Redstate

It just doesn't seem that there are enough straws left in the world to be grabbed...

Is this the best october surprise the Bush campaign could come up with?  Yes, Rush, Hannity, Medved and the blogosphere will (rightly) hammer on it, but this is not the kind of thing that will change minds. If the 'cia hat' didn't do it, if 'stolen honor' didn't do it, THIS is not going to do it.  Meanwhile, 380 tons of explosives have been looted (personally I think Saddam had them shipped safely off to Syria with all the other WMDs) and are missing and that does look bad.  Really, I winced a few times reading it.  And hello, they used the NY Times to launch it which means it's all over AP/Reuters and MSM.

What makes you think the Bush campaign had anything to do with this?  Why could it not have been merely the work of a reporter who, upon hearing Kerry make a boast in the second presidential debate (which itself happened in October) about a fanciful meeting, took it upon himself to fact check?  And given the time frame, it's no odd happenstance that the result would emerge a week prior to election day considering the timing of the most prominent boast -- the one in the debate.

You can take your tin hat off now.  There's no conspiracy or coordination.

that Kerry met with representatives from at least the permanent members?

You can't claim he did not meet with a given nation's rep if there's no record one way or another - pace, Josh.

Since you're making the accusation he did not meet the council, its your burden of proof to show he did not (and proving a negative is always a more difficult task than proving a positive).

Now the case rests on Kerry's schedule for September 30th? isnt this tenous? and what if his schedule is actually found, and shows he was in New York that day? Then what? Is Kerry's schedule central to the evidence or is it just supporting evidence? Do you admit that the schedule may well be exculpatory, and if not, then why should it be damning?

At least we know somewhere he was NOT (sick day from work?):

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cf
m?congress=108&session=1&vote=00370

because it is all addressed in there. He said that he was able to determine that Kerry met privately with France, Singapore, and Cameroon, and through a second had contact also Britain. He also spoke with four other security council members (one not on record) who say that Kerry never met with the full council and never met with them either.

So unless you are calling the person doing the research a liar, I think he has covered his bases on this story.

The reference to permanent members is because the dKos people coming over here seem to think that would be a safer, higher ground to defend. But Kerry himself never made claims to only meeting privately with permanent members. He said he met with the whole security council. So that is a red herring either way.

They're not involved in this.

that Kerry met with representatives from at least the permanent members?

No, it didn't.  Just France and possibly Britain.

You can't claim he did not meet with a given nation's rep if there's no record one way or another - pace, Josh.

Joel can't, because he's a professional journalist and has to adhere to different standards of disclosure.  I'm not and I do.

Since you're making the accusation he did not meet the council, its your burden of proof to show he did not

Already shown, in the Washington Times piece alone.

Now the case rests on Kerry's schedule for September 30th?

Nope.  Just a nail in the coffin.

Not unless "France" is the entire permanent Security Council.

He wasn't in NY for part of the day. Take that one to the bank.

I'm confident he didn't meet with the US (obviously) and Russia.  I'm pretty confident he didn't meet with China.  I'm fairly sure he did not discuss Iraq with the UK Ambassador either until well after he claims to have met with the Security Council.

Ok, well I'm relieved that the Bush campaign is not involved.  I don't care either way, I extrapolated as much from a Hugh Hewitt post (http://www.hughhewitt.com/#postid1039) put up yesterday.

Anyway, I still don't think it has big legs.  I do, though, agree that it doesn't help Kerry to be again explaining himself this close to Nov 2nd.  I'll take it.  I just hope there's an Oct surprise, wouldn't that be fun...

On September 30, 2002, Senator John Kerry was in Hudson, MA with Senator Kennedy and Congressman Marty Meehan presenting a grant to the Hudson Public Schools. On the same day, the three of them presented another grant to the Lowell, MA Public Schools.

Lowell and Hudson are about 25 miles apart from each other, give or take a few, according to MapQuest. Assuming that Kerry travelled by car (which is likely), it would have taken him about a half hour to get from Lowell to Hudson (or vice versa), and that assumes that the traffic on 485 wasn't too bad. (Which would be the logical route between the two.)

