My memory may be off, ( you know us liberals, we're so dumb) but I dont recall any member of this board EVER being called a crook or a liar. I know you were never called one here by anyone, in the less than a month youve been posting, much less the 9 months you claim. You must have us confused with someone else, so maybe you should take your accusations there, wherever that was that you learned your (bad) manners.

Bush and his Admin have been called liars, are you a member of the Bush administration? If not, then these accusations do not apply to you, try not to take it personally. And, although we may think it, noone here will ever accuse you of regurgitating the previously excreted mass market right wing brainwash of the Fox news, not an original idea ever, variety. So lets just get beyond that vacant tactic, shall we?


Kerry should have never said such a thing. It was dumb although very possibly true. There are plenty of nations that would like to see Bush ousted, and the reasons run the gammit, not always the obvious. Self interest dominates, and all governments are corrupt. As has been said, what really matters is what americans want. I dont believe they want Bush or Kerry, if given a viable, even semi- reasonable option.

I'm with Christopher on this (and LOVE the phrase "dead rabbit" ).

It's really a non-issue. Seriously, WHY does Kerry have to name names? Does anyone think Chirac wants to talk to Bush for four more years? The new PM of Spain has already made it clear that he's not a Bush fan. Do we need to know who else? Does it really matter?

And this is why campaign season doesn't need to be 8 months long. Nothing truly substantial will happen before July.

Kerry's Mystery Foreign Endorsements

One more to add to Kerry's list of assertions that he can't or won't back up. My theory, Kerry is on a Democratic roll now and is immersing himself deeper and deeper into a hole of "fluff" that he will be called upon to corroborate during the debates.

Actually, the Bush campaign team and supporters should be elated at Mr. Kerry's latest "foot in mouth" assertion. Kerry's free-for-all campaign rhetoric and growing number of unsubstantiated claims is like a kid's Christmas wish list to Santa-seemingly endless and can't possibly be fulfilled.

How in the world can you question whether the world hates Bush. Check out
usatoday.com poll about the world's attitude toward the U.S. I hope thats enough evidence.

http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2004/03/17/world/survey040317

Hope that is clear enough.

The fact that the world dislikes Bush Jr. is not really up for dispute, read any foreign paper from pretty much and state, including your erstwhile ,supporters' such as the UK, and you will see plenty of evidence for this.

This fact is even MORE astonishing when you consider that 3 years ago, following 9/11, the world backed the US completely and fully. Every nation offered coldolences, assistance and support for the US, and most of the world was behind the US-led war on terror. Even China acted in support of this war when it began.

So how did Bush turn that astonishing level of support into dislike and mistrust? Well, mostly over Iraq, which had no link to the 'war on terror' dispite early claims that it did. Further, much of the world was upset by the whole 'with us or against us' mentality, and the vilification of states who did not support the Iraq war (such as France) even though DURING this vilification they were still actively supporting the war on terror in Afganistan.


Bush dropped the ball internationally, a monkey could see that. So now all he has to go on is his stirling economic and domestic policy.

Oh wait...

I skipped a lot of this thread because it seemed to be largely back-and-forth commentary on Bush vs. Kerry.

In general, I am not a fan of Bush. If the election were held tomorrow, I would probably (probably) vote for Kerry.

That said, Kerry's statement is troubling to me. It has nothing to do with who is the bigger liar, or whether someone is trying to get publicity. The fact is that foreign governments should not be endorsing United States Presidential Candidates. That is it, plain and simple. Remember the trouble with campaign funds being traced back to the Chinese government?

It matters very little if you think the US needs to repair it's image overseas. Why? Simple, because the rule of foreign policy is that every country acts for its own benefit. As Churchill, I think, put it, "There are no friends and allies, only interests." Harsh? Yes. True? Absolutely.

Foreign leaders are not thinking about anything that is beneficial to the United States. They are thinking about what is beneficial to their country. That's totally okay, it's what their country elected/appointed them (assuming its a democracy) to do. They are doing their job and I can't fault them for it. We certainly attempt to do the same thing.

But for us to stand up and cheer simply because someone overseas favors one candidate more than the other is ridiculous. It begs the question "Why?" Why do they like Kerry? Because they think he will be a better leader for the people of the US?

No. (though they may think that, it cannot be a primary motivator for them, the people and interests of the US are secondary to those of their own country)

They like him because they think he (and thus the US under his leadership) will act in a way that is more in line with their world view and their interests. They like him because they think their countries have something to gain if he is elected

Now, that said, I don't necessarily think this is bad. It's not really good or bad, it is just the way it is. There are probably countries out there that think they will gain something if Bush, or even Nader gets elected. I am sure that every candidate gets various "thumbs up" from different leaders around the world.

I also do not think it is a bad idea to act to improve our foreign relations and world opinion of the US.

But it is important to consider the motivation of these mystery leaders. If Kerry's leadership takes the country in a direction that is more favorable to foreign leaders, that is fine by me BUT that those directions and interests line up should be a matter of happenstance and mutual benefit, NOT design.

Regardless of how we feel about improving the world's opinion of us, we should be wary of how that desire influences our decisions in foreign policy and our choice of leaders.

So, while I have no problem with foreign leaders preferring one candidate to the other, I have a real problem with that being touted as a reason to elect someone.

Why they like or dislike a candidate has ZERO to do with any considerations for the American people.

Of course this is all speculative. You can't presume to know what the foreign leaders are thinking. This isn't the point, but if you are willing to make judgements on Kerry's comments based on the above factor, I'd have to observe that it's a pretty speculative factor to use as the foundation of a judgement.


I agree that foreign leaders most likely have the best interests of their own countries as motivation for endorsing any particular candidate. But the best interest of their country and the best interest of our country are not mutually exclusive. You can't sum it up as if their interests and our interests can't coincided.


