Another "Seared" Memory?

[BPSCG]

Kerry meets with the U.N. Security council.

Or maybe not.

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.

Now if Kerry were writing on this forum, at this point, someone would be asking him to provide evidence to support his claim.

 

[corplinx]

You must have gotten that from Faux News where all brainwashed right wingers get their news.

 

[Rob Lister]

You must have gotten that from Faux News where all brainwashed right wingers get their news.

Is that to suggest that you believe Kerry's claim, even though security council he members he presumably met with deny it?

I perfer to think you are being glib. Correct me if I am mistaken.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Can't Bush supporters just give Kerry the benefit of the doubt, and assume he was high on crack when he made his remark?

And is any paper other than the Washington Times carrying this story? I'm a little leery of newspapers owned by the Moonies.

 

[BPSCG]

And is any paper other than the Washington Times carrying this story? I'm a little leery of newspapers owned by the Moonies.

Why should you be leery? The Washington Times has a pretty good reputation for investigative journalism, even within the industry, especially considering the fact that it has nowhere near the resources of its hometown competitor. Saying, "Oh, the Moonies paper" doesn't cut it as an objection; it amounts to a reverse appeal to authority: In Galileo's time, if Aristotle said something, it was automatically true, and today, if the Washington Times says something, it is automatically false.

I doubt anyone else is carrying the story at this point, for a couple of reasons. First, the ever-popular liberal media reason (don't bet the New York Times is going to report this at all). Second, and really, more important, the Washington Times did this investigative story themselves. It's their piece, and they're going to be the only ones carrying it today.

My guess is, they're going to be pretty much the only ones carrying it, period, even though it's just one more example of Kerry getting caught in a lie about having talks with foreign leaders (see the last couple of paragraphs of the story).

 

[TragicMonkey]

Why should you be leery? The Washington Times has a pretty good reputation for investigative journalism, even within the industry, especially considering the fact that it has nowhere near the resources of its hometown competitor. Saying, "Oh, the Moonies paper" doesn't cut it as an objection; it amounts to a reverse appeal to authority: In Galileo's time, if Aristotle said something, it was automatically true, and today, if the Washington Times says something, it is automatically false.

I said I was "leery", not assuming it's incapable of telling the truth. I started out studying history, and I always consider the source. It's not the only consideration, but it shouldn't be neglected.

And by going on about "the liberal media" and mentioning the NY Times in particular, aren't you guilty of the same sort of thinking?

 

[Ed]

I said I was "leery", not assuming it's incapable of telling the truth. I started out studying history, and I always consider the source. It's not the only consideration, but it shouldn't be neglected.

And by going on about "the liberal media" and mentioning the NY Times in particular, aren't you guilty of the same sort of thinking?

THE PUBLIC EDITOR; Is The New York Times a Liberal Newspaper?

Of course it is.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpa...4C0A9629C8B63&n=Top/Opinion/The Public Editor

Yes, Virginia, the Times is a liberal newspaper.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Yes, Virginia, the Times is a liberal newspaper.

Did I say it wasn't? I was pointing out that making assumptions about what it would or would not print is just the same thing as assuming the Moonie paper wouldn't print the truth, which is what it was suggested I was doing. I wasn't, as a matter of fact.

NY Times = liberal, Wash Times = conservative. I don't think it's intellectually sound to dismiss the NY Times because of bias while arguing that one shouldn't dismiss the Wash Times because of bias!

And anyway, I consider the fact that the Wash Times is owned by an actual lunatic cult to be the worrisome aspect. Purely political bias is expected and can be accounted for.

 

[BPSCG]

And anyway, I consider the fact that the Wash Times is owned by an actual lunatic cult to be the worrisome aspect. Purely political bias is expected and can be accounted for.

You're doing it again - the "reverse appeal to authority."

Look, this article is more than just a bunch of anonymous quotes from "sources who asked not to be identified." It names names and states dates. When the Times asked for Kerry's explanation,

...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."

So you have specific evidence that Kerry was not speaking the truth, and Kerry's campaign coming back with a hem-haw, weak-kneed defense. Why doesn't Kerry challenge the story on the facts? Why doesn't he say, "The Times story is wrong; I spoke with the ambassadors of France, England, China, the United States, and Russia (the permanent members), and Jerkfaceistan, Slobovia, Elbonia,.. on October 15, 2002, and here's a copy of my appointments agenda for that day that proves it."

So let's get back to the issue: Yes or no? Was Kerry lying when he said he met with all the members of the Security Council?