I've got to admit, William Weld (the former Governor of Massachusetts) nailed it when he said that John Kerry would throw
out "facts" at random during his debate with President Bush. Weld (who lost to Kerry in 1996) said that that many
of Kerry's facts would either be false, or slightly-altered versions of the truth. He warned Bush that such statements would
be difficult to counter in a debate format, and we now know how right he was.
There were a few gems Kerry threw out which were quickly debunked, such as the NYC subway being shut down during the
Republican Convention. This was not true (and even if there were delays they would have been due to the anarchists and assorted
leftist rabble who threatened to shut the city down, not foreign terrorists). Another odd comment Kerry made was about
being in the (former) Soviet Union at the end of the Cold War. He talked about Treblinka Square. Treblinka, as most people
already know, was a Nazi Concentration Camp, which wasn't anywhere near Russia, much less Red Square. This may have been
a simple flub, but if Bush had said it, he would have been roasted by the "mainstream" media.
But what really caught my attention was this line:
I mean, we can remember when President Kennedy in the Cuban missile crisis sent his secretary of state to Paris to
meet with DeGaulle. And in the middle of the discussion, to tell them about the missiles in Cuba, he said, "Here, let me show
you the photos." And DeGaulle waved them off and said, "No, no, no, no. The word of the president of the United States is
good enough for me."
My first reaction was "wow." A second later, I thought "so what?" This is really more a commentary on the sad state of
French leadership today than it is about Bush's credibility. Jacques Chirac not only demanded more "proof" from the United
States, he had his own intelligence telling him that Iraq had WMD. He still chose to block the United States (for his own
personal and political reasons).
However, the next day I followed my own experiences with liberals lying about virtually everything (
as documented here), and I asked myself, "Did this really happen?"
The impression Kerry wanted everyone to have is that Kennedy's
secretary of state wanted to show General De Gaulle the photos of missiles in Cuba, so that France would "sign off" on Kennedy's
plan for a blockade. According to Kerry, De Gaulle waved off the photos and said specifically that the word of the
U.S. President was all the convincing he needed (and that he never looked at the photos).
So was Kerry's statement true? Apparently not. Here's what really happened:
Below are a few lines from (originally)
classified documents from Sherman Kent (a high official within the CIA), who (along with other high-ranking CIA members), attempted to convince our allies
that our pending actions against Cuba were justifiable. On October 22, 1962, Dean Acheson (
Former US Secretary
of State under
Truman, not Kennedy) secretly met with General De Gaulle in Paris, and offered to show
him the photographic evidence. Here's what Mr. Kent was told by Secretary Acheson about the event:
General de Gaulle's response was that he needed no such evidence; he was satisfied with Mr. Acheson's account; after
all, President Kennedy obviously would not have sent a man of Mr. Acheson's eminence to give him misinformation.
This is quite different from what Kerry said. President De Gaulle concluded that President Kennedy wouldn't have sent
someone of Mr. Acheson's eminence just to commit a fraud. Mr. Acheson was a world-renouned statesman, who had received
the Presidential Medal of Freedom a decade earlier. In fact, he was so well known, he had to be ushered in to meet with De
Gaulle in secrecy because he was instantly recognizable. But it gets better.
After saying what he said, President De Gaulle and Secretary Acheson then looked at the photos! They
went over them, and De Gaulle was satisfied with Kennedy's assertion that Cuba had been receiving missiles. But didn't Mr.
De Gaulle wave the photos away? Guess not. Kerry deliberately left this part of the story out. President De
Gaulle's initial statement that he didn't need to see the photos was really just a courtesy.
Either way, the story was used by Kerry to justify his globalist view, right? Isn't Kerry's position that Bush
had already decided to invade Iraq by the time he went to the U.N.? Then it's no wonder why Kerry completely
ignored the fact that President Kennedy had already decided to blockade Cuba when he sent Mr. Acheson to France.
That's right - the decision had already been made, and President De Gaulle knew it. Actually, he appreciated the fact that
he had been briefed on this issue, even though Kennedy had already made up his mind. Mr. Acheson's visit to France (and the visits
to Britain, Germany, Turkey and Italy) were NOT an attempt to "form a coalition" or "build consensus." They were a "heads
up" to our European allies that we were going to take action that could provoke a response from the Soviet Union.
President de Gaulle expressed appreciation for having been informed by President. He said that he realized this had
been done after decision had been made, but nevertheless appreciated being informed. He said he would reply to President's
letter as soon as possible, but meanwhile if Mr. Acheson saw President please explain de Gaulle's appreciation and tell him
he would be replying to his message
Doesn't that pretty much change the entire meaning of what Kerry said?
Let's summarize:
Kerry's Statement: President Kennedy sent his Secretary of State to meet with Charles De Gaulle
and show him photos of missiles in Cuba (so that France would agree with our blockade). De Gaulle waved them off, because
the word of the President of the US carried a huge amount of credibility.
The truth: President Kennedy sent a former (very well known) Secretary of State (Dean Acheson) whose
very presence told De Gaulle that something serious was happening. Although he initially said that he didn't need visual proof,
De Gaulle and Acheson went over the photographs, and De Gaulle was satisfied that there was a threat. All of this, however,
is pointless since JFK had already made up his mind to blockade Cuba (but wanted our allies in Europe to know that we'd be
doing something that could provoke the Soviet Union). Wow - Kerry's truth-twisting is phenomenal.
This is exactly what William Weld told us would happen, and it did. More importantly, Kerry's references are
almost impossible to debunk in a live debate. The Cooper for President team would like to apologize to Mr. Weld for writing
him off so quickly before the debate. It won't happen again. However, we are pretty confident that we can write off any mainstream
media analysis of Senator Kerry's statements.