First off - no one is jumping up and down. Regardless of the credibility of the claims, the opinion of world leaders makes no difference to the American public. American citizens could care less who their own best friends want them to vote for, let alone who some foreign politician wants them to vote for.

Your definitive NO is completely speculative. We can't presume to know what THEY are thinking. And like mentioned above, their countries may have something to gain if he is elected, but in many cases when THEY win, WE win. That's how a community works (even a world community). Community living isn't about take, take, take. It's about give and take. Just because they might get something out of a deal doesn't mean we go home empty handed. Regardless, we don't know what THEY are thinking, so labeling the worldly interests of world community leaders as selfish is a bit premature.


You mean there is a conspiracy between Kerry and these foriegn leaders?


No one was weary of the Bush family's relationships with the Bin Ladens, the Bush family's ties to oil-bearing countries. Warning of doomsday conspiracies, now, after the fact - seems a bit AMERICAN of us (and by American, I mean paranoid with short-term memories and loads of political bias).


Who's touting the opinion of foreign leaders as a reason to elect someone?

I'm not denying Kerry his war hero status. I'm also not denying his patriotism. I'm a veteran myself.

What I'm a tad disturbed by is Kerry supporters bringing up his war record at strange times for apparently no other reason than to bring it up. How did a discussion that started off being about Kerry's recent "I play nice with foreigners" remark end up being about Kerry's combat wounds? Bizarre!

The next time I get pulled over for speeding (which doesn't really happen all that often, I promise) I'm going to tell the police officer that I'm a veteran of the armed services to see if it gets me out of paying a fine. Somehow I doubt it, although I may be pleasantly surprised!

Veering precariously back on topic...

This does indeed amount to free publicity for the Kerry campaign, just not the type he was shooting for. It's hypocritical, not to mention silly, for Kerry to make a remark like this and then accuse the White House of trying to ignore the "real issues" when they call him on it. If the subject of foreign leaders supporting John Kerry in his election bid is off topic and irrelevant, then why did he bring it up?

Wally

Edited: spelling correction

For all your ranting about FoxNews, you're obviously out of touch;

John Kerry said these things about Republicans, on the mike, he referred to them as crooks and liars.

Wally Posted on Mar 17 2004, 10:56 AM


I couldn't agree more. Our moderators would serve nicely in his campaign. Stay on topic site your sources. I recomend Jaime(She would keep him in line). The thing that troubles me most is I sit and patiently waite for some substance to his campaign and this is what I get? What I consider a campaign of woulda coulda and shoulda has further degraded to Who likes Who better. I feel like skipping rope or running off to play tag with my friends best friend, so that she will be my best friend now! ,

Perhaps it was a boast. Do you deny that there are more real "real issues" that Bush could address but hasn't?

The campaign soundbites about Kerry voting no for the soldiers in the $87 billion dollar bill for the War on Iraq tell only the portion that Bush wants told--no explanation, of course. That's the way of American politics, the same way Bush II engineered the Willy Horton ad against Michael Dukakis. He and his buddy Lee Atwater were very good at these hit-and-run ads. With the Bush war chest reportedly between $100 million and $150 million dollars, more accurate information could be provided, but why bother? The intent is to slam Kerry and turn voters against him, pure and simple.

So Kerry says to his supporters and to possible voters that foreign leaders would rather see him in office. Seems to me he has as much reason as Bush does to tip his hand early in the campaign--none.

This is a tit-for-tat campaign like its predecessors. And only those who are news junkies or truly interested in knowing the facts will dig deeper on issues to find out the truth. Truth doesn't seem to influence elections much anymore.

It is convenient that the media (and apparently those of us here at AD) would choose one paragraph from the end of a fundraising event to make the accusation that "Kerry should stop throwing up the smoke screen and get down to the issues."


Obviously Kerry DOES want to talk about the issues, but the Bush administration refused (because obviously the current President is way too busy to debate once a month about the issues of his re-election campaign. Or maybe he isn't really interested in talking about the issues).

Since we're talking about how Kerry avoids the "real issues" - let's talk about Kerry's accountability:




These sure look like "real issues" to me, despite the claims from many here at AD that Kerry isn't talking about issues, but throwing out scandal all day long. 90% of the words that come out of his mouth are discussions of real issues (URL). Even though a big part of his campaign is pointing out why Bush's policies aren't working, or why Bush's actions aren't effective, he is still discussing the issues. The way things are now and the way we need to change them will always be proper part of "discussing the issues".

Why the media and others do not choose to discuss the above Kerry quotes, but rather choose to rant for a week about a comment that has nothing to do with the issues is beyond me. The accusations (from both sides) that nobody is talking about the issues is correct in a way and incorrect in a way.

Both Bush and Kerry are doing politicianspeak - outlining grand ideals without metrics for success, methods for achievement, and maintenance plans. That's to be expected from politicians. (Why can't that change?). How about we get more demanding. How about we stop wasting time discussing inconsequential drama and start holding our politicians more accountable for real-life action plans. Or we can keep blowing the drama out of proportion and ignoring the real issues.

edited: grammer

I'm just adding this link so that the concept of foreign leaders telling Kerry they would rather see him as President doesn't sound so far-fetched. As always, you may freely express your value judgements based on the countries that responded negatively to the War on Iraq.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/16/...ain606651.shtml

Unfortunately for Kerry, were he to come out and say that the leaders of France, Germany, Pakistan, Jordan, Pakistan or most of these other countries supported him over Bush, he would do great damage to his own campaign.

One reason why he will never say who these foreign leaders are who support him over Bush.

Here is the Republican's tat for Kerry's tit. I guess they decided to go the humour route.

John Kerry: International Man of Mystery

I believe if Kerry had a private conversation then he shouldn't have made it public.

Actually, I thought the commercial was kind of funny, but the end lacked a little zip. Kerry's a pretty g-r-o-o-v-y guy! The news showed him taking a day off by snowboarding.

We need some humor in this campaign.

