Both / either - the likely explanation is that he LIED again and is another FOREIGN LEADER gaffe. Note research on adjoining TRANSCRIPT thread to see that Kerry was in Iowa that week and does not appear he could have been in New York. Of course all that's moot somewhat because, of course, Kerry did NOT likely meet with the Security Council, as he said, but that he was LYING on Thursday when he said it.
The further troubling aspects point to the fact he's expressing a desire to negotiate with other nations behind the US back when only the US Ambassador to the UN or Secretary of State are typically assigned such duties.
"The further troubling aspects point to the fact he's expressing a desire to negotiate with other nations behind the US back when only the US Ambassador to the UN or Secretary of State are typically assigned such duties."
A "desire"?
Please! If Kerry did this, it is simply a repeat of history. In 1972/72 While the US was neogotiating framework with the Vietnamese that insisted on conditions for RELEASE of our POW's/MIA's- private citizen Kerry was, with his band of war protesters, having his OWN meetings with the North Vietnamese in Paris.
Perhaps someone who is familiar with Nicaraugua can chime in on Kerry's meeting(s) with the Sandinistas.
I hope, however, that it turns out that this was merely a lie because that will be the most damaging to him. Sadly, most people do not care about the Constitution or the separation of powers between the 3 branches of government.
An easily disproven lie will go a long way toward cementing Kerry's image of a flip flopper who will say anything to get elected.