Redstate

The most glaring thing about this (and the other Kerry 'exagerations': Christmas in Cambodia, 1986 World Series, The Boston Marathon) is that he is NOT lying. He just remembers events that never happened.

He's confused. Shouldn't you all be busy explaining why we left 350 metric tons of explosives unguarded -- explosives that are almost certainly being used against our troops? Shouldn't you explain why Rice knew about this at the very least in the last month -- and was so concerned that she went out to campaign for her boss? Oops, sorry, that's changing the subject to actual news. Let me try again... so Kerry might have missed Bulgaria. So what, no one cares what Bulgaria thinks about Iraq. Grrr.... fell into another one -- I forgot that I'm not allowed to say the story is irrelevant. And I'm not allowed to point out that the Washington Times is a joke that makes your average poster here look like a Pulitzer prize winner, either? Well, at least I don't think Rove is behind this... this is little-league stuff, guys. He's a big scary boy, he wouldn't waste his time with this drivel. Oh, and making honesty a central issue in this race really isn't doing Bush any favors.

Ok, flame away =)

You do a great job nullifying yourself.

Gosh, why doesn't Red State adhere to today's lefty talking points?

Moving on....

Come on -- the news isn't lefty talking points, whatever Sinclair might think. We aren't over there in Iraq orchestrating some massive conspiracy to make Bush look bad. He's managing quite well on his own -- and while it might be good politically for Democrats, it's very bad for America. It might be "hard work" to run an occupation but it would have been hard work well spent to prevent the flowering of terrorism currently taking place.

If you want to point out that no one is talking about the missing explosives over here, make absolutely sure that you don't look here.

"I wanted to thank Red State and other boards that are getting the message and information out that the Mainstream Media is not. I am in Ohio and was initially undecided. I had no idea how dishonest Mr. Kerry was with his need to stretch every event to make himself appear more important, more connnected than he really is."

So obviously, there will be another post soon, condemning Bush for stretching the truth to make him more connected to the UK, and "you forgot Poland", when those countries are on their way out the door after realizing they've been duped. And trying to suggest we had as strong a coalition as we did during the first Gulf War, that's not dishonest? Please...

Polish commandos were among the first into southern Iraq.  Hey, if that's a "lie" to you, we've got little common ground.

There's a good reason the only folks guffawing about the Poland line are the mouth-breathers of the lefty blogosphere.

Anyway, thanks for illustrating the point, jefe -- deflect, deflect, deflect!

Focusing on your preferred stories is certainly a lefty preference.

An ammo dump got looted in Iraq.  Months ago.  Huh.  Okay.  Keep flogging it, I guess.

o one hand you insist that the Kerry and the Un thing "matters" - ovber there, is the claim that the missing explosives, used against our troops (accordingto Marshall's sources) doesnt matter.

Bringing up the topic is not equivaoent to dealing with it fairly or honestly.

that when it came time to punish Saddam for terror bombing civilian populations, or even to protect Saddam's own people from his retalition, it evaporated faster than water on a hot grill.  I'm just saying, using the GW1 coalition as some sort of benchmark seems dubious, especially when Kerry wasn't on board for that war.  Yes, its also not genuine for the president to say it has the same numbers and quantities and power, but I wonder why he has to defend it on those terms to Kerry.  The fact is we didn't exactly "go it alone", and even if we had the same nations participating in Iraq it didn't do it for Kerry when Saddam actually was in the act of warmongering, so why is it cogent to the debate now?  

First, if Kerry did not meet with China or Russia on September 30th, 2002, then I would say that some of his statements over the past year are lies.

By the same standard, President Bush and VP Cheney have certainly told an enormous amount of lies.  Regardless, if instead, Kerry met with the UK, Russia, China, France, *Germany, Cameroon and Singapore, then I think the 65% of Americans who are not hardcore Republicans will see this as a tempest in a teapot.

For the record, Kerry has not exactly backed off of his statements.  From the Kerry Press Release you posted

"On September 30, 2002, before the vote in the US Congress on the Iraq resolution, John Kerry went to the United Nations and met with a group of representatives of countries sitting on the Security Council.