I guess the Democrats could do one of G.W. looking like the Marlboro man, or John Wayne-ish, on his horse leading the posse to catch the bad guys. Except I think he's afraid of horses, isn't he?

Kerry's claim is pointless. Those who detest him and his party will be more hardened against him, because we detest these "foreign" leaders. I mean if he is talking about French, Spanish, or German leaders, these countries are not exactly s of courage and efficiency. Old Europe, France, germany, Spain, they have been emasculated by years of socialist thinking. Their socialist economies and prohibitive practices have made them in capable of competing with America. They are jealous of America. Kerry panders to those who would have American armies under UN control. Those who would have Americans charged at the World COurt for hates crimes involving Palestinians. Kerry is making major mistakes lately, this is just one more, people in fly over country don't want to think of a president who shmoozes with foreign leaders and trembles at the UN's doorstep. Frankly, John Kerry just not strong enough to be president, I mean he is not even the breadwinner in his own house!! Come on.

My, my - how quickly we seem to have turned on our noble coalition partner, Spain. Looks like Spanish Rice may be going the way of French Fries. I guess George W can't claim to be fluent in Spanish any more - but fluent in "Freedom" is pretty damned inaccurate in this case. What next - Bob Dole doing ads for Freedom Fly??

The numerous bits of misinformation in this posting are too off-topic to address here. Suffice it to say that one could arguably post "Not true" after every sentence in HeatherRob's paragraph - except "Come on."

The point is that one would be hard pressed to find any head of state anywhere - with the possible exception of the emasculated socialist, Tony Blair - who would want to see Bush re-elected. It's ludicrous, if characteristic, of the Republican Party to demand that Kerry "name names". To what end? So we know what other items to re-name on the White House menu?

It may have been a negligible error for Kerry to mention this in the first place, but who do the Republicans think they're kidding? They'd be better off (and more honest) using HeatherRob's "Who gives a damn what the rest of the world thinks?" argument rather than trying to pretend that what Kerry suggested is in any way far from reality.

I think this is just a symptom of how desperate the Republican Party is becoming. I mean, do "issues" get more trivial than this? It looks like this campaign is also going to be riddled with urgently pressing "issues" like the invention of the internet and the source of Love Story. Pity about the astronomical deficit, the non-existant job market, massive corporate fraud, a dying environment, insulting military benefits, out-of-control bureaucracy, the sorry fate of our aged citizens, the declining state of our education system, our illegal acts of aggression, the reckless endangerment of our armed forces - and, oh yeah, the fact that the rest of the world hates us. Let's focus on something real - like the extent to which John Kerry can be compared to Austin Powers.

Poor America - it deserves so much better than this.

With the elections coming up sooner rather than later for many foreign leaders, if Kerry's declaration that foreign leaders favor him over Bush is the truth, he better get it in writing because probably some of them will be voted out of office due to their government's internal problems. Of course, if some of these leaders live in North Korea, Syria, Iran....those guys never seem to get terminal diseases, voted out of office, and take one helluva long time to die!

Some have an obsession with America being 'hated' by the rest of the world. Kerry conveniently tapped into that obsession by claiming all that support from foreign leaders.

Once again though he has blundered. Most Americans, real Americans, care very little about 'international opinion' of the USA. They care about American opinion of the USA. And they are quite proud of their country. They understand the alleged hatred abroad is mostly envy.

It is a sad state of affairs when the Democrats' presumptious nominee cant find support at home for his programs (maybe cause he doesnt have any?) and so must look abroad for approval. Think he might find a way to allow foreign citizens to vote for our president?

This guy is a joke.

Once again, P51, you speak only for yourself.

I'm a "real" American. Been here since the beginning of my time. Can't get more "real" than that. And I DO worry about what other countries think of us. Because I know that if the entire world decided to invade us, our puny Army would not be able to stop it. We won't always be the biggest, baddest bully on the block; eventually another country or group of countries will decide they have had enough of our tactics and come after us.

So I don't think that puking on the entire world is a good idea. I really like to get my chocolate from Europe and want to be able to go over there and not have people wanting to attack me because I'm an American. I really don't want to have to lie and tell them I'm Canadian

I also have European friends. They love Americans, but can't stand the Bush Administration. That's not envy; that's insight!

Oh my, Wertz, how could you be so wrong?

Don't you know that America really wants this Johnny One-Note President? That we're all misinformed, unpatriotic miscreants for suggesting that there are issues other than the "War on Terror" that Americans are entitled to have addressed by their public servants?

The Republican "Punch" is fond of saying that the Democrat "Judy" knows nothing about war, even though the "Judy" in this case served in combat in Vietnam. But oh, he's soft on defense, the GOPers intone. Before George W. Bush was elected, he had no foreign policy or war experience, save knowing Vicente Fox and logging some flight hours on a military plane. But since he's become President, hey, he is a wise and seasoned leader in everything that Kerry couldn't possibly know about. Kerry was just hanging around Congress, and in some cases voting the way Bush's old man wanted (but let's not confuse things) when it came to defense.

Bush II's diplomacy, "You're either with us, or against us." Devoid of any depth of reasoning. Maybe he never had a friend who disagreed with him and then was allowed to remain his friend, I don't know. But it's little wonder that some foreign leaders would prefer to see Kerry (or ANYBODY ELSE maybe) in the White House.

Bush II has some pretty tenacious supporters. It appears that anything he does is okay as long as they don't have to chafe under the leadership of another Democrat. But I don't think that these Bush supporters are truly representative of the majority of Americans where the issues are concerned.

Ah let's see now...Bush is the divider and Kerry, if elected, is going to spread his "magic wand" over the globe and unite us. Well, for starters, as a nominee he might refrain from making divisive declarations promising foreign leaders a rainbow if he becomes President. In other words, Senator Kerry doesn't care about uniting and foreign diplomacy, but President Kerry will. Way to go Senator!



