With the recent swirling news story about Kerry saying he has spoken with other world leaders who say "You have to beat this guy(Bush)", Kerry is refusing to disclose which leaders made these comments.

Last time I checked the citizens of the US are who's interests a presidential candidate should be worried about.

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

Edit to add the link to the story for thos who have not seen it.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?t...storyID=4579430

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

Yes. Obviously he doesn't have to name names because Spain and the PM elect came out in support of Kerry yesterday.

Yes, unless they are providing him with campaign contributions -- which I believe he has to disclose.


As the leader of the most powerful country on the planet, the actions of the president can have a lasting and detrimental effect on everyone on the planet. The president of the U.S. has a large arsenal of WMDs at his disposal, the ability to make war unprovoked, the ability to opt out of treaties that protect our fragile biosphere while our citizens pollute it more than anyone else, etc. etc.

While I don't feel it is up to people from other countries to vote for our leader, I do think that they have the right to make comments regarding who should be in office since they will be affected by that person. And a good leader will seek support and to be co-operative with other leaders versus one who does what he pleases regardless of world opinion.

Is this acceptable for Kerry to make comments like this with out providing names?
Sure, just as long as it's acceptable to call him on it. If he wants to make assertions without naming names, then it just makes him look like a liar.
Of course, he's not totally lying.......Kim Jung Il supports him.
And if the original transcription of 'foreign leaders' was actually 'more leaders' as was released in a statement by the reporter who wrote the initial article, then John Kerry is lying by perpetuating the mis-statement.
Either way, I think he has a credibility problem in this situation. Oh, I forgot, as evidenced here in AD, evidently only GWB lies.


Just as Americans have the right to make comments about foreign leaders. And I would submit that a good leader does what is right, regardless of what the citizens of Luxumbourg think.

Kerry has a responsibility to keep the confidence of foreign leaders, any good presidential candidate doesn't start off a campaign by causing problems for his foreign colleagues. Credibility might be in doubt by Bush-supporters, everyone is entitled to their opinion. It seems likely to me that after the actions of our current president lately, foreign leaders WOULD be fed up with him.

Until I see evidence that Kerry is lying, I'll keep my top Liar-In-Chief title for GW.


edited: spelling

If Kerry was concerned with "confidences", he wouldn't have made the claim in the first place. Now, having made the claim, it seems to me to be fair to call him on it. Kerry does after all have a history of "distorting" things in order to advance his cause. Quite frankly, any foreign leader that would attempt to inject themselves into a US Presidential election is asking for real trouble.

Yes it is...But as previously said, that means that this is a wide open issue...And it's also fairly irrellevant...I don't care who the French want me to vote for, just as I'm sure they don't care who I want them to vote for. And as to the issue of lying...If we started a debate about any politician, asking whether or not he has lied, it would be a very short debate...John Kerry has lied as well as Bush...So let's not go there...But as I said, John Kerry is right to keep the names confidential.

CP

Sure he can say whatever he wants, but unless he backs it up (like others have said) he looks foolish. If he can make the statements and seems so proud of them, why doesn't he tell us who these "mystery" leaders are? I'm sure Chirac is among them (if he spoke to any). Also as a "leader" of an organization of sorts I'm sure Osama Bin Laden is pulling for Kerry. If Kerry wants to appeal to the moderate and the undecided he needs to "put up, or shut up" or it will hurt his credibility with those voters. Making statements like that and not answering questions about them doesn't look so good for Mr. Kerry.

Kinda like Bush and the WMDs. Making bold statements without backing them up seems a bit of the political norm these days.

****1700th Post!****
Just to bring this back on topic...Why does every John Kerry thread have to somehow involve Bush in some way? No offense meant at all though . Venom is absolutely right, he's saying something irrelevant [which will hurt him], without any evidence [which will hurt him more].

CP

I agree. Let's please keep this thread about Kerry "international man of mystery" and his secret world leaders' endorsements.