I rather doubt that it would be possible for Senator Kerry to have two meetings in Massachusetts and still have time to get to New York and meet with the Security Council for any length of time. It is not impossible, and I'm still trying to get local media confirmation of when the Senators visited these schools. (Anyone with access to Lexis-Nexis are welcome to help out here.) However, given that it seems clear that the Senator was near Boston on September 30, 2002.

I'm on your side...

;)

First, I wont patronize the Washington Times for news. I will rely on Josh's summary. Which says:

# Britain -- Secondhand reports suggest meeting   # China -- Nothing on record.

# France -- Directly confirms meeting with Kerry.   # Russia -- Nothing on record.

Britain and France are confirmed, Russia and China have no record, which despite Josh's repeated claims otherwise, are not evidence of Kerry lying, absent direct proof.

Of the elected members, Josh's summary states that Cameroon and SIngapore confirm a meeting, a few deny it (which could be interpreted as an attempt to cover their behinds in case of a still-quite-likely Bush win), and the vast majority have no record.

No record is NOT proof that Kerry is lying, however much you'd like to infer it. If you lower the bar that far, then the Bush AWOL story suddenly gains legs of the kind it rightfully does not have at present. I'm not willing to compromise on that standard for truth, regardless of political gain.

The basic assertion is that Kerry met with the Security Council, the article in question (as sumarized) confirms that Kerry met with some and cannot prove Kerry did not meet with the others. There are some denials from minor countries (Hey, if Bush forgot Poland, surely Kerry can forget Bulgaria.)

It boils down to evidence, and Josh himself says that he has some statements off teh record from the countries that have "no record" listed at present. Thats really the only way you can really salvage any rigorous conclusion from the facts.

Seth, I have NOT called the reporter a liar, but what I am saying is that <Mowbray is  a columnist, not a reporter, and therefore his standard for analysis is different. This story boils down to an opinion, not a proof. <p>
And I'm still surprised that the missing bombs materiel story hasn't been addressed. I really hope you guys are working on that story with half as much attention as this one, given its relevance to the much more important issue of our war inIraq, which you claim Kerry will cut and run from and which you claim that Bush will prosecute with better competence the next term. That story matters - and I am being extremely charitable here - at least as much as this one.

Your comment smacked of someone trying to discredit the story by questioning the timing, source, etc....

I don't study comments much to see who's on which side.  

No offense intended.  But try some trust in the independence of Redstate from "Top-down" influences are were discussed in another thread recently.

Okay, that perked me up...  I wonder how they'll respond to that one?  

"oops, we had the wrong day, it was on or about 9/30 but we're not sure, .... oh and Kerry was "near" not "in" Cambodia right?

or the USAir shuttle. When I lived there, I had friends in New York who flew to Boston on business, met with me for lunch, and were back in NYC by 3pm. Dont know what time the UN Security Council goes home for .. whatever it is they do.

Logan is about 1/2 hour from Lowell, but can take as much as an hour if there's bad traffic. I'd have taken 93 up to 495. You're right it only takes 1/2 hour between Lowell and Hudson (though I think you meant 495, not 485).

The bottom line though is that its not difficult at all for Kerry to have shuttled between boston and new york that day.

Keep in mind that Bush and Kerry both cover a lot more ground every day this week than it would take for Kerry to have done that day.

please divulge your further information, off the record, from the representatives who could not confirm but did not deny either.

This assumes that Senator Kerry did actually travel to those places. I haven't confirmed it 100% at this time, and the wording of the press release makes it seem like he did - but until I can find some kind of more tangible evidence I'm only throwing this out there as a starting point for more research...

If anyone has access to press citations or photos showing John Kerry in either Lowell or Hudson on September 30, 2002, please let us know.

Let's just say I'd be surprised if they'd actually met with him. Especially with their government's permission.

Isn't the REAL question about Kerry's so called meetings,

"What answers did Kerry get from the Countries he supposedly talked with?"