Ah, let's see now...yeah.....just like former President Clinton. It worked for him...why not Bush?

Do you really want me to recite a litany of differences between George W. Bush and Bill Clinton based on their intellect, their diplomacy skills, their knowledge of law, their awareness of the world outside our borders, etc.?

But back to Kerry: I would not discount so easily the fact that he served in the U.S. Senate for so many years. In effect, he has had more experience in dealing with the issues of this country, including international issues, as a lawmaker than either Clinton or Bush before their terms as President. I am not at all surprised that he would be in touch with foreign leaders regarding him as possibly the next President.

Behind all of this GOP "Either say who they are or you're lying" rhetoric is possibly an uneasy feeling that Bush in his roughshod, pseudo-diplomacy is probably disliked that much by some of our allies, and some who would be our allies if he weren't President.

As a man is known by the company he keeps, maybe we can judge candidates by their supporters. Only one side here is claiming that their narrow bias represents "real" America. I can't imagine more divisive, destructive language in what is meant to be civil debate. Can you? Seriously, Desert, can you think of anything lower than questioning the patriotism of those who are genuinely interested in the future and security of their country? And that language is permeating this campaign. George W Bush is our most divisive president since Abraham Lincoln - except Bush's belligerent discord operates on a global scale. "You're either with us or you're with the terrorists" - "You're either with me or you're not a real American". Need I say more?


In human history, only one terrorist campaign has been resolved peacefully: the Northern Ireland conflict. Now, let's see... who was the only President who has ever helped reduce the amount of terror in the world? Why, that would be William Jefferson Clinton, I believe. George W Bush, on the other hand, has become the poster boy for al-Qaeda recruitment.

If Kerry embraces the policies, tactics, and diplomacy of his Democratic predecessor, maybe there's a very good reason for foreign heads of state - especially those who are genuinely interested in addressing terrorism - to endorse him. Maybe there's a very good reason for "real" Americans - at least those who are genuinely interested in addressing terrorism - to endorse him as well...

Wow - the more Bush supporters attack Kerry, the better he looks. America's Debaters are really starting to change my mind about this guy.

Not really as that wasn't your claim:

And, neither did former President Clinton and many other past 41 of the 43 presidents....so?.

According to your statement, only nominees with foreign policy or war experience are capable of serving as Commander In Chief/President....and that wasn't true for former President Clinton and those attributes didn't "walk" war hero McCain and General Wesley Clark into the nominee position nor war hero Dole into the White House. If you think being a military hero and serving in the military is a primary consideration with the voters for landing the job as President, you may want to ask yourself why there hasn't been a General in the White House since "IKE." And you can't say it was because a General didn't try...thanks to Wesley Clark!



Yes..well just as low if these same people compare our leaders to Hitler, calling them miserable failures, liars, incompetent, fabricators, stupid, traitors, deserters, AWOL's, etc.....for starters. Sorry Wertz, you won't pull my sympathy chain with your outrage. Those who easily dish it out will just have to learn "what goes around comes around"....eventually!



Wertz! Glad you brought up the subject of Abraham Lincoln! If the volumes of historical records of Lincoln's time in office are to be believed, he too was shouted down and vilified by the masses, including leaders, for his controversial stand on issues that after time, proved him right and earned him the honor of being one of our most beloved presidents in history. So....just because multitudes of Americans and those abroad are yelling and screaming in protests and their leaders share different opinions from ours doesn't always signify that history will prove our sitting president wrong.

Actually, that is not what I was saying at all. What I was saying in another way is just what qualified George W. Bush as the right candidate to be anointed for the Presidency? Owning a baseball team that traded away Sammy Sosa? No. Owning Harken Oil and having to sell it off because the business was failing? No. Knowledge of geography? No. Experience in diplomacy? No. Ambition? He said he hadn't thought about it until he was approached by the Republican party officials. His eloquence in speaking off the cuff? No. G.W. Bush has never been the sharpest or brightest crayon in the box (Jeb Bush is called the smart one). So why was he selected?

The Republicans selected the son of a very wealthy and powerful former President who had National Guard experience, who is conservative, and who can be told what to say and do and repeat it to others (good cheerleader qualities) and come across as folksy and likeable as he does it.

Bill Clinton is a whole 'nuther story. He had ambition from the beginning, and he showed leadership early on in his life. He studied hard, had a Rhodes scholarship, became a lawyer and went into politics. He too is likeable if not highly respected because of his sexual escapades. He is also articulate and a policy wonk, not letting details get past him. But enough about that.

During wartime, military experience can tip the scales in favor of one candidate over another. In peacetime, it doesn't matter so much. Now tell me honestly, don't you think the Republicans would have made political hay out of the Democratic candidate not serving in the military if it had been Howard Dean? Oh, that's right, they already did, didn't they?

I'm sure Senator Kerry knows the names of the foreign leaders off the top of his head in a way that George W. Bush didn't when he first ran for the Presidency. I am saying that the baseline knowledge and experience needed for the office is so much better met by Kerry than it was by Bush.

DESIRE, BELIEF, PLANNING, ACTION, AND PERSISTENCE and DEEP POCKETS!

IMO....just a sacrificial lamb. Personally, I'd suggest my kids go to HOLLYWOOD before WASHINGTON!

You know...you just gave me a great idea! I have a library full of books on all forty-three Presidents. When I have finished reading them all...I will start a New Topic right here on AD for discussion on what qualified each of our 43 presidents as the right candidate to be elected President!

And to keep this sort of on topic, we can also discuss how each of the presidents were viewed by foreign leaders!

And CruisingRam?

The bright side is that's what it is going to take to fight the terrorists. Another suggestion...if you watch the news almost 24/7, especially cable news, they can convince you of almost anything whether it is true or not!

I can't imagine even one of the first world leaders or goverments in the country that would want GW to stay- he is obviously a loose canon and an ideologue- that has no intention of working with allies- only giving orders like the bully we have become. It saddens me to see my once great nation sunk to being the neigborhood bully.