I think this was a really stupid thing for Kerry to say. Sure, it's true that there are many, many heads of state out in the world who would prefer that Mr. Bush get voted out of office - probably a majority of them. But it sort of goes without saying - it should be obvious from most of the world's general consensus on Bush - and it really was a dumb thing for Kerry to voice, because it puts him in a bad position. Should he "put up or shut up?" I say shut up. Don't say who these people are. If they want it to be known, they will say it. At this point, the best thing Kerry could say is, "I shouldn't have said that. I will answer no questions about it. Thank you."

That said, I think it's very distasteful, and sours the debate tremendously, for people to say that bin Laden is supporting Kerry, or the terrorists really want Kerry to win. That isn't making a factual statement; it's just baiting and inflaming the opposition. It's alluding to some supposition that simply has no basis in reality - namely that liberals are a terrorist's best friends. Of course, such thoughts might be sophomoric enough for the likes of Ann Coulter, but I would hope we could stick to a slightly higher standard here at AD.

This incident troubles me.

Kerry makes his statement. He says he has talked with (or met with, splitting hairs if you ask me) foreign leaders who want him to beat "that guy" (Bush). He refuses to identify who these leaders are. He doesn't deny making the statement, but seems to deny "meeting" anyone.

On Sunday, at a rally in Akron, Ohio, he berates a "heckler" who challenges Kerry to divulge who these leaders were. Kerry refused, saying it was "none of your business" and then shifting the argument to the heckler, asking if he was a Republican, did he vote for Bush (he is, and he did). That point is moot (in my opinion). If Kerry is meeting or talking with foreign leaders, the American electorate has a right to know. If he isn't (or hasn't) then he is fabricating the story.

Of course, the story gets deeper:
Kerry Sticks to Claim of World Support


He doesn't deny the foreign leader part here.


Now the reporter is backtracking and saying Kerry never used the word "foreign" but instead used "more". The meter is going off, since Kerry has already stood by his statement.

This kind of circular statement is what is troubling to me.

EDIT: Quark, are you muddying the waters by bringing up Couter, or does this reference have some sort of relevance here?

Please define acceptability in politics in a Presidential election year!

Acceptable? Who's to say? Smart? Nope. If Kerry does mention who these leaders are, they're potentially in hot water with Bush, so they might well deny it publicly. It'll never happen, Cap'n.

No, Kerry doesn't "owe it to the American people" to tell them who these foreign leaders are, any more than Cheney feels he owes it to the American people to tell them just who sat in with him in the Energy Commission meeting three years ago.

As to our not being able to talk about Kerry without mentioning G.W. Bush in a thread, it is because Bush is in office that Kerry is running for President. If Gore were in office right now, there would be less chance of Kerry being a candidate for the Presidency. But I didn't talk about Bush (well, much), I referred to Cheney instead.

Stupid thing to say. Even if it's true (which I think it might be). As Aquilla pointed out :



Kerry is not going to say who he spoke with and who has stated they support him behind closed doors. When he stated he had the support of foreign leaders, he said "I’ve met foreign leaders who can’t go out and say this publicly", so why would he now expose their political wishes to the world?

I don't think it takes a rocket-scientist to figure out that a large number of countries are unhappy with the presidency of GW Bush. Still, as a person who plans to vote for Kerry, I am puzzled as to why he would say this publicly. All it does is give all of the anti-Kerry gang something to complain about.

It's like an attorney who asks the witness a question that he knows the judge will order stricken from the record for irrelevance. It's a strategic slap on the wrist that was intended to score points with the jury (as if they could erase it that easily from their minds). No evidence or relevance needs to exist to get people (namely the intended targets: democrats and on the fencers) thinking about other aspects that they hadn't been thinking about before.

Kerry is scoring points with Democrats and swing voters. He's firing up the troops. The fact the the Republicans are making an even bigger deal out of it just means it reaches more ears than it would have had the judge not ordered it "stricken from the record". It was a wise move from my perspective, which is that of counting the days til we boot Bush back to Texas.

Sure--all is fair in love and politics. However, I think it might be interesting to delve a little farther into the topic:

Is it a politically savvy move for him to do so?