Again, if he forgot Bulgaria, who cares?  If he didn't meet with a Russian rep or a Chinese rep, then it's accurate to say he was lying.  So far, I have yet to see the 'news story' part of this.  If you had Russia or China on the record saying definitively that Kerry never met with them, it might generate some ink in non-right-wing circles.  Until then, it doesn't seem to meet the bar of actual 'news'.

* It is certainly valid to include Germany on this list.  On 27 September 2002 the United Nations General Assembly elected Germany for a two-year term with 180 out of a total of 183 votes.  That's three days before Kerry claims to have met with German reps at the UN.  The Federal Republic of Germany has been an official non-permanent member of the United Nations Security Council since 1 January 2003.

First we weren't talking about it. Now we are talking about it but since people don't draw the same conclusion as you do, we aren't dealing with it honestly. Puh-lease.

Deflection. Love it. This entire blog is dedicated to deflecting four years of lies and failures, and I'm deflecting from one exageration, and that's supposed to make me now want to vote for Bush. OK. got it.

The first Gulf coalition only stood for evicting Saddam from Kuwait. GHWB specifically said that one of the reasons he didn't remove Saddam from power completely back then is because the coalition wouldn't have gone along with a push to Baghdad. IOW, that coalition would have fallen apart under GWII objectives. This coalition pursued a far more aggressive agenda.

If this point was made by someone not dedicated to deflecting from 20 years of Senate service and lies and 4 months of military service and lies, it might sting a bit more.

It's been 18 months of deflection of the fact that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq last March when we invaded. The reasons for going to war have changed numerous times. Obviously there is some gap in the my thinking and that of Red State, but to not call what Bush and company have done deflection, I just don't know what is. The incumbent can't run a campaign ad that features anything the president has done. Deflection from absence of substance.

Ok, because we got over the absense of WMD 18 months ago, and you want to talk about it from here to eternity, means we are deflecting.  Mmmm-kay.

Also let me know when your boy stops running from his 20 year Senate record and stops simply running on the "I'm not Bush" platform...then you can talk about who is deflecting from absense of substance.

Hey Brendan.

According to the NYT, (and I am loath to trust them, but will do so now for the sake of argument), we're talking about something like 350 tons of explosives at that site.

Do you know how many munitions and explosives we've destroyed and corralled since we've been there?

250,000 tons.

Add that to the fact that even the Times report can't say for sure when this depot was looted---including, perhaps, before we invaded---and you can understand why that story doesn't bug us much.

I can't imagine this will matter much in the campaign. As mistatements go, this is only slightly more aggregious[sic] than, say, Vice President Cheney's claim to have never met John Edwards before their debate when, in fact, they had run into one another two or three times before.

That's James Joyner, a pretty reasonable partisan voice.  

if I'm an average lefty. Plenty of people that know me think I lean to the right.

But I'm pretty nonplussed by this whole thing. Not talking to Mexico was supposed to be a big thing?

I just don't see it.

It's that he claimed he had met with them when he claimed -- repeatedly -- that he had met with the whole Security Council.  To meet with the "whole security council" necessarily includes Mexico.  It speaks to his pathological and... the adjective escapes me... lying.  It's not even clever lying that takes great effort to disprove.  It's a lie that he knew when he said it wasn't true.  Who would know better than he whether or not he had met with the ENTIRE Sec. Council?  Knowing that he hadn't, he STILL claimed -- repeatedly -- that he had.

This is like "It's about sex" in the Monica Lewinsky matter.  No, it wasn't 'about sex.'  It was about lying.  This isn't about 'meeting with Bulgaria and Mexico' -- it's about lying.

It may not move you, but at least dismiss what it's actually about rather than what your quick, inaccurate read thought it was about.

You really think that's the problem, here?

He would do well to read the "Liar" post below.

I am Carroll and sent an email earlier today to redstate.  This blog with others both pro and anti with debates etc. helped me make up my mind and only mine.  I am not a political junkie nor am I an expert on exact information or dates or sources.  I am probably your worst nightmare to both parties the barely educated voter trying to read between the lines and find some sense in the hype.

I have considered myself a person with no party affiliation and until the last election did not vote.  I am still not sure my vote alone makes a difference but others have told me it is my duty.  Many like you I assume.  My father was a veteran (not a swiftie pouncer)and I am in Ohio with a husband laid off with poor prospects in Ohio's economy which is dragging behind the national upsurge. Please don't flame me for my lack of fine detail or finesse because I am the average voter you are claiming you are trying so hard to "help see the light".

