It certainly sounds as if Kerry has misstated what happened. Unless several of the ambassadors are lying (and it’s hard to imagine why they would, rather than simply refusing to comment, if they wanted to keep their meetings secret), he did not meet with all of the Security Council members.
He apparently did not meet with anyone from Mexico, Colombia, or Bulgaria. The cited article does make it clear, however, that he did meet with the French and the British. There is no claim made in the article, one way or the other, about the Russians and the Chinese, an omission that I find odd. That also leaves 8 other members of the Council (a total of 10, including Russia and China) who haven’t said whether they met with Kerry or not. So, the Washington Times reporter spoke to one-third of the members of the Council, and only half of the permanant members.
Perhaps Kerry meant to say that he had met with all the permanent members of the Security Council. Meeting with all 15 member nations would be pretty tough to pull off. I doubt that any Senator could successfully demand a meeting with the full Council all at once, and taking them one at a time would take weeks to coordinate.
If this really matters to you, you should, of course, vote for Bush, who has always told the American public the full, unvarnished truth about everything.
And the NYT, one of whose writers recieved a pulitzer for writing how great things were in the Soviet Union (as millions were being killed off by Stalin), is a magically more reputable? Did Jayson Blair tell you that?
Ah, yes, corruption from 50 years ago at the NYT certainly does make the Washington Times more credible. When you’re done sniffing that glue, can I have some?
Hitler and Stalin. We should all be impressed, no? Regardless, it’s not like he’s the one banging out the stories. News World Communications, the parent company of Washington Times, also has UPI news wire, Philadelphia Golf Monthly, and others.
Besides, the CEO is Rev. Chung Hwan Kwak, so I don’t see what you could possibly be complaining about.
(Yes, it does look bad. But I have to see a Washington Times article be proven factually incorrect)
But the New York Times, considered probably the most reputable paper in the country, you’ll toss out because of their coverage of Stalin’s Russia and the Jayson Blair incident, which resulted in the ousting of Blair, his editor, and a lot of internal examination to prevent such things from recurring? I don’t get that at all.
It’s either the NYT or the Washington Post, or both. And yes, that was embarrassing. The performance of all the national media at that point was embarrassing, so I can’t single out the Times for that.
Tossing a little personal experience into the mix here…
I interviewed to be Marketing Director at TWT in 2002. It was one of the weirdest experiences of my life (National Geographic was weirder).
So I’m in there meeting with the top dog in Circulation and Marketing and he says flat out “We don’t really care if we make money. We’ve been told whether we make it or not we’ll keep printing because we’re an ego thing for Rev Moon. He LIKES having a newspaper in Washington DC as a toy.”