I don't think so--I'm curious who it is he thinks he'll sway? Sure, all the pro-Bush people will question him on it, all the anti-Bush people will go along with it--these votes were already determined...but what about those in the middle? I'm not sure this will have the desired effect on undecideds. I see several issues. First, by refusing to be specific, I think he is opening himself up to credibility issues without necessarily garnering any additional support. Second, I see a definite downside....there are likely to be some who will decide to vote against him because they might feel he will be likely to bend to foreign concerns when setting policy. More so, I think there is an unasked question here--as Americans, do we want to elect someone just because foreign leaders say so? What would their motivations be? Are they looking out for their interests, or ours? Yes, yes, I do understand that there can be reasons to lister to their viewpoints...but to what degree? I don't really see anyone being swayed by this, at least not in Kerry's favor.

What is Kerry saying to foreign leaders that makes them so supportive of his candidacy? I think whatever it is, I, as a voting citizen, have a right to know.

Reports now indicate that he used the word "more" not "foreign" and if this is true he allowed the lie to manifest, adding to it in his speeches, belittling a man in front of hundreds, millions of you count TV.

He should tell the truth and/or disclose the leader's names.

Kerry is a tease. Plain and simple.

If Kerry is gonna make a statement thathe knows is gonna ruffle feathers, the he should have the cajones to back it. If it was none of our business, let alone that one reporter's, then Kerry should of kept his big mouth shut. Why tease the American people with a statement like that, then belittle a man for asking the question that's on not just every Republican's, but every Democrat's mind in this nation as well?

And of course no one (except the Spainish PM-elect, and who didn't see that one coming, he probably wasn't one of the 'leaders' refered to anyway) of the foreign leaders is gonna speak out, so in essence, the conversation never took place. Yet, Kerry goin on about it, probably to the other world leaders' shegrin.

Let's see...

The sitting President has made it clear to the world that they are considered to be either with us or against us. If Kerry starts to name the foreign leaders who favor a regime change in America, it might serve only to rile the President.

If the President wants to ask for a list of foreign leaders supporting Kerry, he better be prepared to tell us if the list of foreign leaders supporting his re-election extends beyond Tony Blair and Vicente Fox.

As we are required to be American citizens, registered to vote, before we enter the voting booth on November 2; I would suggest that both candidates should be concerned with appealing for the votes of American citizens, and not rely on Saddam Hussein's,Tony Blair's, Osama Bin Laden's, Jean Bertrand Aristide's, or Vicente Fox's opinion on who should be running this country.

Let's dismiss this as an issue that is going to benefit neither camp, and might possibly damage foreign relationships if such names do begin to leak to the media.

Kerry's move was more a strategic redirection to move the political debate back towards issues that the white house (and those pursuing it) ought to be concerned with - jobs, economy, foreign policy. The past months the main issue has been gay marriage - (a topic that the federal government really should have no interest in) - it's about time to get some scandal out there to bring back the real issues into the spot light. It's fine that the Republicans and others call him on the fact that he is sourceless in his claims, but that ought to be where it ends.

To cry fowl at this point is like a soldier standing on the battlefield with bullets whizzing past his head, whining to his commander that the enemy called his mama fat.

Kerry's statements can't be validated without the foreign leaders actually stepping out and voicing them. They've obviously made it clear that they aren't willing to do so - otherwise they would have spoken up by now. It's wise of them NOT to speak up publicly - for they're at the mercy of the American public - who if which re-elects GW - those foreign leaders are in a tight spot diplomatically. I, for one, would not bench my remarks on the American public - as transient as it is. And the electoral opinions of foreign leaders isn't the point - the point is that we aren't one nation on this earth - but we actually have to live in peace with other countries. (Specifically moving towards mending foreign relationships).