Kerry voted FOR the war so he must have gotten at least some affirmative answers from the countries he met with.  

Another question

"Did France lie to him as they lied to Powell? "

I called several of the UN Missions.  Not one said that Kerry met with them.  In fact, all of them said that Kerry did not meet with them.  When I asked if they would allow me to quote them, they said no, they preferred not to involve themselves, but that I could report that they had "no record."

Well, then if you aren't going to read the article, I expect you to offer no commentary as to what it says or it's accuracy. You want me to critique articles of yours without reading them first?

As for proof, the article does say that he spoke with the representatives from Mexico, Bulgaria, Columbia, and a fourth which didn't want to be named, who said they never met with Kerry. So either Joel is lying, the ambassadors are lying, or you have your proof that Kerry never met with the entire Security Council. Again if you'd read the article you are criticizing, you'd be able to put together a more credible response.

That story matters - and I am being extremely charitable here - at least as much as this one.

And yet, here you are trying to pick apart this story without even reading it first.

I am continually amazed by the inability of people to think logically and to read carefully.

WRT the story, frankly I don't think it will get much traction.  People who have decided to vote for Kerry don't care that he lies routinely.  (Clinton's lies never bothered them.  Why should Kerry's?)  People who have decided on Bush already know Kerry is a liar.  At most, this could tip some undecideds who are leaning toward Bush into the Bush column.

WRT the explosives story that you keep bringing up, try reading before you hyperventilate.

1. The story is very old - over 18 months old
   
   
2. If you actually READ the thing, you'll discover that the site was bombed during the initial invasion and there was several VERY LARGE explosions.
   
   
3. If the terrorists had the explosives they would have already used them.  The fact that they're making IED's out of old artillery shells should tell you something IF you have the capacity to think independently of the party line.

If you're hoping for this story to get traction, don't.  The liberals have already fired all their "he lied, he's incompetent, he's negligent" bullets and it's had NO effect.  (That should tell you something too IF you have the capacity to think for yourself.)

thank you for finally answering the question. Can you at least list which countries specifically you called?

I can list the countries that have "no record" or were willing to say on the record that they had never met with Kerry.

Russia

China

Guinea

Columbia

Britain

Mexico

Syria

Bulgaria

Those are just the ones I called.

I just read teh article, solely at your insistence. Surprise, Red State sumarized the thing incredibly well.

Ive just re-read my posts, and I dont see where Ive got the facts wrong having read teh RS summary.

The specific things I take issue with, which you seem to think my readiong teh story will magucally mitigate, are:

• the insistence that Kerry consistently said "all the council."
• evidence of absence etc. ie "no record" = no meeting.

From my read of RS summary and now, Mowbray's article in teh odious Times, neither of the above are addressed. The Kerry campaign seems to have embraced the "You forgot Bulgaria" position. That seems reasonable. And its equally reasonable to infer from "no record" that the evidence is inconclusive.

Inconclusive - the word is the embodiment of the story as a whole, despite Mowbray's columnist-style desire to impart his own spin to the facts.

I did not call Russia.  Someone else did, but I know what they said.  Likewise with China, but in the course of this I forgot and called them too.

but what we need, to buttress teh argument, is the list of countries that were on record as "no record exists", but off the record said no meeting took place. Is that the list you've given above?

With O'Brien, the candidate for governor of Mass, that day, apparently in Fenway. Don't have the link; sorry. Check the Boston Globe's web page for 10/1/02:

Yesterday, Romney and O'Brien made separate presentations before a meeting of the Massachusetts Software and Internet Council in Newton; and O'Brien followed that with a campaign appearance with US Senator John F. Kerry in the Fenway. O'Brien and Kerry criticized Romney for his proposal to eliminate a stand-alone state Department of Veterans Services. Fehrnstrom said O'Brien was "playing politics" on veterans' issues. He added that Romney favors bureaucratic consolidations, not service cuts.

The story is by Rick Klein.

just because a campaign event was scheduled doesnt mean he actually went there. He could have blown the whole thing off for the trip to teh UN.

