Well, it looks like Kerry never said 'Foreign' leaders. The word that the Bush administration and others mistook to be foreign was actually 'more'. Kerry mentioned 'more' leaders and not 'foreign' leaders. More leaders could mean senatorial companions, civil rights leaders, etc. It could be almost anybody domestic or foreign. We know that leaders of firefirefighter's groups are endorsing Kerry. We know that Union leaders are endorsing Kerry. We know that the leader of Spain wants Kerry elected. Apparently Bush and some poor guy on e-bay have jumped the gun. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61433-2004Mar15.html
All this is a disgusting attempt by an obviously biased media to cover Kerry's ass for him. Kerry knows what he said-shame he's not man enough to admit he lied. And we want a President who lies about the smallest, silliest crap? Kerry is not a hero or even a great man. He's an empty suit, a corrupt Washington insider who was once an anti-war zealot who disgraced his fighting brethern with his lies about Vietnam War atrocities that never happened.
Yeah, but he's the best the Democratic Party has... I guess. I guess the Peter Principle applies even to Presidential aspirants.
What use American military might to establish a Pax Americana new world order? Puhleaze that started with Wilson and was already stale by the time GH Bush said basically the same thing.
March 26, 2003-- SECRETARY POWELL: Well, one, we didn't put together just the coalition of the willing. A coalition is always a coalition of the willing. And this particular coalition of the willing now has 47 nations; 47 nations are openly members of the coalition, and have asked to be identified with this effort. And there are many other nations that for a variety of reasons don't want to be publicly identified, but are also a part of the coalition of the willing.
Nothing crazy about it. It's no secret that the press corps is obviously all liberal. The biz attracts 'em and their bias, no matter how much they like to act "unbiased," leaks into their stories and headlines. I should know, I'm one of them. The reporter changed a quote saying that "my bad" about the foreign leaders phrase, but yet Kerry was talking like he actually said it! That's not a conspiracy, but it is an outright attempt by a friendly media to help out their boy Kerry. He even got a chance to redo a soundbite on a TV station! Think a GOP candidate would have gotten that same chance? If you do, monkies should start flying out of your butt in droves, hell is experiencing a cold snap and Auburn fans root for Alabama when they are not playing Auburn.
Whether or not a reporter is liberal or conservative is something totally different than to insinuate that he would lie about a quote. As for the 'liberal' press, where were they in 2000? They certainly weren't backing Gore, or even correcting themselves when they got Gore's quotes about Love Canal, inventing the internet, or any of the other stuff wrong.
what's your point? if you're somehow trying to compare countries' unwillingness to be publicly identified for reasons of their own internal politics, to kerry's unwillingnesss to name his imaginary friends (hey, maybe Harvey supports him!), they're simply not comparable.
maybe kerry is willing but the leaders asked him not to name names just as those other leaders supposedly asked powell not to name names. if you can give powell the benefit of the doubt why not kerry
Do you stilll actually urge the position that no foreign leader would prefer Kerry? and if so, are you functionally illiterate? from the 1st page of the thread: The Spanish opposition leader in the general election this Sunday, the socialist [and now head of the government] José Luis RodrÃguez Zapatero, said yesterday: "I think Kerry will win. I want Kerry to win."
you know, i don't usually respond to Trout's imbecilic inanities, but, if you'll reread each of my posts in this thread, you will note that the question before us is not whether any foreign leaders would prefer kerry, clearly spain's new PM, as well as Kim-Jong Il and Jacques Chirac would, but rather whether any of them told him as much privately. of course, to devine the subtleties, nuances as it were, of this argument one would need to be at least modestly literate, which perhaps explains why it has eluded you.
Actually there isn't a point since Kerry never said 'foreign' leaders. He said 'more' leaders. People got the quote wrong and have been trying to use it ever since.
There's no nuance because there's no story. I'm still waiting for an actual point from you. Are you charging that he is lying? Yes or no? BTW, I'm glad you brought up Kim and Chirac, what's your take on an Al Qaeda affiliated group's endorsement of Bush? My inquiries remain unanswered. Plus, your position on Mubarak appears to be opposed to the Presidents. Please reconcile that for me. Also, what's your take on fake news ads? and the latest Plame developments? Why do you pretend like bad facts about the President don't exist? At least Yosemite slammer will jump in now and then with an off-topic, irrelevant rant. You just cover your ears and bravely spin the latest kerry 'scandal' via drudge or fox.
yet kerry himself has not backed away from the "foreign" aspect of the original quote. in fact he's reinforced it, so the original challenge stands.
yes. i have no position on Mubarek. i'm not sure what you're referring to, and in any case it's outside the scope of this thread, unless you're suggesting Mubarek is one of the Kerry's Harvey Horde. there are threads for each of these issues. briefly, if valerie plame were truly concerned with her anonymity she wouldn't have posed for vanity fair. fake news? they're VNRs, a common tool of PR flaks everywhere. if anybody has misled the public, it's the TV stations who aired them as if they were real news stories.
About what, exactly? Odd, you seemed to express a definitive position on Mubarek on page 1 of this very thread. But in case you forgot, I will jog your memory: AFTER she was exposed. Too bad the CIA and DOJ apparently see it differently. I guess. However this is the first time that I recall in my lifetime taht the White House invented fictional characters to endorse its policies. Indeed, you want to know about world leaders talking to Kerry, how about pretend reporter Kelly Ryan and her research about Medicare? Your probably right that TV stations are equally culpable. Does that excuse the Admiinistration for doing it?
This strikes me as very similar to those who accuse the rape victim of asking for it because she was wearing slutty clothes.