My decision is based on my gut feeling to the propoganda that I have been hammered with over the last few weeks as well as my newfound reading of blogs, articles and MSM (I just learned this one lol). I am not saying I am right or wrong just this was my decision based on the sum total of all "I" have been exposed to and my views are that of someone not up on the issues and all the angles.

I listened with interest to Mr. Kerry because I am in a state with a struggling economy. Huge issue for me. I am also opposed to war and the loss of fine young men and women. I am a working mother married with children so health insurance is an important issue as well.

Here is what I heard:

Universal Health--I worked with Canadian companies and only those with no health issues are big fans of this.  They say they are taxed at a rate of about 45% of their income as well as a sales tax and a gst tax. Or buying the plan the Senators currently have.  I can't afford this for sure. My fear is that small business owners will not carry plans because they will let "uncle sam" do it. I vote no thanks

The war--I hate it. I support our troops there though and Mr. Kerry voted against funding for body armour for our troops and than said that our troops do not have what they need.  Didn't he help that happen with his no vote? He is quoted in respectable sources as is Clinton that WMD's were a real possibility in Iraq --that means to me that that was the belief of all people in both the senate and the house. The UN was asked to participate in this War and we waited for months before we went ahead as a country (I did not want) plenty of time to move incriminating WMD's to either border. What I did see is Afghan's voting and women taking their rightful place in society and Iraqi's at the Olympics complaining about America which is their right in a democracy but there to participate nontheless. Mr. Kerry said we need more troops there 40,000 or so special forces, where are they coming from? Kerry's website talked about mandatory service for our young adults--it mysteriously disappeared and then suddenly Bush is said to be cooking up a draft while Dem's are the ones trying to push it through and I am adamantly opposed to the draft whichever side might be for it. There ae missing weapons in Iraq and someone needs to find out where they are but our men and women are facing an enemy that looks like a friend at ground level and I cannot fault them until someone tells me what happenend. Repub's win this one.

Contributions--Saudi's have donated to Bush (relatively friendly to US

Iran and Kosovo donations to Kerry (not on our side)Both probably illegal a draw.

Military records--sign the 180 already and take your lumps the president already released his in an order. I see something to hide or why not go ahead? Bush gets this one.

Intelligence--Here is a news flash for all.  The average American does not think he is dumb and get insulted when either side says he is.  We understand him when he talks therefore when you call him dumb we think you are saying we are dumb.  Kerry's education and Bush's appear to be similar. RE Kerry I feel that he talks like a professor and never gets to a point or clear position. Point Bush.

Tall tales --I won't bore you but I truly do not hear these "I was here and I did this but maybe I wasn't" stuff being cleaned up by the Bush campaign. Kerry's people seem to be doing alot of explaining. Point Bush

First ladies--personal preference here--I feel sorry for Theresa on this one she looks unhappy, uncomfortable and does not praise her husband when she speaks. Laura Bush moves me every time. Point Bush

Economy--They sound the same to me. He says he can't stop the corporations from taking business overseas either. Alan Goldspan says the tax cuts were correct as were the choices made and he was trusted by a number of presidents.  Point Bush

Resume--Kerry's voting record is not impressive for someone in the Senate for 20 years.  My understanding is that he is an impressive investigator but that does not speak for his actions--to the untrained eye that looks like not wanting to make a decision and that worries me.  Lack of action can be worse than a wrong decision. Bush is not perfect but he is not afraid to make decisions. Point Bush

Common factor--I don't feel that John and John the billionaires really understand that I might have to choose between paying my gas bill or my electric bill come winter time.

9/11--I was moved to tears by the President more than once by his sincere words and deeds throughout this horrific time.  I was not pleased when Kerry said that Bush sat there for 7 minutes before he left the school he was reading at. 7 whole minutes to digest this information was not unacceptable to me especially when Kerry was quoted as saying something like I sat in disbelief with his colleagues until the next plane hit the second tower.  I believe that was almost 40 minutes. I don't fault him, that was all of our reaction I only fault the criticism. I don't remember hearing his name doing anything for his New York neighbors during this time either. Point Bush

Spins and innuendo both parties guilty as charged.