And anyway, since there are some countries that have explicitly CONFIRMED he met with them at the UN, isnt this a fruitless route of inquiry?

I told you to read the article because you repeatedly mischaracterized what it said:

1. You seemed to assume that the article said Kerry never met with anyone
   
   
2. You seemed to assume that no country was on record saying that they didn't meet with Kerry.

The article shows both to be false.

Kerry consistently referred to the council as either simply the council, members of the council, all the council, every one of them, etc. I see no evidence that he ever said "some of the members of the council". So there is consistency.

Evidence of absence. So if I tell you I never met Ted Williams, is that considered absense of evidence? A series of eye witnesses (four) who say they haven't met with Kerry I think is evidence. Now call it "no record" all you want, but I think they know when they haven't met someone.

Kerry seemed to "forget" at least a third of the council (maybe a lot more). One member may be an oversight, but four??

Each side has plenty of reasons to try and call the other candidate a liar. Bush & Co. has his weakness in this area (not worried about OBL, don't own a timber company, irrefutable proof of WMD in Iraq, SH tried to buy uranium in Africa, the list goes on....)  You are deluding yourselves thinking that this UN story will get traction. No one pays attention to the Washington Times and this morning's reaction proves this fact.

The real story is the 380 tons of explosives missing in Iraq. This is going to be a huge story all week. Our soldiers are being blown up day in day out with these very explosives. This will resonate. Bush and Co. were looking for WMD, but they could not secure 380 tons of weapons when they even knew their exact location.

 There are even allegations of a Condi coverup since she knew about it last month, however even as of this weekend, weapons were still being looted from this site. Mind you we are talking 380 TONS -- you need trucks (several) to cart this stuff out.

Stop wasting your time on useless stories....

If thats what it seemed to you I was assuming, then you misunderstood me and I comunicated poorly.

It is clear that the article did NOT assert that Kerry met with NO ONE. (actually, it was clear from teh summary).

The post-article analysis here at RS however asserts that Kerry always claimed he met with EVERY one, which was likely a trail embellishment and the campaign now disavows.

Neiethr did I assume that NO country was ON the record with a DENIAL, but since the article itself claims that Kerry met with SOME, and Mowbray crows about "capitulation" (ie, the campaign acknowledging that Kerry met with SOME), the existence of some denials is NOT conclusive.

The correct buirden of proof is to either A. Kerry to maintain he met with all, in which case teh on-the-record denials are sufficient. Or B. Kerry to maintain he met with some, in which case the evidence doesnt really show anything.

Since Case B clearly is the case, the entire argument of teh article is inconclusive.

If Kerry was in Boston, that means he was likely in Lowell and Hudson as well. If he was making three different stops in the Boston area, plus travel time, it seems highly unlikely that he could get to NYC (even via Acela service) and meet with the Security Council. Remember that getting from any of the airports in the NYC area to the UN building is not going to be a quick journey.

Add the time it takes to get through traffic from Fenway to Lowell to Hudson, and it seems that Kerry's whereabouts on that day are becoming more clear.

Good investigatory work!

They send their love, but have no record of a meeting with John Kerry.

Kerry did repeatedly claim that he met with all the memebers, either corporately or individually.  So no, B isn't at all "clearly the case."  

In fact, the clear case is that he repeatedly claimed to have met with the entire coucil -- again, be it individually, in small groups, or all together -- but was clearly, and knowingly, lying about it.  The notion that either "well, I only meant a few," or "well, I only meant the permanent members," is a sufficient explanation is patently untrue and ex post facto to the breaking of the story.  

You don't get to revise past statements in light of current evidence. If I said I met with all the Yankees and then when it is shown I haven't met will all, I don't get to say, "Well, I met with some" and still have credibility.

Sure, if you go by what the campaign is willing to admit today given current information (instead of going by what they said up until yesterday), no one in the history of the world has ever lied about anything.

