The Kerry Bombshell That Won't Explode The news story that powerlineblog and others had claimed would be so damaging to John Kerry has been printed in the Washington Times today. My reaction is pity; I truly pity these poor deluded folks. In a nutshell, here's the content of the article: The Washington Times, a right wing mag owned by the Moonies, is on a major fishing expedition. They need to discredit John Kerry, and here is the best they can come up with: They quote Kerry on the campaign trail: 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, Apparently, John Kerry exaggerated. He didn't talk to all the members of the security council. According to French ambassador John-David Levitte, John Kerry didn't meet with every member of the security council, "only some of them". This "some of them" includes France and Great Britain. It does not, however, include Columbia and Bulgaria. Of course, Powerlineblog and the Washington Times claim this is proof that Kerry is a liar. He didn't meet with every member of the security council. Any graduate of 10th grade civics would know that there are temporary and permanent members of the U.N. Security Council. The permanent members of the security council are the United States, China, Russia, France and Great Britain. The article confirms that Kerry definitely met with France and Great Britain. It neither confirms or denies that Kerry met with Russia or China. It's possible Kerry met with all five permanent members of the security council. A reasonable explanation would be that Kerry talked to the five permanent members--the only members with any real power to sway the course of events--and didn't waste his time talking to Cameroon and Columbia. On the campaign, he talked in verbal shorthand. Let's assume, though, that the Washington Post wrote a "fair and balanced" article. The worst we could conclude is that Kerry went to the U.N. and only spoke to representatives of four other nations. Afterwards, he exaggerated, claiming he had spoken to fourteen. What does this incident reveal? For the Washington Post, this is proof that Kerry is deceptive. Now let's imagine, for a second, that he actually had met with every nation on the security council--then they would be claiming he was handing over our sovergnity to foreign nations, and claiming our foreign policy was written in a Paris commune. Like powerlineblog, they know Bush won't win on his economic policy or his foreign policy, because they're both disasters. Therefore, their only hope is that they can discredit Kerry enough that people will be too dispirited to vote for the "lesser of two evils". Nice try, boys. The fact that this is the best you can come up with is pathetic. President Bush has turned a massive surplus into defecits as far as the eye can see; he has sent men needlessly to their deaths under false pretense; he has restricted civil liberties and men are tortured in our prisons while hidden from the red cross. And the best you guys can come up with is that Kerry didn't meet with Columbia and Cameroon? The next four years are going to be a living hell for you.