It's interesting the points the the Republicans spend most of their time discussing (the validity of the statements, you guys missed the point, or you chose to ignore it) - of the entire hullabaloo - the main issue was foreign policy. I have yet to hear the Republican plan for mending the downward trend in foreign policy that we've suffered at the hand of their champion. The campaign would have earned more of my respect by ignoring the Kerry jab and being mature about tackling the issues. The entire issue would have been best handled by the Republicans had they just made a quick point about Kerry's remarks not being corroborated, and moved on to talk about real issues. This - days and days of trying to convince people that somehow Kerry is dishonest about these statements - is not helping their campaign. All its doing is turning the average American off of politics. We sit back and say "LOOK at this - grown men acting like 5 year olds."

editted: spelling

The fallacy in your argument, Curmudgeon, is that Bush never made any statement claiming support from foreign leaders whereas Kerry did. You are now asking Bush to defend something he never did or to give a free pass to Kerry for something he did say. To be honest, I'm getting a little tired of Kerry's habit of throwing stuff out there then turning around and whining when he gets called on it. It's about time Kerry started talking about the issues instead of just throwing bombs out here and there. Someone needs to remind Lt. Kerry that he's no longer in a free fire zone.

hmmmmm...."downward trend in foreign policy"....now, exactly what does that mean. Is that just because certain foreign leaders are a bit upset with us? Is that necessarily a bad thing? People often get upset when they don't get what they want...perhaps they were just too used to the US catering to their whims? If so, it that a bad thing?

Again, I'm not sure what points Kerry is trying to score here. Those that already think Bush messed up badly on the foreign policy front are probably already in his camp. Those who are undecided are not likely to be swayed by this argument...too vague, and with too many other issues attached. And, speaking of a plan for mending....are we too assume that Kerry's master plan in this regard is to continue to whisper vague innuendo's to curry favor whenever he needs it? Is that really the plan Americans want? No, I don't see where Kerry benefits from this.

Perfect case of a politician's "foot in mouth" disease! Regardless of whether his announcement is a cat-out-of-the-bag, true, or false-I imagine he is probably regretting it. When pressed for more information, Kerry infers: "I stand by my statement. The point is not the leaders. What's important is that this administration's foreign policy is not making us as safe as we can be in the world."

(Well, if the point is not about the leaders, Mr. Kerry, why even bring them up and brag about your meeting or talk with foreign leaders?)


If the Kerry camp/Kerry refuses to name these so-called foreign leaders who he either met with or talked to (significant difference), Kerry's remarks about foreign leaders should be considered and labeled as "false" period and end of story. Kerry hopes and prays! Don't count on it!

If Kerry did indeed meet with or talk to foreign leaders, when? Before announcing his run for president? Before or after he knew he was the official Democratic nominee?

Here is the clincher that could cause a serious problem for Mr. Kerry. If it is verified that Kerry did talk to foreign leaders and did more than listen to their complaints about Bush. If Kerry intimated or inferred that if elected President, he would handle specific situations differently than Bush...that is serious and also dangerous. Why? Mr. Kerry doesn't have a clue as to where the Bush administration stands in negotiations or what considerations are "on the table" for specific actions. If Kerry did actually infer that if elected President, he will do things differently or generalizes his agenda in any way that would be more favorable to the leaders' current status with Bush...that would be considered compromising, undermining, or delaying the Bush administrations' foreign policy agenda...that is wrong and it is a VERY serious mistake!

Former Presidents, especially, are very careful in vocalizing (on substantial issues) their opinions or what they would do differently from a sitting President because it could compromise or undermine the current President's position or policies.

Now, if Mr. Kerry continues to ignore the spot he is in (and it isn't going to blow over until it is resolved) then I am sure Secretary of State, Colin Powell and his support network will have no problems in verifying the authenticity of Mr. Kerry's statement.

Kerry making those comments simply is trying to relay a message to the American people that he is the one most foreign leaders want to win the election. No big deal because the American people will decide. I guess I'm just wondering why the Bush administration is wasting most of the taxpayers time and money worrying about it. Looks just plain childish. Noth sides need to move on and TALK ABOUT THE ISSUES!!!!!!!

To be honest, I'm getting a little tired of Bush's habit of throwing stuff out there then turning around and blaming others for his mistakes.