I mean, is there a stable country in the world that has supported the US in the last three years that would not benefit from a regime change in the US?

Fife and Drum Posted: Mar 17 2004, 12:04 AM

"Every bit counts and my guess is when folks see the Rep’s getting their collective feathers ruffled over such a silly issue it will only strengthen their resolve to remove Mr Fighter Pilot.Well done Senator Kerry. Intentional or not, it’s serving its purpose."

Intentional or not, it has dawned on many Americans whose vote Kerry will need, that here is truely an arogant, self serving individual. It would seem that Mr Kerry is working for the Bush campaign not his own. No wonder his people have packed him off the Ski Camp. Too bad the video of him falling on his butt has been lost. He claims a Secret Service Agent tripped him, but who knows what really happened???

popeye47 Posted: Mar 17 2004, 12:29 AM

"Yes I do believe a lot of Congress was MISLEAD into the war thru Bushs MISLEADING intel.

It has been quoted on different threads that there was a agency created by K. Rove and company to route different intel than what CIA and Tenet had collected."

And never once has any proof of this "organization" been offered. Talk about devisiveness. This inability of the Left to accept that we had faulty intell going into Iraq has been more devisive then all of Kerry's lies.

pennDerek Posted: Mar 17 2004, 02:04 AM

"If everyone who supported Bush's policy in Iraq supported Bush for President, wouldn't he still be ahead in the polls? Kerry's story is certainly credible."

Why would the support of those unable to vote in American elections have anything to do with American election Polls??? Kerry's story gets more incredible with eash telling.


amf Posted: Mar 20 2004, 04:15 PM

"And I DO worry about what other countries think of us. Because I know that if the entire world decided to invade us, our puny Army would not be able to stop it. We won't always be the biggest, baddest bully on the block; eventually another country or group of countries will decide they have had enough of our tactics and come after us."

Acutally it has already happened. We call it 9/11! Now the groups who started this are wishing they had attacked France or Spain instead.


Paladin Elspeth Posted: Mar 20 2004, 05:23 PM

"Do you really want me to recite a litany of differences between George W. Bush and Bill Clinton based on their intellect, their diplomacy skills, their knowledge of law, their awareness of the world outside our borders, etc.?"

Actually other then Clinton using taxpayers dollars to boost the dollar against forneign currencies, allowing other countries to sell their goods here cheaply, Clinton had no foreign policy. IMO, we can expect Kerry to have a foreign policy of cowtowing to France and "Old Europe" tor else he will be treated exactly as Bush is being treated.

1SG

Like you weren’t going to vote for Kerry.

As a citizen of this country, I would like to know which foreign leaders are endorsing a candidate of the President of the United States of America. Why should a statement like “I've met foreign leaders who can't go out and say this publicly, but boy, they look at you and say, `You gotta win this, you gotta beat this guy, we need a new policy,' go unquestioned? What policies are they against and what has Kerry said to them to make them think he would do things differently?

I think the other curious part of this situation is finding out the names of a couple of those foreign leaders. Now, don’t get me wrong, I don’t take the endorsement of Kim Jung Il and Mahathir Mohammad seriously, but it could be said that these two endorsements send a message about how some leaders in this world view Kerry.

So you havent heard of the 'Office of Special Plans'?

Summary: Soon after September 11, a small intelligence office was created by the Pentagon to assess the threat that Iraq allegedly posed to the U.S. It remained relatively secret during the first year of its existence, known only by Donald Rumsfeld's inner circle of neoconservative ideologues. Sources within the intelligence community told reporters that the group, known as the Office of Special Plans, cherry-picked intelligence from questionable sources to support the case for invading Iraq. The intelligence team's conclusions were presented directly to the White House and National Security Agency without first being vetted by other intelligence agencies, like the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency. The office was also blamed for the administration's lack of post-war plans in Iraq and accused of undermining the administration's policy towards Iran.
Link

“They were a pretty shadowy presence. Normally when you compile an intelligence document, all the agencies get together to discuss it. The OSP was never present at any of the meetings I attended.” - Gregory Thielmann, a senior official in the state department's intelligence

"That office was charged with collecting, vetting and disseminating intelligence completely outside of the normal intelligence apparatus. In fact, it appears that information collected by this office was in some instances not even shared with established intelligence agencies and in numerous instances was passed on to the national security council and the president without having been vetted with anyone other than political appointees"- Democratic congressman David Obey

I guess Kerry has decided that foreign endorsements are bad.

Kerry won't accept foreign endorsements



I guess it was ok for Kerry to bring it up, but not for foreign leaders to do so...

Why would Kerry do this? Ah, he got the endorsement of Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad. The same gentleman who blamed Jews for the oppression of Muslims

Speech by Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad

I won't highlight the extremist positions taken in this speech from less than 6 months ago.

This doesn't mean that Kerry thinks the way Mahathir Mohamad does, it simply means that Kerry's world view is closer to the Malaysian PM's than Bush's is. Kerry was very quick in rejecting the endorsement and calling the PM "an avowed anti-Semite whose views are totally deplorable". I wonder what he would say about these other stand up leaders who would endorse him.

I wonder which other world "leaders" think that Kerry would be a better "world leader"? Kerry won't say, so it must not be flattering.

Congratulations, 1SG! How creative of you to cook down 8 years of Clinton foreign policy to one sentence! I don't think even Madeline Albright could do that!

Except for one thing: Clinton was better at international diplomacy than Bush II will ever be. I suspect Kerry will also use diplomacy first, preferring to use violence only when the other options are gone.

Republicans seem to have an either/or mindset. Either you bully your foreign counterparts the way G.W. does, show 'em who's boss in no uncertain terms, or you're kowtowing to them. No middle ground, no subtlety, no room to consider the wishes of the people to whom the foreign leader answers, no thought that if we burn our diplomatic bridges behind us we'd better have some rowboats handy if we ever want to regain estranged allies.

