no one has been able to substantiate a recent meeting between John Kerry and any foreign leader. Since Kerry isn't elaborating, we can assume one of two things: either Kerry is lying, or Kerry is telling the truth.
If he is telling the truth about consulting with "unnamed foreign leaders", the word "traitor" wouldn't be too far off the mark. Seriously. They used to shoot people for "communicating" with foreign powers. Quite rightly, too.
I'll bet the Republicans are quaking in their boots...This is the best guy the Democrats could find? I thought they could at least pick someone that would at least wait until he got into a full engagement with the dreaded Republican enemy before shooting his own foot off first.
And a year ago I thought Dubya wouldn't have a chance...
Raging Kraut
For all we know Kerry is telling the truth, and it's probably true that many of the US's allies want Bush out of there. But the amazing thing is that Kerry told an audience that foreign leaders don't like Bush, and expects to get votes because of it. It's my feeling that a large segment of voters would feel that if Bush is antagonizing foreign leaders it's because he is looking after the US's best interests, and doesn't give a shit what anyone else thinks (while the real truth is that he is looking after certain corporations and Republican donors best interests, and doesn't give a shit what anyone else thinks) and this would get Bush their votes.
BTW If you get the chance read "Lies, and the Lying Liars who tell them" by Al Franken.
Posted by on 03/10 at 03:05 AM
It's worse if he is telling the truth.
There's a difference between making a policy statement during an election campaign direct at foreign policy and having closed door meetings with foreign officials, potentially making promises contrary to current government policies - since there's no public knowledge of these meetings Kerry should say who he met with.
Let's be realistic here, all foreign governments will have at least some contact with any challenger during an election year, as you want to try to get in good in case that person wins. Publicly you will deal with the incumbent on what hopefully are good terms until the election day, then you see what happens. I'm sure any country that is trying to do a trade deal with the US, are privately telling both the Dems and Reps that they hope that their respective party wins the election.
If Paul Martin were to tell John Kerry (or Bush for that matter) that we hope that Kerry wins, and we are going to hold off on negotiating on softwood lumber, because Kerry will give us a better deal, that will do two things:
1) Give Bush a lot of ammo for the election "Kerry selling out to Canada!"
2) Completely screw Canada if Bush should win.
Posted by on 03/11 at 03:06 AM
You're missing the point: In the example you created the participants are clearly stated. "Realistically" if a candidate meets foreign dignitaries, there are photographic records, some kind of transcript, airline tickets- something to substantiate a claim.
He won't name or substantiate these meetings in any way, yet he claims a "foreigners will want to deal with me instead of Bush" point. He should back up his statements. If he has to protect his supporters among those that he's met, then he should just say "here are the dignitaries I've met. A substantial number support my campaign." and leave it at that.
The point was:
Kerry claims foreigners support him. He won't name which ones, and the press can't substantiate his claim. Should this claim be unchallenged? There is a difference in making declarations in public about what your policy will be if elected and closed door meetings with unnamed govts. that could have something substantially more being stated.
In an election campaign things are said, promises are made. Are you so jaded about election conduct that you object to a bit of digging into the conduct of someone who may be the most influential man in the world someday?
So of course I'm jaded. John Kerry is a long serving senator and has been the front runner for the Democrats for the past couple of months. So which foreign governments have tried to establish contact with him in the past couple of months (if they had not already done so when he was a senior senator)? I'm betting most of them. Are they going to tell him that they prefer him to Bush? Yes. And are they going to tell Bush that they prefer him to Kerry? Yes.
Now, about that photographic evidence. Who said that Kerry would have met with anyone face-to-face, the easiest way to talk to a foreign leader is on a phone. Or don't you remember those Montreal DJs who got through to Bush during the 2000 campaign by imitating Cretien.
Posted by on 03/12 at 02:52 AM
From the original Reuters story:
'"I've met foreign leaders who can't go out and say this publicly, but boy they look at you and say, 'You've got to win this, you've got to beat this guy, we need a new policy,' things like that," he said'
Now you can screw around with the interpretation all you want - HE claims to have MET them.
Foreign govts. can make whatever guesses they want about Kerry's potential foreign policy, but if he's actually TOLD them in private- that's a different matter.
If Dole had said such a thing in '96, or Bush in 2000, they would've been flayed in the press. I think Kerry's getting a bit of a free ride so far, and should be challenged about his remarks.
Now that I have your attention:
I'm pressed for time, so I'm quoting Captain Ed linked above.
"If Kerry lied, then this is an egregious lie. It would be a lie designed to hide a particular weakness of Kerry's -- that his foreign-policy approach would leave the US weaker internationally by tying our ability to act to the whims of countries like France and Russia, two countries that made a fortune off of Iraqi kickbacks from the oil-for-food program.