Since this topic alludes to Kerry's credibility issues I think we need to point out that credibility is subjective and Bush didn't exactly set the bar very high. So if ya had to choose between the lesser of two evils (which most voters do), Kerry hasn't even scratched the surface yet. In 8 months of campaigning - even if he tries really hard - it will be difficult for Kerry to dig fast enough to get into a hole as deep as Dubya.

Can I stress again this topic is in no way about Bush.

Aquilla has a good point here. Kerry likes to throw bombs out there and then whine about them when he is called on them.

This is very similar to the under his breath comment about these guys being a bunch of liars and crooks. Then acting astonished he is being questioned about it.

You mean like Kerry blamed Bush for his being 'misled' into voting for war? Kerry feels as if he can throw out remarks left and right and then pass the blame or ridiclue those who challange his remarks. And he's wrong. He's a tease and a coward.

Mighty strong words against a man who received wounds in combat.

I think this is great, and as Perspective pointed out it’s serving its purpose. Ever thought since our current President has $150 million+ in his war chest the only way to compete is to get free publicity.

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.

The message that most of the world is against us will now be carried a bit further and the Kerry camp hasn’t spent a nickel. That’s the type of fiscal responsibility we need.

LOL ah yes the "Kerry fought in Vietnam" arguement. Kerry and his supporters love to bring that up no matter what the subject is don't they?

If this is the kind of free publicity he wants then we'll give him all he wants. Hes digging a large hole and theres a long way to go before November.

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.

I definitely believe members of Congress and MYSELF were mislead and lied to concerning what intel I was allowed to hear.

Once again, rather than addressing the actual subject for debate here concerning Kerry's mysterious foreign endorsements, Kerry supporters don't wanna talk about that, instead they want to repeat the "Bush lied" refrain. This is a real problem for Kerry because that's what he wants to do as well. He doesn't want to talk about his record of votes in Congress, he doesn't want to defend his statements concerning foreign leaders, or even the appropriateness "revealing" their endorsement. All he wants to do is attack Bush and talk about what a hero he was in Nam. Nothing else matters. That's going to get really old over the next 8 months.

I am somewhat concerned though about this entire "foreign endorsement" stuff, if it did indeed happen. We have 8 months between now and the election and important things in the area of foreign policy need to be done. The war on terrorism needs to be fought and I worry that if Kerry is entreating foreign leaders to support him, will that derail efforts worldwide to defeat terrorism for purely political purposes?

Well, I guess since your boy was silver spooning his way to questionable service in the guard you would take offense.

So you’re going to argue FOR calling someone a coward even though they served in actual combat? My point was simple: he doesn’t deserve to be called a coward in any context, regardless of this thread or the next one.

If those on your side of the coin could refrain from the hyperbole and taking cheap shots at a decorated veteran then I wouldn’t feel compelled to defend his honor. I’ll do it every time, Republican or Democrat.

Would you be shocked if Bush came out and said, ‘Well, most of the world leaders are against us’. Probably not since most here are fully aware we’ve never had lower international opinion polls.

This is just the opposite, he’s claiming he has support from the ‘main/world’ leaders.

Much ado about nothing.

I do not believe it is appropriate for Kerry to make such a statement without backing it up. If he couldn't back it up he shouldn't have said it. Personally I am not outraged by this and don't really care if foreign or more leaders back him or not. If Kerry wants to make claims about his supporters and wants me to believe them then he must reveal who they are. If he feels it is none of my business then don't make it my business by making such a statement. So by his refusal to reveal who they are I deem this statement to be false and only meant to attack Bush.

As stated by others here, I want him to talk about the issues. I want him to take a stand, be proud and state your case as to why I should vote for you! If his ammo is to merely to sway me because "more" leaders back him then he has done nothing to sway my opinion.

And now we have Prime Minister-elect Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero who said -- "The first thing I will do when I am elected is to go to the United States and support John Kerry."

So that’s two world leaders in Kerry’s corner.