I guess that diplomacy is a tool used by the weak, at least according to what I have read in this thread. That, or testosterone poisoning is rampant among Bush supporters. International diplomacy is not supposed to resemble pro wrestling.

Just to clarify: I see a big difference between criticizing a public figure like Kerry or Bush, even in the harshest terms, and making slanderous blanket statements about over half the population of the United States merely because they don't happen to worship at one's shrine. Maybe trafficking in generalizations and stereotypes is okay with you. I still find it execrable.

Besides, a very good case can be made for most of the things you cite in terms of Bush and/or his administration. Are you suggesting that an equally good case can be made that those who fail to kiss the feet of George W Bush are not "real Americans"? Can you?

Oh, and I wasn't looking for sympathy, I was looking for an honest response - rather than a deflection.


To whom? Lincoln was rightly vilified by many during his presidency and throughout our subsequent history. Because many people are ignorant of what he did while in office doesn't make him any less despotic than he was. History - if you actually read it - records the good and the bad. Let's not forget that Lincoln's actions lead to a long, bloody, mismanaged civil war at a cost of 620,000 American lives. Because his memory has become gilded by some revisionists doesn't mean that his actions as president were any less illegal, immoral, unconstitutional, inept, or autocratic. Lincoln, in preserving the union, virtually destroyed the nation - and the divisiveness he sowed is still being reaped today. Let us pray that Bush's legacy is much more short-lived - and somewhat less lethal.


In this case, we don't have to wait on history. The public record is the only proof we need. And, in this case, we are not just talking about the division of a country - we are talking about the division of the world. Nor is it an equal division: the US is becoming increasingly isolated, alienated, feared, and loathed. I'm sorry, but I do not find this a recommendation regardless of whose face appears on the penny.

If the United States being respected by the rest of the world, being seen as setting a higher standard, and being a model of liberty, decency, and justice doesn't matter in the least to you, fine. While I wouldn't agree with it, a case can be made for absolute isolationism and the arrogance of might making right. It does matter to me, though - and to millions of others who love this country. We take the opinion, not only of foreign heads of state, but of the peoples of world, seriously.

Their opinion affects not only some hollow "reputation", but also our trade relationships, our leadership potential, our economy, and our security. These things should be the concern of every American.

Oh, look: I, too, can post a flag emoticon! I guess that makes me a "real American" at last.

So... a small group of disaffected psychopaths is what you consider the entire world, huh? Well, sounds like you and Bush would keep good company with each other, because he seems to think the same way!



If they were actually "endorsing" the candidate, wouldn't it be public knowledge? Perhaps "silently rooting for" is a better term. On the other hand, I'd want to know if any of those foreign leaders contribute to a Presidential campaign war chest.

Wertz Posted: Mar 21 2004, 03:08 AM

"Maybe trafficking in generalizations and stereotypes is okay with you. I still find it execrable. Besides, a very good case can be made for most of the things you cite in terms of Bush and/or his administration."

You think it's OK to use generalizations against Bush, but not against those who use generalizations against Bush. I can now understand why you would find no problem with Kerry and his "foreign" endorsements. Or the lies he has built up in defense of something he didn't say to begin with.


amf Posted: Mar 21 2004, 03:18 AM

"So... a small group of disaffected psychopaths is what you consider the entire world, huh?"

It is "your" fear that the entire world turning against us to the point they would attack us. That's just a fear. We have been attacked and over 3,000 Americans are dead because of it, yet you fling that aside as if it were nothing.

There is just as good a chance that Kerry upon becoming president will find the cost of sucking up to Europe comes at too high a price. If that were to happen, Kerry would be treated exactly the same by the Euro press as Bush is today. Then Kerry's foreign endorcements will be meaningless.

Also, I believe you are falling for the schtick France, Germany and Russia are using to keep their people's minds off the high unemployment and slavelike taxation they have. In the Mid East the Arabs use the Jews and America. In the aforenamed European countries they just use America.

1SG

Wertz...I hardly know where to begin in responding to your gloom and doom dissertation(s)! And, if I chose to take the bait, I would probably get a strike which I must admit is not worth the satisfaction I would gain in responding. But then again... And, Lincoln too ?



Interesting.....

Kerry's Mystery Foreign Endorsements is a case of a politician's "foot in mouth" disease...ya keep talking long enough and it eventually happens to the best and the brightest. In his quest to rack up some additional "vote for me" points, he opened what could for him be a can of worms that ends up being a good laugh for the Bush camp and a great ad. From what I read in some previous posts, some foreign leaders are stepping forward and making their endorsements public. Is it correct to say that while some of his foreign leader fans are coming forward with their endorsements, that Kerry is waving and shouting them back into the "mystery box?" Prime example of "be careful what you wish for because you just may get it."

I can see the Bush ad now. A box with the words in block letters, "Mystery Box of Foreign Leaders' For Kerry" or "Foreign Leaders Placing Their Bets on Kerry" And Kerry is standing close to the box and as the mystery box lid opens, Kerry peers down into the box and then suddenly slams the lid shut and yells, "No not you!" and every time the lid opens and another leader starts to climb out, Kerry slams the lid shut again and yells, "No! Not you!" The only sounds effects would be the lid slamming shut again and again while Kerry is yelling, "No! Not you!" Oh my, oh my!

This fluff too shall pass...and eventually the serious debates will begin and then the real crux of the campaign will evolve and people will make their choice...and hopefully the little darlings will remember or make the effort to VOTE!

In what way?



Really? in what way? Have you got a source for anything you say?

Since they didnt support the war, other than in the media, its a non-issue.
Taxation has been the European socialist strategy for much longer than Bush saw the light of his first born day. Free health care, a safety net and good schools are important to Europeans. I dont think they are going to change their basic ideologies based on WHO is president of the US.
I lived there during Bush 41 and Clinton and they didnt care in the least about what America was doing or how americans were living, and there was still unemployment, and 'slavelike taxation'.

