because it was hidden). That's another reason why it's not fair to compare this cache with vast amounts of other material we found later.

You said "The reason why the ammo dump in question was under seal was because it was at an IAEA inspected site. Nothing more." You've got it backwards. The reason it was an IAEA site was because of the presence of these materials, which are dual-use (they can be used to help make nukes, in other words). That's exactly why Negroponte mentioned HMX when he spoke to the Senate.

Lee, sorry you didn't like my Hiroshima comparison. I maintain that it's reasonable, however. A one-megaton nuke, for example, can't be divided into a million segments and deployed on a million separate occasions. This missing material can. Arguably that makes it a more effective terror tool.

Maybe you like this analogy better. It's the equivalent of one Lockerbie every hour for the next 86 years.

By the say, speaking of "math-challenged," the missing materials are 754,000 pounds, not 640,000 pounds. You've also understated the Hiroshima death toll by about 50%.

(27) Cap'n DOC made the following comment | Oct 26, 2004 6:45:48 AM | Permalink

Well, well, well... - Jukeboxgrad returns with more bogus information! You, sir, play fast and loose with the facts, and are quick to jump on any little tidbit, no matter it be true or false.

As to whether or no the HMX was in place, let's go to NBC and their embedded reporter: "NBC News reported that on April 10, 2003, its crew was embedded with the U.S. Army's 101st Airborne Division when troops arrived at the Al Qaqaa storage facility south of Baghdad. While the troops found large stockpiles of conventional explosives, they did not find HMX or RDX, the types of powerful explosives that reportedly went missing, according to NBC."

So. Sounds like a revolting development to me there, JUKE!

Care to have Christmas Dinner in Cambodia? How about we just meet with ALL of the UNSC??? I'm sure that what Senator Kerry had in mind with those clandestine meetings with Singapore, Camaroon and France was to develop a NEW coalition of WORLD LEADERS to further our cause in the War on Terror.

Or... Maybe the reason he was going for Singapore was so he could replace his Super8 camera on the cheap. That way, he could record all of those exploits of his for the next Presidential Campaign.

Still and all, I note a distinct turn of late from calling President Bush a liar, since that seems sort of 'over the top' and disingenuous
coming from a Serial Liar like Kerry. That must be the President's fault as well.

(28) jukeboxgrad made the following comment | Oct 26, 2004 10:18:26 AM | Permalink

"As to whether or no the HMX was in place, let's go to NBC and their embedded reporter"

Cap'n, you're incoherent, as usual.

I keep hearing about how the NBC report allegedly contradicts the NYT report. What nonsense. Drudge, NRO and others are making a big fuss about NBC News saying this: "4/10/03 ... troops ... temporarily take over ... Al Qakaa... But these troops never found the ... HMX and RDX." The claim is being made that this utterly discredits the NYT report.

But the original NYT report had already said this: "A senior Bush administration official said that during the initial race to Baghdad, American forces 'went through the bunkers, but saw no materials bearing the I.A.E.A. seal.' It is unclear whether troops ever returned."

Those two passages look reasonably identical to me. Someone please explain to me what Drudge et al are gloating about. If the stuff was gone by 4/10, it still indicates it was stolen from under our noses. We had forces operating through Iraq for more than two weeks, by then. Also, this is a huge facility with more than 80 buildings. Both of the above accounts suggest a quick look that could easily have missed things. Both accounts also indicate we looked, and then we left. Nice. Too bad we didn't show up with enough troops to properly secure this major weapons site. Since that (disarming the enemy) was supposedly a major reason for the invasion in the first place.

(29) jukeboxgrad made the following comment | Oct 26, 2004 10:29:27 AM | Permalink

Oops, sorry. I said the site has "more than 80 buildings." According to Fox News, the correct number is 1,100. My mistake.

Nice to know that troops who "temporarily" took over the joint were able to search it properly.

(30) Cap'n DOC made the following comment | Oct 26, 2004 11:32:57 AM | Permalink

jukeboxgrad Nice to see you haven't learned how to read yet as well...

For your reading pleasure, courtesy of AEBrain @ Command-Post:

1991:Explosives placed under IAEA seal (AP)
1996:UN uses some HMX used to blow up Al Hakam weapons factory (NYT/60 Minutes)
1998:UN inspectors leave (NYT/60 minutes)
2002:UN inspectors return, find 35 tonnes of HMX missing (NYT/60 minutes)
February 2003:ElBaredei reports HMX used for “peaceful purposes”. Maybe. Seals broken anyway.(AP)
March 2003:US Forces enter Iraq
April 10 2003:NBC Reporter with US Forces reports explosives gone (NBC) Nothing bearing IAEA seal found (NYT/60 Minutes)
October 10 2004:ElBaredei reports HMX looted since September 2003 (NYT/60 Minutes)

You, frankly don't have a clue what you are talking about, JUKE, and are wearing egg just like your LIAR guy, Kerry...

(31) Cap'n DOC made the following comment | Oct 26, 2004 11:36:19 AM | Permalink

BTW, juke. You kinda got off-thread there, guy. You mustabeen munchin' Macaroons with Kerry in Camaroon. Were you wearin' his LuckyHat, or was he?

How do you say "Your goose is cooked" in French? I can help you out with that, if you'd like.

(32) Claire made the following comment | Oct 26, 2004 12:46:39 PM | Permalink

In the midst of all this back-and-forth about whether the U.S. forces failed to protect the IAEA-secured munitions, ad nauseum, I have one question that I haven't seen asked or answered anywhere yet.

Why did it take the IAEA so long to report that this stuff was missing?