...force the burden of proof to change.  He lied about so many stupid things that he actually does bear some burden of proof.  After a few howlers by Gore, the standard of proof for his outrageous claims also changed.

Honest people get the benefit of the doubt.  The article isn't to prove that he never went to the UN building, it's to show that Kerry will stretch and contort the truth (or make it up)into an outright lie (usually an unnecessary one) to make himself look cool.

He's pitiful.

So now, rather than allowing further investigation which may bolster your man's claims, you wish to stifle an investigation that would cast further light on the truth of the matter?  

The truth is out there.  

Some have said they did meet with him.  A few options:

1. They were lying to help 'their guy.'
   
   
2. They were affirming that they did meet with Kerry sometime around the specified date, but not necessarily that day.
   
   
3. They did meet with Kerry that day, after he was in Mass. for the school events, but Kerry still did not meet with other countries that day nor any other day.

I'd be fine with this investigation showing that he was in fact at the U.N. that day.  It still doesn't get over the fact that a number nations say they never met with him.  But if the reverse is true, and he was in Massachusetts all day, it adds to our case that he's a pathalogical liar who doesn't even try to be crafty in his lies and make them hard to prove false.

And that's not a mark of a very smart person.

At least if Bush was lying about WMD (again, it implies forknowledge of the lie and intent to deceive, not simple relaying of false information) he did it in such a way that it can't be proven that he lied.  Who's the smart one in that scenario?

I remember hearing about IAEA material being missing in the IMMEDIATE aftermath of the war.

What's really happening here: I read Kos for the first time last night and the folks there strategized to try to downplay the UN story and play up the NYT article.

At least they obey their orders.

beware my ability to (gasp) stifle your investigation !!!

Im just asking questions that seem, to me, to be reasonable. If that troubles you, well, thats your problem.

But of course, its probably uncouth of me to trouble you on your forum, so I guess I have to conccede that my questions have not really achieved much either way.

I just want to clarify the reason I "misunderstood" you. It is because of posts like this where you said to Joel:

"but your claim is that Kerry met with none of the council on September 30th, they still maintain that Kerry did meet with the council."

Look Aziz. If you are frustrated with how this discourse is turning out, perhaps it is because you decided to get snarky towards the person who wrote the story:

"This isnt your Townhall column, you're trying cross to the journalism side of the fence."

As I have shown elsewhere, you mis-characterized what Joel wrote (concerning whether he claimed Kerry met with no one vs. some), and you did so admittedly without actually reading the article first.

You have also attempted to make the lie into a simple stump speech exaggeration. That might fly if Joel hadn't specifically asked the Kerry campaign whether or not he met with the entire council or not. They affirmed that he did. So that takes the "stump speech exaggeration" argument off the table.

Lastly, you tried to shift the subject to missing explosives and implied that RedState is deliberately avoiding the other story (and lo and behold, someone was working on the story as you spoke). It is an irrelevant comment anyway since the focus here on this story is the mirror of the left's focus on it in order to try to marginalize it. So be it.

What is stunning to me is how the Kerryites are completing ignoring the central fact that the Kerry campaign had stated unequivocally that yes Kerry had met with the entire Security Council until challenged with Mowbray's article...when confronted with Kerry's repeated lie.....sorry two or three guys does not the entire Security Council make......

And knowing the Kerry campaign, the official answer will likely change three or four times in the coming days....

Pattern of behaviour folks, disturbing pattern of behaviour here.........

"self-aggrandizing" was a word someone more articulate than I used to describe Kerry today........

John "Walter Mitty" Kerry lives......

"SH tried to buy uranium in Africa"

Didn't you know that the liar in this case turned out to be Joe Wilson (Valerie Plame's husband, not my Congressman)?

Bush was vindicated on this one.

meant to accuse joel of saying his claim was that erry met with NOt the WHOLE council. Sloppy on my part, and appreciate your calling me on it.

i think ive explained my position on the story now though clearly enough. Since Joel leads his front-page post with a quote from the kerry campaign about case B, I think its inconclusive.