NOW, I DO think they care about world security and reasonable or intelligently reasoning leadership in a country as powerful as the US. We are becoming a rouge nation and a threat to their stability and safety. Spain and Poland are now also departing from what is widely seen as a US farce and insult to their generosity and good will.
In many international polls , Israel has been voted the biggest threat to world peace and Bush was ranked higher than Iran, Iraq and North Korea. In Japan the US is seen as a greater threat than any other nation.
So if Arabs and terrorists use Israel and in conjuction the US, and Europeans use Israel and America as bones of contention, should we not adress, WHY? Maybe its our policies? Go figure.

http://www.japantoday.com/e/?content=vote&id=118
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=35383

We can sit here and say, it doesnt matter, except it really does. Our credibility is shot with most of Europe and Bush severely lacks the diplomacy to bring our long time allies back into believing we have a leg to stand on or support us in any further endeavors to make the world a safer place. EEK.

If Kerry 'kowtows' to Europe, which I suppose means using the long held value of diplomacy, he stands a much better chance of bringing back our allies, into believing we have a worthwhile cause. If there are 4 more years of Bush, we stand ALONE.
In a way this is good too. I suspect Bush and Co want to go forth with Iran or some other war. We wont get any support, and we dont have the military to cover it ourselves. Hence no more needless invasions. Maybe we all win, no matter what the turnout.

Whoa! Perhaps the angry left needs to take a skiing vacation like their candidate. Sheesh! They aren't only angry at President Bush, now they're upset at Abraham Lincoln! That Emancipation Proclamation thing must have really gotten under their skin. Touchy-touchy, one wonders how long it will be before saying "a penny for your thoughts" is seen as an attack ad. Of course, it's going to take much more than a penny to figure out John Kerry's thoughts, that is apparently "none of your business". Oh well, perhaps he'll start actually talking about the issues once he returns from Sun Valley, assuming of course no more "SOB" (Kerry's words) Secret Service Agents knock him down skiing. One has to wonder what he calls President Bush.... Oh yeah, we know that too.... If I were advising John Kerry, I might tell him he might look into some anger management therapy, but that would probably just make him mad. Anyway, I digress, let's get this back on topic shall we?

Question for debate: Is this acceptable for Kerry to make comments like this with out providing names?


It seems to me to be a fair question given that Kerry raised it in the first place. It's kind of a "put up or shut up" situation. I think the American people have the right to know if and which foreign leaders are attempting to inject themselves into our political process and how. Who knows, perhaps to some Americans this would be important. If it turns out Kerry is making more stuff up like he has done in the past to advance his political career, that also might be an important thing to some Americans as well.

I guess you just did the same thing you say Kerry did. You report that certain people in his campaign are voting against him. But you aren't going to name those people. If this was a joke, ok, but if not, its quite hypocritical.

The quote was "more" leaders not "foreign" leaders. If you thought you had a guy with a tape recorded interview of you, and you had talked to thousands of people, and given a hundred interviews in a week, would you remember exactly what you said? So, he tries to defend what he didn't actually say, and the reporter listens again and finds that Kerry didn't say anything about "foreign" leaders. But let's not let the facts interfere right?

If you are a leader of anything, kiwanis club, congressional black caucus, governor of Louisiana etc... you might have good reason to support Kerry. I would even suggest that a leader of a foreign country would be a fool if they didn't have an opinion on our elections. When the U.S. says jump, most countries have little choice but to say "how high"? If I were a foreign leader I would be rooting for Kerry too, because Bush simply issues orders.

But why are people continuing to debate what FOREIGN leaders Kerry has support from? Why is Cheney accusing Kerry of making promises to foreign governments as quid pro quo? Isn't there some adage about projecting onto your rival what you would do yourself? This is no longer a debate...it is a moot point. Kerry didn't say what we are all debating. But it seems he can't win, if he says I didn't say that after all (Kerry thinks: I didn't think I said it, but the guy had a tape recorder maybe I did), and tries to defend himself, then he has to name names that may not even exist and would violate the confidentiality and his presidential credibility. If he says he did say that, the same conundrum arises.

He was misquoted. He has nothing to defend here, why are we all carrying on about it. It's like a guy supposedly says he "stole the shop. We all decry him for doing it. Then it turns out he was misquoted, he really said I "stole the show". One letter makes all of the difference. Yet, we are still debating as if the original quote were true. C'mon!

I love how "angry liberals" has been co-opted by the right, using their own pathology, against Dean and now Kerry, since for as long as anyone can remember the right has had their 'angry' rants, radio shows, and railings, not a liberal angry rant or show around. The Daily Show actually pokes fun, which is the best libs have come up with. Shockingly even when conservatives have had a Republican President and Congress, it never put the 'angry right' out of business, they just continued to live in the past, while their biggest hate-monger was illegally buying and swallowing narcotics by the handful, the best he could come up with was to continue blaming Clinton for all of Bush's problems and deceptions.

However, why would/should liberals not become angry at so much corruption as the dismissal of Ken Lay and Enron as well as other corporate fraud that left hundreds americans without pensions, the Bush LIES about Iraq, the Patriot Act, the marriage amendment proposal based on his personal morality, the Temp Workers proposal and his condonning of outsourcing of jobs, as good for the nation? I remember Aquilla, none of this has EVER been standard Republican platform. Im shocked at Republicans for backing any of this bull crap. None of it has anything to do with being Republican, nor Democrat for that matter, its just irresponsible and some of it borders on unconstitutional and criminal. More people should be angry.

You thought a blue dress was a big deal? How angry were you about THAT?