Conveniently, it was reported the week before the election. That certainly seems to have a bit of a fishy smell about it. If they put it under seal, they should have know which building(s) it was in; why did it take them so long to determine that it was missing. Or did it just take them this long to get around to REPORTING it?

(33) Where's The Beef? made the following comment | Oct 26, 2004 2:45:12 PM | Permalink

Al Hakam is not the topic.

"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.

He did not have this meeting.

How does anyone dismiss this particular fibgabulation? Anyone?

War was at stake. In this case Kerry was explicitly saying that the country should trust Kerry's analysis and word over that of the President. Over that of the leaders of the countries who have stood with our President in enforcement of the UNSC's duly passed resolutions.

And now, not even the French president -- or his "representative" -- is prepared to stand with Kerry on his story about this non-meeting. Kerry abandoned the truth just as surely as his "grand coalition" has already abandoned him.

Apart from his self-deceptions, Kerry is simply incompetent in action, in word, and in thought.

(34) Boger made the following comment | Oct 26, 2004 4:18:59 PM | Permalink

In post above I sought eyewitness accounts to several events. I found one that covers two things I questioned, a B-40 fired at the boats at the second Dong Cung ambush, and Kerry actually shooting the wounded B-40 man. The below quote is from Fred Short who was a gunner on Kerry's boat that day. He confirms that a B-40 was fired at them, and virtually confirms Kerry's killing of the B-40 gunner. I say virtually because it sounds like both the vc and Kerrry were out of sight behind a hooch. I would still like to hear a direct eyewitness, but this is probably good enough for me.

"We beached the boat on a B-40 [rocket] position. I could not bring my 50's to engage him because of the bar on the front of the gun tub that 10 feet from the bow. He turned and ran and the peak tank gunner laced his legs with the M-60. The VC broke left behind a hooch and I was able to lay some rounds in to keep his head down. Mr. Kerry jumped off the boat with his M-16 and the peak tank gunner went to provide cover. Mr. Kerry dispatched him and retrieved the B-40. Now the VC did not point the B-40 at us. I was in the best position to view. He stood up, shocked and booked it. Never even thought of shouldering the weapon. Di Di Mau [Vietnamese for "Get the @#&* out of here"] comes to mind. I am sure it [the B-40] might have been on his shoulder when he had been in the spider hole and he may have even been the gunner that laid one rocket close aboard the 94. How he ran with some several M-16 rounds in the back of his legs had to be pure adrenaline. His legs looked like hamburger. To this day, I can see this incident and his face. He only had on a black loin cloth." Fred Short

(35) Pete S. made the following comment | Oct 27, 2004 3:32:45 AM | Permalink

Umm, can anybody say why it's known for sure that this supposed 400 tons actually existed in the first place? I mean, there was all kinds of stuff the UN, the IAEA, the CIA, the Brits, and so on and so forth thought existed inside Iraq and which turns out not to have. It's a big country. It was a police state, with layers and layers of deception from Saddam on down.

So. . .400 tons of explosive on the IAEA's manifest doesn't seem to exist now, but -- do we know for sure that it ever did?

Just wondering. . .

(36) Where's The Beef? made the following comment | Oct 28, 2004 3:44:32 AM | Permalink

That's a brilliantly simple question about the underlying assumptions.

It's not the topic of this thread, but since this explosives issue has been raised for comparison, here are a few recent snippets on how the story has progressed (in less than 24 hours) and how it can be linked back to the original topic of this thread.

Kerry asserts something he cannot backup; he ends up looking a good deal like a certain LT(jg) whose testimony was a colossal blunder and costly diversion.


See: ABC News Home > World News Tonight [Oct 27, 2004]

IAEA documents obtained by ABC News show that on Jan. 14, 2003, the agency's inspectors recorded that just over 3 tons of RDX was stored at the facility — a considerable discrepancy from what the Iraqis reported.

The IAEA documents could mean that 138 tons of explosives were removed from the facility long before the start of the United States launched "Operation Iraqi Freedom" in March 2003.


Although these bunkers were still under IAEA seal, the inspectors said the seals may be potentially ineffective because they had ventilation slats on the sides. These slats could be easily removed to remove the materials inside the bunkers without breaking the seals, the inspectors noted.

See: Washington Times Front Page [Oct 28, 2004]

Russia tied to Iraq's missing arms.

Most of Saddam's most powerful arms were systematically separated from other arms like mortars, bombs and rockets, and sent to Syria and Lebanon, and possibly to Iran, he said.

The Russian involvement in helping disperse Saddam's weapons, including some 380 tons of RDX and HMX, is still being investigated, Mr. Shaw said.


According to the Pentagon, U.N. arms inspectors sealed the explosives at Al-Qaqaa in January 2003 and revisited the site in March and noted that the seals were not broken.

It is not known whether the inspectors saw the explosives in March. The U.N. team left the country before the U.S.-led invasion began March 20, 2003.


Defense officials said the Russians can provide information on what happened to the Iraqi weapons and explosives that were transported out of the country. Officials believe the Russians also can explain what happened to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs.


See: Power Line [Oct 27, 2004]

The week started with the Washington Times putting out what was supposed to be a blockbuster story -- the fact that Kerry lied during his debate with Bush about the nature and extent of his meetings with U.N. Security Council members. Through no fault of the paper, the story has had little impact. Instead, it was the New Times' Al Qaqaa stink bomb that has dominated the news. But now, perhaps, the Washington Times is going to have the last word and (again, if it is heard), the last laugh.

The comments to this entry are closed.