If Kerry really is in clandestine communication with foreign leaders and discussing changes in American foreign policy under his proposed administration, then he is interfering with the foreign policy of the current administration, which may be an actionable offense, depending on the circumstances. It certainly would demonstrate his willingness to subordinate the country's security and interests to his own political ambitions. Nations currently negotiating on trade and security with the Bush administration would suddenly have incentives to stop, or to issue hard-line demands with no flexibility, assisting Kerry's election effort in order to get a better deal in 2005. Such contacts during presidential campaigns are so inappropriate that it's hard to believe Kerry bragged about them."
The point is he CLAIMS to have MET them. It's sounds lame. Like the kid in school that always CLAIMS to be IN TIGHT with the popular kids to lend himself some street cred.
I get the feeling this election is going to be nothing more than picking the lesser of two evils. Maybe we ought to just flip a coin and let fate decide...*sigh* :(
[Rue] on 01/24/07 11:09 : With bated breath I await your return to blogging. [go]
[Rue] on 01/24/07 11:09 : With bated breath I await your return to blogging. [go]
[Rue] on 01/24/07 11:09 : With bated breath I await your return to blogging. [go]
[Rue] on 01/24/07 11:09 : With bated breath I await your return to blogging. [go]
[Rue] on 01/24/07 11:09 : With bated breath I await your return to blogging. [go]
Gross Display of Most Naked Capitalism
Blogroll
Red Ensign Blogs for Victory!
-- One of the Original Red Ensigns carried by the Penticton 1st Volunteers. It was present at Vimy Ridge when our little Dominion stood up and became a nation worth fighting for...
BTW If you get the chance read "Lies, and the Lying Liars who tell them" by Al Franken.
There's a difference between making a policy statement during an election campaign direct at foreign policy and having closed door meetings with foreign officials, potentially making promises contrary to current government policies - since there's no public knowledge of these meetings Kerry should say who he met with.
Without that it doesn't pass the smell test.
If Paul Martin were to tell John Kerry (or Bush for that matter) that we hope that Kerry wins, and we are going to hold off on negotiating on softwood lumber, because Kerry will give us a better deal, that will do two things:
1) Give Bush a lot of ammo for the election "Kerry selling out to Canada!"
2) Completely screw Canada if Bush should win.
He won't name or substantiate these meetings in any way, yet he claims a "foreigners will want to deal with me instead of Bush" point. He should back up his statements. If he has to protect his supporters among those that he's met, then he should just say "here are the dignitaries I've met. A substantial number support my campaign." and leave it at that.
The point was:
Kerry claims foreigners support him. He won't name which ones, and the press can't substantiate his claim. Should this claim be unchallenged? There is a difference in making declarations in public about what your policy will be if elected and closed door meetings with unnamed govts. that could have something substantially more being stated.
In an election campaign things are said, promises are made. Are you so jaded about election conduct that you object to a bit of digging into the conduct of someone who may be the most influential man in the world someday?
B) It's an election
So of course I'm jaded. John Kerry is a long serving senator and has been the front runner for the Democrats for the past couple of months. So which foreign governments have tried to establish contact with him in the past couple of months (if they had not already done so when he was a senior senator)? I'm betting most of them. Are they going to tell him that they prefer him to Bush? Yes. And are they going to tell Bush that they prefer him to Kerry? Yes.
Now, about that photographic evidence. Who said that Kerry would have met with anyone face-to-face, the easiest way to talk to a foreign leader is on a phone. Or don't you remember those Montreal DJs who got through to Bush during the 2000 campaign by imitating Cretien.
'"I've met foreign leaders who can't go out and say this publicly, but boy they look at you and say, 'You've got to win this, you've got to beat this guy, we need a new policy,' things like that," he said'
Now you can screw around with the interpretation all you want - HE claims to have MET them.
Foreign govts. can make whatever guesses they want about Kerry's potential foreign policy, but if he's actually TOLD them in private- that's a different matter.
If Dole had said such a thing in '96, or Bush in 2000, they would've been flayed in the press. I think Kerry's getting a bit of a free ride so far, and should be challenged about his remarks.
Now that I have your attention:
I'm pressed for time, so I'm quoting Captain Ed linked above.
"If Kerry lied, then this is an egregious lie. It would be a lie designed to hide a particular weakness of Kerry's -- that his foreign-policy approach would leave the US weaker internationally by tying our ability to act to the whims of countries like France and Russia, two countries that made a fortune off of Iraqi kickbacks from the oil-for-food program.
If Kerry really is in clandestine communication with foreign leaders and discussing changes in American foreign policy under his proposed administration, then he is interfering with the foreign policy of the current administration, which may be an actionable offense, depending on the circumstances. It certainly would demonstrate his willingness to subordinate the country's security and interests to his own political ambitions. Nations currently negotiating on trade and security with the Bush administration would suddenly have incentives to stop, or to issue hard-line demands with no flexibility, assisting Kerry's election effort in order to get a better deal in 2005. Such contacts during presidential campaigns are so inappropriate that it's hard to believe Kerry bragged about them."
The point is he CLAIMS to have MET them. It's sounds lame. Like the kid in school that always CLAIMS to be IN TIGHT with the popular kids to lend himself some street cred.