Then we have Britain, Italy, Poland, Ukraine, Netherlands, Australia, Slovakia, Romania, Bulgaria, Thailand, Denmark, Czech Republic, Honduras, El Salvador, Dominican Republic, Norway, Mongolia, Azerbaijan, Hungary, Portugal, Nicaragua, Latvia, Philippines, Albania, Georgia, New Zealand, Croatia, Lithuania, Moldova, Estonia, Macedonia, Kazakhstan, and Japan who are supporting the operation in Iraq which could be seen as in indication of these country's leaders support for Bush’s policy in Iraq.

Sometimes actions speak louder than words.

If everyone who supported Bush's policy in Iraq supported Bush for President, wouldn't he still be ahead in the polls? And isn't it British policy to generally support America's foreign policy, whether they like the details or not? I think the Howard Dean camp has evidenced there's a bit more going on in this election than Iraq, and there's more to foreign policy. Tony Blair would probably be living a happier life if Iraq wasn't an issue at all, I'm not so certain he doesn't miss his friend Bill.

That being said, I find it hard to believe anyone who follows international news would doubt that many of our allies, including those that supported Iraq, have reservations about Bush's foreign policy in general. And I doubt any leader who told Kerry their opinion would want that out in the open if they might still have to play nice with Bush for 8 months to 4 years, 8 months.

Kerry's story is certainly credible. He still shouldn't have brought it up- once again, he doesn't need foreign leaders' personal testimony to credibly suggest Bush isn't popular among world leaders. It was a dumb thing to mention, and the White House response stating that not naming names means Kerry "must" be lying is an almost equally dumb response ("He said something credible, and then refused to do something perfectly consistent with that statement, so he must be lying!"). From a pure gamesmanship angle, I'm hoping the two camps get a little better at this, or it will be a VERY long campaign.

I personally believe Kerry. I mean how can you doubt this? The poll differenical on how the world viewed us under Clinton and how they view us now is an astronomical difference. The world dislikes America because of George Bush. This isnt some shock or alleged belief it is documented reality. Kerry naming names simply would hurt future alliances. That would be bad political etiquette to speak in private with leaders and then go blabbing what they said about Bush. I mean what if Bush wins and that leader remains in power??? That would be awkward would it not? This is politics it isnt appropriate to name names. It simply isnt proper. World leaders and allied nations do not care for Bush. I have zero idea how any of you would assume this is fabricated considereing some of the polls that have come out during the Bush administration in regards to our world appearance. I am clueless as to how republicans can doubt this even coming after what just happened in Spain. Bush has hurt America in the worlds eyes and it doesnt take a few words from John Kerry to notice it. It has been in the news for the past few years.

Then why bring it up at all? There needs to be some meat behind a Presidential candidates words. Show me the money! Tell me your stand and if you (or Bush) want to spit out accusations then back it up. Otherwise don't bother me with it and don't make it my business.

This is getting kinda funny. Now that the Globe reporter listened more carefully to the tape he says that Kerry never said 'foreign leaders'. And yet Kerry continues to defend having said it. Cripes, he's sucha flip-flopper he's rubbing off on the press corps.

A couple of those traveling with his campaign e-mailed me about how he's become a laughingstock among the pool but they cant report about it because it will never get past their editors. They said they secretly hoped for his defeat in November because they dont trust America's security to him.

Then John Kerry shouldn't throw out statements like that without backing them up with some evidence. I could care less if these leaders may have to deal with Bush in the next four years, if JK is going to put out statements like this then the American people deserve to know who these leaders are, otherwise it just looks like another unsubstantiated Bush attack.

As it is, this country was based on foreign leaders staying out of our politics.

I would really like to know which foreign leaders are attempting to dip their fingers in our elections....

I'll bite . . .what are their names? Tell me or you're obviously lying.

Aquilla,

Unfortunately this has the same odor that came off a wanna be congressman in '71 and '72. It's a documented fact that Ho and his boys firmly believed they would win their war on the streets of America with an army led by activist anti-war opportunists like JFK-erry. He gave aid and comfort to our enemies then and frankly he's posturing himself in exactly the same fashion today. His pandering to the current "axis of appeasement" is giving aid and comfort to islamic terrorists and the remaining states of our "axis of evil" just as he gave it to the "evil empire" in the early '70s.

