Skip to comments.
VIDEO: John Kerry claims "I met with the Security Council of the United Nations"
C-SPAN / UNITY Conference ^
| 7/8/04
| John Kerry
Posted on 08/08/2004 10:21:57 AM PDT by Steven W.
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-32 next last
1
posted on
08/08/2004 10:21:57 AM PDT
by
Steven W.
To: Steven W.
I don't see where this thread is going
Is it that Kerry didn't meet with the council but said he did? Or is it that he did, in fact, meet with the council but should not have because he was undermining the authority of executive branch.
2
posted on
08/08/2004 10:31:24 AM PDT
by
ProudGOP
To: Steven W.
"I met with the Security Council of the United Nations in the week preceding the vote in the Senate."Gee, that's big of him. Wonder when he'll make time to meet with the Senate where theoretically he was elected to serve.
3
posted on
08/08/2004 10:32:23 AM PDT
by
catpuppy
(Kerry-Edwards: When hair is all that matters.)
To: ProudGOP
Does the Security Council honor requests for meetings with individual citizens now? Goody! I have a few issues I'd like to discuss with them.
4
posted on
08/08/2004 10:33:42 AM PDT
by
Ukiapah Heep
(Shoes for Industry!)
To: Steven W.
E-mail everyone and their mothers! This information must be given to the media, White House and Justice Dept. If the media is flooded with the info then they will have to respond. If just one media source investigates then more and more will follow. This could be the biggest story this election season!
5
posted on
08/08/2004 10:34:06 AM PDT
by
tobyhill
(The war on terrorism is not for the weak!)
Comment #6 Removed by Moderator
To: ProudGOP
Where this is going is the separation of the Executive branch and legislative branch. Unless President Bush gave authorization, which he didn't, Kerry crossed the line. Negotiating beyond ones position could be treasonous.
7
posted on
08/08/2004 10:38:09 AM PDT
by
tobyhill
(The war on terrorism is not for the weak!)
To: ProudGOP
Is it that Kerry didn't meet with the council but said he did? Or is it that he did, in fact, meet with the council but should not have because he was undermining the authority of executive branch. Both / either - the likely explanation is that he LIED again and is another FOREIGN LEADER gaffe. Note research on adjoining TRANSCRIPT thread to see that Kerry was in Iowa that week and does not appear he could have been in New York. Of course all that's moot somewhat because, of course, Kerry did NOT likely meet with the Security Council, as he said, but that he was LYING on Thursday when he said it.
The further troubling aspects point to the fact he's expressing a desire to negotiate with other nations behind the US back when only the US Ambassador to the UN or Secretary of State are typically assigned such duties.
8
posted on
08/08/2004 10:38:50 AM PDT
by
Steven W.
To: tobyhill
especially valid considering we now know about the Oil for Food scandal at the UN and France's assurance to Iraq (and others, possibly including Kerry) that they would not approve subsequent "authorization" for US to go to war which may have influenced his waffling over his vote in the Senate.
9
posted on
08/08/2004 10:40:17 AM PDT
by
Steven W.
To: Spann_Tillman
How'd you get an Asheville Pic?
To: Steven W.
e-mail drudge with this that is quickest way to get this into the news cycle.
11
posted on
08/08/2004 10:41:55 AM PDT
by
DodgeRam
To: Steven W.
Dear God in Heaven: Please impose your power and expose the lies and dishonesty of John Kerry and his cohorts to the American people. Amen
12
posted on
08/08/2004 10:43:43 AM PDT
by
Viet-Boat-Rider
(KERRY IS A NARCISSISTIC LIAR, GOLDBRICKER, AND TRAITOR!)
To: catpuppy
I believe I read that slick willie was also meeting with the security council. Does anyone really believe they were trying to help President Bush?
13
posted on
08/08/2004 10:44:22 AM PDT
by
OldFriend
(WAR IS THE REMEDY OUR ENEMIES HAVE CHOSEN)
To: Ukiapah Heep
Since the UN depends on votes for funding.....my guess is that they will kiss the butt of anyone who wants to meet with them who is considered a 'friendly'.
14
posted on
08/08/2004 10:45:24 AM PDT
by
OldFriend
(WAR IS THE REMEDY OUR ENEMIES HAVE CHOSEN)
To: Steven W.
"The further troubling aspects point to the fact he's expressing a desire to negotiate with other nations behind the US back when only the US Ambassador to the UN or Secretary of State are typically assigned such duties."
A "desire"?
Please! If Kerry did this, it is simply a repeat of history. In 1972/72 While the US was neogotiating framework with the Vietnamese that insisted on conditions for RELEASE of our POW's/MIA's- private citizen Kerry was, with his band of war protesters, having his OWN meetings with the North Vietnamese in Paris.
Perhaps someone who is familiar with Nicaraugua can chime in on Kerry's meeting(s) with the Sandinistas.
15
posted on
08/08/2004 10:46:35 AM PDT
by
silverleaf
(Fasten your seat belts- it's going to be a BUMPY ride.)
To: Steven W.
For me, the biggest issue is that would have overstepped his authority.
I hope, however, that it turns out that this was merely a lie because that will be the most damaging to him. Sadly, most people do not care about the Constitution or the separation of powers between the 3 branches of government.
An easily disproven lie will go a long way toward cementing Kerry's image of a flip flopper who will say anything to get elected.
16
posted on
08/08/2004 10:47:16 AM PDT
by
ProudGOP
To: Steven W.
His meeting with the Security Council during a perilous time for the Nation is reminiscent of his meeting with the Viet Cong representatives years ago during another perilous time.
Which side is Kerry really on? He seems to be undermining the WoT whenever possible, just as he did the VietNam war.
Ironically, now all he has to run his campaign on are the 4 months--prior to his Viet Cong/Paris activities. Yet, he appears to be is a neck and neck race for the Presidency. That indicates something very wrong with our Nation.
17
posted on
08/08/2004 10:48:18 AM PDT
by
TomGuy
(After 20 years in the Senate, all Kerry has to run on is 4 months of service in Viet Nam.)
To: Steven W.
Kerry and others may have given away our trump card and that would explain why France suddenly backed out. Once they knew or found out certain details all negotiating stops because we have nothing to offer. It could have also allowed friends of Iraq to get with Saddam before combat allowing time for him to hide or export the WMD.
18
posted on
08/08/2004 10:51:42 AM PDT
by
tobyhill
(The war on terrorism is not for the weak!)
To: OldFriend
I congratulate Mr. kerry and Mr. Clinton for spending time with the Security Council.
and I hope that they stay there and leave our government alone ...
19
posted on
08/08/2004 10:54:20 AM PDT
by
catpuppy
(Tere$a ... Now there's a name that means something!)
To: catpuppy
Would that be the same UN Security Council that didn't see genocide in Rwanda or Sudan, took oil for food brides and is okay with the Sudanese slave trade? I feel safer already.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-32 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson