Well, it's actually more inane to some degree. It's similar to accusing a rape victim of asking for it because she wears slutty clothes after the rape happened!
i believe kerry is lying when he says "more leaders" or foreign leaders, as he subsequently reiterated, have 'looked at him' and told him they want him to win. now, i have no doubt that any number of foreign leaders do in fact share this sentiment. however, it's pretty easy to look at kerry's travel records, and those of a variety of foreign dignitaries, and realize that the opportunities for them to have met since kerry began his run for president simply do not exist. unless, of course, they're using iChatAV...
and it looks like kerry is beginning to realize this whole issue is not a winner for him. his spokesman has issued the following statement, after an endorsement from the anti-semetic premiere of malaysia: "This election will be decided by the American people, and the American people alone. It is simply not appropriate for any foreign leader to endorse a candidate in America's presidential election. John Kerry does not seek, and will not accept, any such endorsements." although, one must ask, if kerry does not seek them, and will not accept them, why did he feel the need to boast about the endorsements he'd alledgedly received?
I see, so they dropped it just like you dropped your "if a bad guy endorses him he must be bad" reasoning after Al qaeda groups started endorsing Bush.... Anyway, you're switching again. Is it more leaders or foreign leaders? You still haven't identified which it is nor why it matters to me in any clear way. You're accusing him of fabricating a claim that "more leaders" endorsed him? Is it your position that Kerry has never had a private conversation with any leader of any ilk who endorsed him?
kerry dropped it when he realized it wasn't getting him anywhere. also, bush wasn't trumpeting his "endorsement" whereas kerry was making it the central feature of his campaign for the past week. i'm accusing him of fabricating a claim that any foreign leaders endorsed him while looking him in the face.
YOU and Fox News, and Bush, Cheney, et al. tried to make it an issue to distract people from bad news in Iraq, bad news in Spain, fake news reports, and all other manner of bad things happening to the administration. I don't recall Kerry making it the "central theme" one way or the other. The central theme was the awful record of the Bush administration over the last four years, which you, Karl & crew are trying so hard to make us forget. The person who is fabricating claims about foreign leaders is you. He said "more" leaders. But anyway, you acknowledge that many foreing leaders do in fact endorse Kerry. Is it outside the realm of possibility to imagine that he would have had any contact with one of them over the course of the past year?
it's important to re-emphasize that kerry lui stesso has reiterated the "foreign leaders" angle, so whatever the boston globe reporter think he may have heard, and no matter how hard he's tried to back-track to cover his man's ass, kerry himself stands by the original quote. and yes, there's has been no opportunity for kerry to have met face-to-face with any foreign leaders in the past year. so, unless they're teleporting, the meetings kerry's comment implies never took place. i call that i lie. certainly not the most heinous lie in the world, but emblematic of a man who has no convictions of his own, and who likely said only because some campaign flack suggested it might test well. agree or disagree, at least the country knows where bush stands. the same can't be said of kerry. the only reason he wants to be president is, well, he thinks he should be. that's just not enough. i repeat, some of us are open to alternatives to Bush. kerry is just preaching to the choir however, and if he wants convince republicans and independents he'll need to come up with something better than "i've got jacques chirac's private number."
Bush is the fly in Blair's ointment Kerry may not be the ideal bedfellow for Labour, says Kamal Ahmed, but he would be a better bet than Dubya Sunday March 7, 2004 The Observer Ten days ago, at Number 10 Downing Street, a reception was held for Ministers and 'progressive thinkers'. Professor Anthony Giddens, Tony Blair's Third Way mentor, was asked to say a few words. He spoke about the need for social democrats to come together and discover a popular language to defeat the neo-conservative strand of American thinking that had come to dominate the White House. 'Maybe we could call ourselves the neo-progs,' he joked. And then, in a throw-away line, he said what a lot of people in Downing Street and particularly the Prime Minister's inner circle feel about events across the Atlantic. 'We need to get George Bush out of the White House.' Peter Mandelson, who was chairing the dinner, made sure that his face was a mask of studied neutrality. Government Ministers kept their well-practised poker looks. But for many Labour thinkers, Bush is a large fly in the Prime Minister's political ointment. If he were to go, many would heave a sigh of relief. But would John Kerry, the Democrat candidate slated to fight Bush this November, be good or bad news for Blair? The Prime Minister must play a careful political game. Convention dictates that he gives no hint as to his views on the presidential election and, superficially, that will be the case. But the signals have been slowly emerging. ABB. Anyone But Bush. First there was the comment by Giddens. Then came the plans for a Commons Early Day Motion signed by a group of Blairite backbenchers welcoming Kerry's candidature. Then there was the Downing Street official spoken to by The Observer last week who said that multilateralism, made much of by Kerry, is a progressive's idea, not a neo-conservative one. And what of the fact that Blair has yet to make it to America to accept the Congressional Medal, one of the highest honours the US can confer on a foreign leader? Downing Street knows that pictures of a grinning Bush clasping Blair by the shoulder are not what might be described as 'politically helpful'. 'We need a US that constructively engages with the European Union and the wider world,' Giddens wrote in last week's Prospect magazine. 'I hope a Democratic President will be elected who pursues such an aim.' Kerry, who speaks French and Italian and has lived in France and Ger many, is no Europhobe. Not for him the Old Europe negativity of Donald Rumsfeld. Bridges, Number 10 hopes, will be rebuilt. But, as in all politics, Kerry has good and bad sides for Blair, and he will not be comfortable with all of the candidate's facets. Yes, Kerry has the Real Deal to help working people prosper, where Britain has the New Deal. Yes, he has a commitment to the world environment and Kyoto that Bush did not. However, on the biggest international issue of the day, Blair will not have an ally in the White House if Kerry, as some polls suggest, wins. Although never as fully frontal in his attack on the war in Iraq as the former presidential front runner, Howard Dean, Kerry has made his position clear: he does not support the conflict. This is uncomfortable for Blair. It has been whispered around Number 10 that the preference would have been for John Edwards, who has concentrated on domestic economic issues and has left Iraq largely to others. Much more Blairite in appearance and tone, Edwards was spoken of as Blair's new Clinton. They could have been political buddies. With Edwards now playing for the running mate role, Number 10 knows it has to work out how to 'play' Kerry. Much of the relationship between Blair and Kerry will be smoothed by the Prime Minister's next-door neighbour, Gordon Brown. Brown is close to Bob Shrum, Kerry's campaign manager; just before Christmas Shrum was seen dining with Sarah Brown, the Chancellor's wife, in the House of Commons. The two families spend time together during Brown's annual summer trip to America. Blair can engage in one helpful manoeuvre. The Democrats have made it clear they would rather that Blair stayed away for the duration of the campaign. Steve Morgan, one of the Kerry campaign team responsible for relations with the foreign media, said that Blair was still seen as an electoral asset in America and if he came to meet Bush there could only be one winner. The present President. Anyone But Bush might be good for Labour, even for Blair. It would allow him to offset at least one of the criticisms made of him by his legion of detractors. Blair has always said that Bush is a man he can do business with. Many around him believe that it is about time that business came to an end.
This time the Right isn't going to be allowed to repeat this lie without being challenged. Bush is against campaign finance reform; then he's for it. Bush is against a Homeland Security Department; then he's for it. Bush is against a 9/11 commission; then he's for it. Bush is against an Iraq WMD investigation; then he's for it. Bush is against nation building; then he's for it. Bush is against deficits; then he's for them. Bush is for free trade; then he's for tariffs on steel; then he's against them again. Bush is against the U.S. taking a role in the Israeli Palestinian conflict; then he pushes for a "road map" and a Palestinian State. Bush is for states right to decide on gay marriage, then he is for changing the constitution. Bush first says he'll provide money for first responders (fire, police, emergency), then he doesn't. Bush first says that 'help is on the way' to the military ... then he cuts benefits Bush-"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. Bush-"I don't know where he is. I have no idea and I really don't care. Bush claims to be in favor of the environment and then secretly starts drilling on Padre Island. Bush talks about helping education and increases mandates while cutting funding. Bush first says the U.S. won't negotiate with North Korea. Now he will Bush goes to Bob Jones University. Then say's he shouldn't have. Bush said he would demand a U.N. Security Council vote on whether to sanction military action against Iraq. Later Bush announced he would not call for a vote Bush said the "mission accomplished" banner was put up by the sailors. Bush later admits it was his advance team. Bush was for fingerprinting and photographing Mexicans who enter the US. Bush after meeting with Pres. Fox, he's against it.
So I guess, by implication, you're dropping your charge that he made it a "central theme" of his campaign. But anyway, you know for a fact that he has met with no leader of any ilk, in the recent past, at any point in time? Amazing basso, please send this to drudge immediately. But yes, basso, we know where bush stands, for "Healthy Forests" and "Clear Skies" and for "Corporate Responsibility"and "MIssion Accomplished", It's usually quite easy to figure out where Rove wants us to think Bush stands, as he usually has 72 point small caps Garamond font behind him informing u s of such...of course his policies tend to diverge from the font just a bit...
Kerry has not gonge back and said the reporter was wrong when he discovered that the quote said "more". Kerry has never done that. He may not have bothered to discredit the Bush team for seizing on a quote he NEVER said and trying to make an issue of it, but he never said that the original quote was correct, and that the revised quote was wrong. I know it sucks when the one tiny issue the Republicans were trying to grasp on to, doesn't work, but Bush and his supporters would be better to move on, because there is nothing to this story.