I believe that if this were March of 1942 with Kerry as president, the U.S. would not be at war and Kerry would be actively negotiating with Tojo and Hitler believing as he does that appeasement is the answer. Of course this is just rhetoric. If his actions of '71 and '72 had been repeated in '42 or '43 he would have been indicted for treason!

So I see it this way regarding his comments. Either he is pandering to appeasers at our peril, is just a bald-faced self-aggrandizing opportunistic dissembler, or most likely more than a little of both.

Havings now stated some facts sprinkled with a little rhetorical humor, I am prepared to be immersed in a projectile regurgitation of previously excreted mass market media pablum from our respected colleagues across the aisle!

Who cares. Just another dead rabbit for both parties to play with instead of actual debate over actual issues or the formulation of new ideas. The statement is the same junk all politicians use to rally the already converted. Kerry will make himself look foolish by not thinking before he speaks. Republicans continue to get upset over silly things
Bush vs. Gore------Tweedle Dee or Tweedle Dum. I thought life couldn't get worse. I was wrong!
4 more years of Bush OR John "If you like it I like it" Kerry.

Whats up lately with conservatives getting so venemous and disrespectful towards others on this board?
--------------------------------------------------

Sen. Joe Biden says he would support a Kerry-McCain ticket
Supports Kerry's claim that foreign leaders want a change in America

Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) tells MSNBC’s Chris Matthews:

BIDEN (discussing Kerry’s campaign for President): “I have had world leaders, heads of state, make it pretty clear to me that they’re hopeful that there is a change in the Administration.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4542516/

Oh! Probably because we've been listening to our respected colleagues calling us crooks and liars for the last 9 months.

Has it occurred to you that "foreign leaders" in the heart of the "axis of appeasement" may be pandering to their ostrich-like electorates, or that they're trying to hide their constituents $4 billion ripoff of the "Oil for Food" program?

Heh;

They trying to dig themselves a deeper hole with this issue?

Rather then let the issue die, they throw more fuel on the fire?

You all remember the anti-French sentiment that spread through the country (Freedom Fries, hello?), right?

These statements if they persist in making them will only re-ignite those embers...

Like I said, I do not want foreign involvement in our election and if foreign leaders are endorsing JK and he is going to make those claims, the American people deserve to know who those people are.

Does kerry lie? Probably. The way he shitts/edges/stumbles/flip flops (to me) are the signs of a dishonest person. So, Kerry the Liar is challenging Bush (the liar) for the presidency that Bush took after eight years of Bill Clinton (the liar).

Politicians lie. For one side to believe that only the other side does so, is to suffer from blinkered vision and muffled hearing. Politicians lie because it gets them elected. Half of the adults in America vote for these liars. The other half stay away. I shall remain in the latter half or vote for somebody who tells the truth. The problem is; candidates with integrity never make it out of the primaries or represent a tiny party that will never get elected.

It is very sad. Why does one have to be duplicitous to attain political office?

I suppose the same can be said about Bush and his war in Iraq.

I think the the point is being missed. Has anyone seen opinion polls on America?? I mean I do not understand how you can doubt Kerry's words. The world obviously hates Bush and America because of Bush. People are acting like this hurts Kerry's cred? What does that say about Bush though? The fact that he has turned the world against the US? Kerry doesnt need to substantiate because the claim has been substantiated bu world opinions and polls on the US under Bush.

This is the equivalent of me saying that people in Europe tell me Bill Gates is a billionaire and people here asking me to name names.....Do I have to? Isnt the writing on the wall? Do I really need to tell you names to substantiate something that is well known? Seeing republicans scoff at such claims as if the world or world leaders like Bush is the only thing I find humerous. The world and the world leaders despise Bush. I do not need names to state that as an obvious fact.

The world obviously hates Bush? Can you provide any evidence of this other than from Kerry? If it's so obvious that he is hated can you tell us why? If you choose to regurgitate pablum please at least provide the links so we can evaluate your sources. Moveon.org

US Polls seem to indicate strong support for Bush on Foreign Policy and overall! Are your sources two weeks old and previously digested by the leftwing mass media?