Religion--personal choice but to the non-politico Kerry's has been trotted out at the 11th hour.  I don't like the two mixed but I appreciate honesty about it. Bush wins this one.

Split in the Political machine in DC-- lays at both doorsteps. That is a choice and wasn't it Hillary that said "it takes a village"? To the outsider that looks like grade school nonsense.  That is a sad draw an doesn't say much for the maturity of chosen leaders voted for by the people.  If we treated our boss like that we would all get fired.

Integrity--Maybe Bush had better people on this one but Bush appears much stronger and more trustworthy.  I think Kerry was ill advised to build his platform on his 4 month tour of duty. His time would have been better spent on economy and healthcare and taxes instead of defending his 30 year old record which caused a muddled back lash that is hard not to listen to. Bush get this one too.

I am sorry this is so long and boring but before you send me your barbs and daggars remember I am probably the average voter you all hope to get to the voting booth and this is how I personally digested the media circus.

That the WMD is missing, so it was DEFINITELY never there before the war...but this 350 tons (or tonnes) is missing, so it WAS DEFINITELY there and somehow we just "lost it"

Ignore Duelfer, but listen to the Times (what they say and infer, but NOT what they omit)

I'd like to hear Rummy or Bush get out there and tell the people about the nearly 250,000 tons we secured or destroyed.  It would be nice to hear people support the troops and the intel community once in a while.

and you are the reason I love serving in the military.  I am amazed at how much your posting sounds like my in-laws (also from Ohio) who are registered democrats.

I have a hard time judging what non-miltary families think.  Mine usually votes Republican because life in the military (during my dad's career and my own) is just better under a Republican president.

Thank you for sharing your insight.  I agree with much of what you said.  God Bless you and your family.

but I find this whole gotcha politics boring, from both sides. It's not like you can't find a great many similar lies from Bush or Cheney (Never met Edwards, didn'ty say OBL wasn't important).

Both sides do it but I find it silly.

If a high school coach said he had met with the football team and then it turned out he had only met with some of the key players but not every single one I wouldn't dream of calling him a liar.

Only the Washington Times would carry this on its front page.

And if you specifically asked the high school coach if he had in fact met with each and every one and he specifically said yes he had before you revealed that you had evidence that he hadn't, what would you say then?

To Carroll-

Yes, you are the average American voter.  You represent the very fabric of our great nation.  Thank you for your time and effort you are putting into your vote.  It does matter and it is your duty.

I'm a mom of three children as well.  Thankfully, my husband is not laid-off right now.  This little war, which I also hate, keeps him very busy.  He flies supplies in and out of Baghdad to help our troops fight these terrorists on their turf, not ours.  It is largely because of this that George Bush is the only clear choice for me.  He is a man of decisive conviction and that is what our troops need.

The Clinton years were very hard on our military and we are only now getting back the respect these fine young men and women deserve.  To let John Kerry be their CINC, would just pull our military down all over again.    

Where's Drudge on this? I haven't seen anything from him about this story.

I'll check in there every now and then to see if he corrects his misapprehension.  I'm trying to see what other moderate-to-conservative bloggers have to say about this story, but so far haven't seen too many mentions of it.

It was on his front page earlier today, but no longer is.

It's so easy to come up with much worse 'misstatements' from Bush.

Has any media outlet picked it up? Anyone?

Bush's "OBL isn't important" comment and Cheney's "haven't met you" comment are not on the same scale as Kerry claiming, repeatedly, categorically, that he met with the entire council.  When pressed on it, Bush explained what he meant, and it's not as awful as what you make it seem like.  And Cheney's comment...  whether Cheney and Edwards have ever met is hardly the centerpiece of Bush's campaign.

But Kerry's supposed amazing ability to bring allies together, and "integrity, integrity, integrity" are, in fact, centerpieces of why he thinks you should vote for him.  

Simply saying "the other guy does it, too" and floating a couple balloons (that don't fly) doesn't mitigate the fact that Kerry lied, in a big way, on an important matter, in a manner that suggests he's not to intelligent (at least if you're gonna lie, make it tough to debunk!)

and I'm not trying to convince you otherwise.

I, of course, don't agree at all.

I just don't see this as an important story. This appears to be something for the true believers. Only the Washington Times seems to care.  