I remember it well, it came out in April 2003, such a lame attempt here - oh and I don't recall hearing the Democrats howling at that time, I didn't hear John Kerry talk about incompetence then......

No one including the NY Times seems to be able to say when this stuff went missing, oh why bother with such a pertinent fact....

There was a definite time lapse from the time the IAEA or any UN inspectors were at that site and the beginning of the war.

Since this was reported during the war, shortly after the invasion of Baghdad if memory serves, seems more likely that the Baathists moved stuff out of that site before the US even got there, because they sure did their damnedest to move other things, like those huge caches of cash.

I recall two things - a memo was found at Iraqi Intelligence detailing a multiple point plan for the Baathists to react if it look like the US invasion was going to be a success, including organized looting, organized protests, grabbing all files and assets out of all government ministries etc and steps to put an insurgency plan in place.

I remember David Kay had an interesting story - an Iraqi lead the US military to a tractor trailer full of files that just happened to pertain to the Iraqi WMD programs, the Iraqis told the soldiers that the Baathists who were in a hurry had managed to get away with one tractor trailer full of boxes but had left this trailer behind because the US soldiers were just about there.

Ah you got to love the intellectual honesty of supposed reputable journalists these days. The good news is a poll just came out and at least half of the people understand the game, that the media is favouring John Kerry.

as i mentioned elsewhere, the only way its been mentioned is to dismiss it. I dont think it deserves that treatment. I was being charitable to say that the missing explosives story is at least as important as the Kerry UN thing, and that despite my (badly communicated) skepticism. You arent even trying to make an effort to address the explosives issue. Just saying it doesnt matter.

But look, its up to you what you focus on. Im not sacrificing my objectivity though on the altar of my partisan fervor. Niv 2nd is almost here and Ill be extremely happy to have it over with one way or teh other.

"With trepidation, John Kerry for President" - endorsement of John Kerry from the Idaho Statesman

then how do you reconcile that the Kerry camp, given the chance before the story aired to clarify EXACTLY what his level of involvement was, still stuck to the "previous claims that he had met with the entire Security Council" story? This would have been a great time to completely abort the story on their part. There wouldn't be much to write about if the Kerry camp specifically endorsed option B before the story broke. Endorsing option B after the story broke is nothing more than retrenching to make a lie a truth.

I didn't say "it doesn't matter". It is interesting that while there are two main stories posted here, one on the explosives, one on the UN-Kerry lie, even most of the left are focused on the UN-Kerry lie. So quite obviously most of the discussion ends up on this story (and apparently even yours). Dialogue on a blog is a two way street. You can't engage in a debate on one subject and criticize your opponent for not debating a different subject at the same time. I haven't seen a post from you within the explosives story either.

why would you show your hand unless forced to?

and really, what difference does it make whether he met with 6 members or 5? thats the basic problem underlying te story - teh relevance is just tooo tenous. OK, he met with some. Whatever!

The important issue is the unsecured explosives. Thats the issue that the public wants to focus on, with good reason, because it speaks to competence of managing this War.

On that score, youre response is to deny it matters. Why is that? Can it really not matter? Bombs used against our troops?

you "generally". the post to which you referred has that tone. Are you disagreeing? that woudl be welcome news. I havent been back to the thread recently.

was not intending to put words in your mouth, but your silence in that thread certainly implied consent with the "it doesnt matter" position. Do you?

First, thanks for the clarification. It sounded like you were putting words in my mouth.

The point I made, it seems, still stands. Lots of debate over here in these threads. Lots of accusations that we are ignoring the other. Yet still most of the left seems more interested and worried about this story going by posting activity. Naturally since it takes two to argue, the resulting discussion is more heavy over here. But if it is a reflection of our focus, then it is also a reflection of the left's focus as well.

Anyway, regarding the explosives story, it is hard to say. Too many facts are open, such as when the explosives really disappeared. Without those types of key facts, who can draw much of a conclusion regarding culpability? I don't suppose because I'm not in the "see what GWB did!!" camp based on speculative conclusions alone, I just can't possibly be considered "objective."