Now, its no deception that most of the world wants Bush out of office, as well as half the US at least, because he is looked at as a ridiculous clown of a leader in most parts. He doesnt know anything about diplomacy and most of the time nothing about the world in general. He doesnt read reports to him or newspapers, by his own admission, but relys on verbal reporting by closest advisors. He has a black and white, good vs evil version of the world and is given to evangelistic thinking over the day to day reality of politics, or at least he says so and acts in same. Under his leadership the world has become a much more dangerous place, with no end in sight.

I KNOW, in the backrooms of high level Republicans, because I work with them, they are asking themselves,how the hell did we get ourselves into this mess. Staunch Republicans are not supporting Bush, but they have NO choice over Kerry or any Dem candidate.
So lets cut the crap. I dont like Kerry, I dont like anybody in this election. I would go a far as to believe that those supporting Kerry are doing it out of damage control, not full endorsement.
Which makes this discussion relatively a non issue. You bet foreign interests support Kerry, they may be going towards what many of us are, ABBB, for the sake of world security and stability.
If a real vote could be taken of world leaders, what do YOU suspect the results would be?

heart Posted: Mar 21 2004, 10:07 AM

"The quote was "more" leaders not "foreign" leaders. If you thought you had a guy with a tape recorded interview of you, and you had talked to thousands of people, and given a hundred interviews in a week, would you remember exactly what you said? So, he tries to defend what he didn't actually say, and the reporter listens again and finds that Kerry didn't say anything about "foreign" leaders. But let's not let the facts interfere right?"

The fact is, Kerry defended something he didn't say which turned it into some he did say, even after it was clear he didn't say it. In fact he built upon the lie to include un-named American Businessmen. He then attempted to belittle a voter by telling him the questions raised by Kerry's (the candidate) own words were none of his business.

Let's not let "all" of the facts get in the way of Kerry's defense.


Artemise Posted: Mar 21 2004, 01:13 PM

"Which makes this discussion relatively a non issue. You bet foreign interests support Kerry, they may be going towards what many of us are, ABBB, for the sake of world security and stability."

ABBB????? What is this? Also please explain how the United States is a threat to world security and stability? With far more nations (non-Islamic) on our side then against us in the WOT and Iraq it would seem that world security and stability are headed in the right direction. Devisiveness may be the mantra of the left, but it is the Left that appears to me to be the cause.

"If a real vote could be taken of world leaders, what do YOU suspect the results would be?"

Who world leaders would like to have a President of the United States is just the none-issue you speak against. The American left would have us believe that world opinion of the leadership of the USA is important, but it is no where near as important as which candidate the American voter believes will lead with the best interests of America first, in his mind.

1SG

Doesnt anybody in Kerry's campaign pay any attention to what he says, or are they too busy monitoring everybody else? You would think that someone on his staff would have known whether he said what was quoted.

Now Kerry has called for foreign leaders to not support or endorse him. I'm losing count but this looks like about the 3rd or 4th position he's taken on this thing in the few days since he said what he didnt say.

Yes Kerry fans, this is exactly the type of leadership this nation is crying out for.

Jaime Posted on Mar 21 2004, 04:10 PM

"Is this acceptable for Kerry to make comments like this with out providing names?"

The fact of the matter is that John Kerry is campaigning to be the President of the Unites States. To successfully do so he must gain the support of tens of thousands of the independent swing voters of America.

To tell these voters there are leaders (foreign or not) who are begging him to beat GW Bush and then not only not name those leaders, but berate voters who ask questions about those leaders is not going to get him the votes he needs.

So, is it acceptable for Kerry not to provides names? Yes, as long as he doesn't mind losing the election because of the impression his mis-handling of this incident has given the American voters.

1SG

. . .and I thought I was paranoid for checking to see if anyone misquoted after being gone for the weekend. This is the second time, at least, that I responded to a quoted portion of someone's post and GDan204 apparently refused to take the time to read the whole thing. It was pretty clear- when more than 2 lines are read- that I was criticizing the idea that a nation's nominal support for Bush's Iraq policy does not necessarily mean it's leader thinks Bush's policies are better than any alternative.

To reiterate what I said earlier, I don't think Kerry should have mentioned it. Bad politics, although those who say Bush's diplomatic performance in reference to the rest of the world is preferable to multilateralism should have to pay for Gulf War II without the rest of us, since Gulf War I was picked up by the Japanese. I'll send y'all my check to recoup my kids' portion of the debt. But many here seem to be trying to have it more than one way while accusing Kerry of the same: saying he shouldn't have said it, and that it must be a lie, but then jumping on anyone who explains that his claim is credible by falling back on that he shouldn't have said it, whether or not their opponent agrees about the propriety. Honestly, this is one of those statements where someone thinking it unlikely makes me question whether they read any news source not owned by Rupert Murdoch.

This probably goes for the Kerry supporters here was well as the Bush ones, but I'm absolutely certain the level of scrutiny some of you are holding the candidate's statements up to would completely eviscerate your credibility if ever applied to your last 20 posts, let alone a single year. Kerry has a VERY long record to defend, has to make constant public statements on weird, sometimes dumb questions, and has the stress and exhaustion of a campaign as excuses. What're yours?

Hey everybody!!! I think besides knowing who or whom he talked to, the BIGGEST problem I see is they way he's handled this whole thing. When a citizen of the country askes you a direct question about who or whom these people are, someone running for the highest office shouldn't say, "That's none of your business!" This here tells LOADS about someone who is running for the highest office. The mere fact he feels this way makes him unfit for office IMHO. That citizen was damn right to find out if America is being sold out to foriegn interests.

cusbilla

Oh really? Tell you what, pennDerek, go after me. I'm a Bush supporter and I've been posting here for well over a year. Go ahead and find inconsistancies in my posts and "eviscerate" me. Use the search function and have at it. I'm not applying for a job with the American people like John Kerry is, but hey, knock yourself out. While you're doing that the rest of us will continue to question the statements of John Kerry and his record. It is our right.