So if the coach is asked point blank if he met with EVERYONE on the team and he says, "why yes I have" it is simply a mistatement??

and if the coach is LATER reminded, "You said you met with everyone,"  and the coach denies he ever said it, despite there being videotape of him saying it.

Is that a mistatement?  A misremberence?  Or a lie?

extending to months and months after saying something, I guess maybe it is pretty certain it is a lie. For the rest of us mere mortals, asking if we said something way back then, memory about the specific words may fade. What was said in context back then and what Kerry tried to frame the quote as in the debate were actually different. In the original statement, the broader context was that OBL was no longer in central control of al Qaeda.

is very intelligent despite the fact that she begs otherwise.  She has taken all the issues and parsed them intellectually.  They were so good that I printed them out to let me reread what the "average" voter sees.  My congressman used to say "Have faith in the American people" and you have shown this to be true.  Sometimes we insiders are so caught up in what's going on that we can't stand outside and look as Carroll does. It's amazing!

... and dogmatic literalism in another?

If your memory is photographic     extending to months and months after saying something, I guess maybe it is pretty certain it is a lie. For the rest of us mere mortals, asking if we said something way back then, memory about the specific words may fade. What was said in context back then and what Kerry tried to frame the quote as in the debate were actually different. In the original statement, the broader context was that OBL was no longer in central control of al Qaeda.

vs.

"He said 'EVERYONE' but it wasn't EVERYone, even if it was almost everyone, almost doesn't count, because he said 'EVERYONE' and everyone knows what 'EVERYONE' means, and therefore he is a liar!!!!"

Come on.  There is a reason this is falling with a thud.

Rule of thumb, any links you get to redstate.org there are on this topic.

If you forget saying things from time to time, you have to grant the possibility that others forget specific quotes months later too. I admit it is possible that it was a deliberate lie, but you have to also admit that it is possible that it was something he forgot saying in that way. Add that to Kerry taking the quote out of context and you get something that may have been forgotted. But you and I won't ever know for sure if he recalled it and lied instead.

Contrast that with remembering things that didn't happen. I don't recall being in Cambodia. I'd have to be a loon to remember being in Cambodia. Why? Because I wasn't there. It is implausible to remember something that actually didn't happen. [I am ruling out the possibility that Kerry is delusional]. I'd also have to be a loon to "remember" meeing Joe Dimagio or any of the Yankees. Why? Becuase I never met them.

My memory doesn't recall things that don't happen, yet my memory sometimes forgets specific things that did happen or that were said. The former is called being delusional, the latter being human.

Scoot.

Carroll,

I think you have "mislead" us.  Your original post makes us think that this issue was the deciding factor in your decision to vote for Bush.  However, after reading your other post later in the comments (Laura's wonderful, Teresa's not; Bush brought you to tears after 9/11; Bush's healthcare plan is super, Kerry's--which I think you have misunderstood--is awful, etc.), it is obvious that you made your decision to support Bush a long time ago.  

Trevino, I think Carroll has "mislead" you, too.  This issue did not get another vote for Bush in Ohio.  Carroll was a Bush supporter all along!

I want to thank you and all the men and women out there keeping us safe at home.  I appreciate all of your hard work and sacrifice. You are all in my prayers for a safe and speedy return

I was a seriously undecided voter because I have been concerned about the economy, unemployment and a son that will soon be old enough for military service.  As a mother my inclination was to vote fo things that were better for my family. It was reading blogs like redstate and others that made me realize I need to think beyond my narrow scope.  I listed my thought process to share with this blog only because of the comments that came after I had emailed directly to redstate to thank them.  I have been reading redstate for about 4 days now.  I emailed him privately I did not initially sign into to discuss my thoughts but I thought it might be helpful. If I had not read blogs like these I would not have the information that helped me decide.  I did not know just how lacking Kerry was morally until I picked up information and it wasn't readily available in msm.  I still have the ridiculous idea that a president should be someone that our children can look up to and admire. I took my news at face value and did not realize how slanted it was. I am not party affiliated, I decided who to vote for in the last presidential election (my first) when I walked into the voting booth.

Many people cried with president Bush after 9/11 and Laura's Bush's approval rating with Americans is over 80%.  If people were voting only for those reasons we would not be having these discussions at all.