That makes no sense. What does poker have to do with lying about meeting with the entire council? He said he met with all, so the story is very relevant. Can I draw the inference here that bluffing means he did know he was lying when his camp affirmed his story last week?

Regarding explosives, when you want to talk about it in the explosives thread, then go ahead. Until then using it as a convenient deflection over here where you happen to be discussing the UN story with me is a complete farse.

I really think that the core of Kerry's supporters don't really care whether or not he's a liar, whether or not he uses refuted rhetoric, or even whether or not he has any ideas of his own. In fact, I think that's why they like him...because he doesn't think. He represents the irrational -the mindless, the non-thinking- and many follow him for that, because they know Bush has ideas ("The war in Iraq is right; tax cuts are good"), and ideas are challenges. Kerry doesn't, he doesn't have any ideas, he's just a negative, he's just...against Bush. Of course he can't say this openly (that he won't challenge the people with reason if elected), so he has his front: he's a war hero from 'Nam, he's an intellectual, he's worldly; all things people can tell themselves in order to get away with supporting him without telling themselves they support a candidate who is anti-thought -and if thought is man's means of survival- anti-life.

If he is irrational and his hardcore followers like him because of that, then reality isn't going to matter to him or them: the non-thinking is not concerned with the realm of facts. Just take a look at the dude on DailyKos (a blog) writing about the "Kerry and Security Council" story:

"But there is a punchline -- The story is wrong. Kerry did meet with everyone.

Update: I know I haven't sourced the assertion that Kerry met with everyone. When we see the story, with the names of the ambassadors who claim not to have met with Kerry, then it'll be easy enough to refute the allegations."

In other terms: "I know I haven't offered any evidence, but I'll come up with some rationalization once we see who the ambassadors are, so I can lie to myself, and you to yourself." Once they are named, he "refutes" the "allegations" by laughing them off as ambassadors from insignificant -and therefore- non-entity countries, evading the essential: Kerry said he met with all the members of the Security Council, he did not.

How does this relate to the post this is a comment for?

Thusly: the post demonstrates that Kerry's campaign does not care about facts, about reality: Kerry made a claim, it was proven false, instead of retracting the claim, and admitting that it was wrong, the claim is altered, as if what is ignored does not exist.

Also, the fact that it is an argument, and a rational one, ties into my ultimate point: Don't argue with the kind of people I discussed above, they don't listen to reason, don't care about reality, don't frustrate yourself with them. Argue the people who do care about facts, keep them in mind when you disprove the assertions of the irrational, who would confuse, by whatever words it takes, to dominate.

No-one is listening. Today is the missing explosives, the massacre, and Clinton's return. Good luck trying to get heard above all that.

Well, it did get about a two minute blurb on Brit's Fox News show this evening.  It's a start....

You know, it may take awhile for this to percolate. It certainly worked out that way with the Christmas in Cambodia story. Yeah, I know we only have a week to go, but if it takes, say, 3-4 days to rise to the surface, that's perfect timing in my book.

it's on foxnews main page http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,136547,00.html

exactly!

which is why I think they released the story today as opposed to later in the week, because it will take some time to percolate, esp if tomorrow is a slower news day.......

besides for me the litmus is Scarborough Country tonight and see if its the first story covered or Larry O Donnell's meltdown on Friday......

According to Technorati, it's the top political blogs topic today.  Thanks for playing.

For what it's worth, here are the UN Security Council minutes for the time period in question.

http://www.un.org/Depts/dhl/resguide/scact2002.htm

There's nothing definitive, but there is a gap between 26 September and 2 October.  I wonder if the Council members stayed in New York during that time.

September 30, 2002 was a Monday.

On Saturday, September 28, 2002, Kerry attended a political event in South Carolina (Source Second Source)

On Sunday, September 29, 2002, Kerry attended a charity hockey game (fund raiser) in Worcester, MA.  (Source Second Source)

I haven't found any sources for what Kerry was doing on Monday, September 30, 2002

For part of the day. I can't speak for the rest.