I only wanted to let people know mainly because people did not feel (by there postings) that these news items were not big enough to sway someone and I wanted them to know that for someone on the fence like me it did make a difference.

Feel free to disagree with my opinion but not my process.  You can't begin to know what is in my heart or what a tough decision this has been.  I broke it out so that others could see what undecideds think about and why, nothing more.

Maybe the story of Sen. Kerry's false claims about talking with the UN Security Council would have played better in the media if you had included this "hook":  He went to talk with France and some others to see how probable it was that they would go along with the U.S.--because he has been fairly consistent in thinking that the U.S. shouldn't act without UN approval.  From what I've read, he even said a few years ago that risking death in battle when the U.S. goes alone isn't worth it, but risking death in battle when the UN approves the use of force is worth it.

While his false claims reveal a lot about his character, his trip to the UN before deciding how to cast his own vote in the Senate in October 2002 regarding the use of force to disarm Iraq reveals a lot about how he makes decisions on the use of our military to defend our nation.  

If he had learned during those talks that France wouldn't approve, he probably would have voted against authorizing the President to use force against Iraq.

He claims he learned that--with the proper inducements and patience--France and the others would have agreed to the use of force.

With that understanding, he went back to the Senate and voted to authorize the use of force.

Interviewing a couple of suspects in the UNSC isn't even remotely adequate to finding out what the UNSC is going to support. It requires UNANIMOUS votes to pass resolutions and authorize force, etc. So checking with one or two and skipping lots of other key players like Russia is a ridiculous argument to advance.

I guess I didn't state my point very well.  What I was trying to say is that calling Kerry a liar didn't make many waves in the media, but pointing out that his trip to the UN before making up his own mind about how to vote in the Senate on the use of force may have given the story a different slant--one that may have resonated better.

Perhaps you've hit upon the motivation behind Kerry's exaggeration about the number of UN Security Council members with whom he talked in October 2002--before making up his mind about how he would vote in the Senate.

He may well have looked bad, if not ridiculous, had he said that he talked with France, Cameroon, Singapore, and perhaps the UK.  So, he claimed to have talked with the entire Security Council.

My point is not that Kerry had a good or bad basis for his belief that the UN Security Council would go along with the use of force.

My point is that Kerry went to the UN before making up his own mind about his own vote in the Senate--because, for him, it wouldn't have been right for the U.S. to use force without UN approval.

Go back and read those several quotes, and I think you will see the same thing I see--he needed to know whether the U.S. would be joined by others in the UN before he was willing to authorize use of force by the U.S.

Here's one of those quotes:

John Kerry, speaking to the American people in the second debate, 8 October 2004 --

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.

I came away convinced that, if we worked at it, if we were ready to work and letting Hans Blix do his job and thoroughly go through the inspections, that if push came to shove, they'd be there with us.

Much has been made about Kerry's apparent desire to hold off on military action unless the French government agrees, and much has been made about his "global test" remark.  Focusing on the falsity of his claim to have met with the entire Security Council didn't follow that same theme, but it could have--and might have been given greater attention in the media if it had.

So you are saying that the story should have been framed as "KERRY LOOKING FOR GLOBAL TEST" and "while we are on the subject, kerry also lied" on the second page of the story. Is that correct?

What I had in mind was only a small change to the initial news article-- http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20041024-110609-9428r.htm

Its opening sentence could have introduced the idea that Kerry based his Senate vote on what he believed about the likelihood of UN Security Council support:

"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--] [++deciding how he would vote on the October 2002 Senate resolution++] to authorize the use of force in Iraq."

Call me a purist, but I would not have tried to put what I thought about it into the news article.  I would have accompanied that news article with an op-ed piece that said what I thought about the two aspects of the story:  lack of truthfulness despite his statements that he would be truthful with the American people (unlike Bush, according to Kerry), and lack of will to do what is needed to defend the U.S. even if international consensus cannot be achieved.

I don't claim to have read or heard more than a small fraction of the discussion of this general topic, but I haven't heard anyone point out the motivation for Kerry's trip to talk with anyone at the UN in early October 2002.

It's not Tuesday yet, so perhaps the ho-hum reception given the "he lied" story could be used to lead into a discussion of his motivation for going to talk to the UN.

But, that would require someone with a megaphone who could get people talking about it.