For those who may disagree with what I havestated below regarding the Kerry campaign’s relationship with thepress, you need look no farther than this statement from the horse’s ass:
And, in a remark that drew a rebuke from the Republican National Committee, Kerry told the donors that the world awaits his ascent.
”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,” said Kerry, who has talked about taking a trip overseas as part of his campaign.
This is the sort of shamless self promotion that got Al Gore in deep trouble. Not only can the press not verify the remark, thus fueling their suspicion about the honesty of the statement, but they find it, like most Americans, to be a little bit bizarre that someone might be endangering foreign policy objectives of the current administration.
This statement is not much different from “I took the lead in creating the internet,” and we all know how that turned out for Al. And, btw- in amost unfortunate turn of events for John Kerry, it doesappear that some foreign leaders are indeed rooting for a Kerry win:
“In the past few weeks, speeches by the Massachusetts senator have been broadcast on Radio Pyongyang and reported in glowing terms by the Korea Central News Agency, the official mouthpiece of [Kim Jong-il’s] communist regime,” the Financial Times newspaper of London said last week.
At the same time, the Pyongyang government, which Mr. Bush has labeled part of an “axis of evil,” has continued to hammer at Mr. Bush in unusually personal terms. A Dutch TV crew touring the country found schools were using the “Diary of Anne Frank” to teach students that the United States is a Nazi dictatorship with Mr. Bush its contemporary Adolf Hitler.
That should make for an amusing SNL skit.
Terry
Apparently one of the unidentified (by Kerry) foreign leaders is France’s Chirac. I can’t see how Kerry could believe that statement would be helpful to him. I don’t think most Americans want THEIR President selected by some foreign leader(s).
Jon Henke
Hey, Pat Robertson said he had it straight from God that Bush was going to win.
Until Kerry reveals his sources, I’d say Bush has the endorsement edge.
Emperor Misha I
And those of us not afraid to hurt anybody’s feelings might also find it a little bit, can I say “traitorous?”, to be more beholden to the opinions of foreign potentates than to the opinion of the people that he desires to “represent”.
But I keep forgetting myself. You can’t call anybody “traitor” anymore.
S.W. Anderson
Kerry’s statement wasn’t a good idea, fair enough. Want to criticize him for making it? OK, you’ve got an opening and he’s asked for it.
But you just can’t resist the opportunity for mindless demagoguery, can you?
Except for running for president against Bush, Kerry hasn’t said or done a thing to curry favor with the North Koreans. Nor can he do anything about what they say about him or the race, one way or another.
Tell you what, partner. Should it come out some fine day that Moammar Khadafi has a “thing” for George W. — gets a real case of the shivering all overs every time he sees a picture of him, has wet dreams and everything — I won’t hold that against Bush.
Please, try to at least be that minimally fair and reasonable.
Mito
Foreign leaders want Kerry because Bush is a bad leader, universally hated and feared all over the world.
The fact you people like Bush says more about your thinking than it does theirs.
Jon H
President Bush, on the other hand, is overwhelmingly popular with members of the Bin Laden clan, for whom the President is happy to act as a travel agent.
Dean
Jon H:
You forgot that Dubya knew about 9-11 beforehand and Let It Happen On Purpose, that he ordered NORAD’s planes to stand-down, and that Poppy helped plan JFK’s assassination.
Slartibartfast
Jon really needs to take a walk over to snopes.com every once in a while. Just to avoid the embarrassment, anyway.
Ripper
So when the hell did Kerry have time to “meet” foreign leaders who would “look at” him to say they want him to be president? When has he been abroad since wrapping up the Democrat nomination?
W is crucified by the lamestream media and their fifth column acolytes in the blogosphere for not recalling every moment of his National Guard duty thirty-odd years ago, but JFgK can spin tales about meeting with foreign leaders and not an eyebrow is raised. Oh yeah, THAT liberal media.
And Bush is “universally hated and feared,” Mito? Good. Let them hate, so long as they fear. Of course, I realise such a sentiment isn’t as congenial to you as the warm fuzzies you’d get by seeing headlines in Le Monde and Allgemeiner Zeitung wailing “we are all Americans now” after another terrorist attack on US soil, but the grownups defending the country can’t always cater to the demands of whiny, spoilt children.
Jon H
Slarti writes: “Jon really needs to take a walk over to snopes.com every once in a while. Just to avoid the embarrassment, anyway.”
Snopes backed off on their “debunking”.
Facts are facts. The bin Ladens and other Saudis were allowed to quietly leave the country with only a cursory questioning.
(IIRC Snopes mostly deals with the question of whether the Bin Ladens were allowed to fly while everyone else was grounded, which is irrelevant to my point.)
This though their coreligionists and countrymen, with no connection at all to 9/11 were soon after being locked up for extended periods, for any old reason.
Bush did them a huge favor in a time of national crisis. He’s in their pocket.
Ron
Emporer Misha says: You can’t call anybody “traitor” anymore.
Apparently you can. Head on over to Calpundit and count the occurances in the comments on the Plame posts.
CadillaqJaq
I’m highly interested in who he “met” that “looked” at him and said…”
Damn, to me that sounds like a recent personal encounter.
As the Dems/media demanded to see all of GWB’s national guard records adnauseum, I’d demand that Kerry spit up the names of those foreign leaders that he “met” and whose ass he may intend to kiss if ever elected president. We’d like to see whom of them he intends to bed.
Just Passing Through
A religious leader invoking the support of God in favor of a candidate does not equate to invoking the support of unidentified foreign leaders for your campaign while said leaders may or may not be at odds with current US foreign policy.
kerry has inadvertantly indicated his priority for US foreign policy – the approval of foreign interests – over the strict adherance to US interests required of a commander in chief. Or perhaps he intentionally played to the fringe left that has been so vociferous in demanding foreign influenece over US policy.
Either way, this one will dog Kerry throughout the campaign..
JPS
Mito:
Your comment is amazing.
Are you really suggesting that, say, Chirac hopes for a Bush defeat because he loves the U.S. (better than those of us on the right) and can’t stand to see Bush dragging down the country this way?
Or, put another way: Is it logically possible that some world leaders would hate Bush because (1) they don’t want to see the U.S. getting stronger and (2) Bush’s policies strengthen the U.S.? Not asking, do you agree; just, wouldn’t this also fit the observations (granting Kerry’s premise)?
Shark
I find this Kerry comment to be very alarming, as it’s TOTALLY indicative of the mans priorities. He’s more concerned with keeping foreign govts happy than with looking out for our interests. He places weight and importance on the international popularity contest.
Well excuse me, but this is one American who doesn’t give a shit what Chirac thinks. In fact, if our enemies want Kerry to win, THAT is a big red flag.
Enemies who endorsed Kerry:
France
Iran
N. Korea
Hmmmm….
Tman
There was an editorial from the editor of Al-Jazeera on the Seine (Le Monde) yesterday in the Wall Street Journal accusing the US of no longer being sensitive to “global content”. It ended by flat out endorsing Kerry for President.
Memo to John: If you want to win this election, Chirac and Le monde would not be a good endorsement.
I have excerpts of the editorial at my blog- http://tmancensored.blogspot.com
Slartibartfast
What you described, Jon, has no resemblance to “the President is happy to act as a travel agent”. You might think it does, but that’d be the hallucinogens speaking.
The FBI helped the bin Ladens get to where they could leave the country once international air travel was allowed again. What would have happened if they hadn’t done this for them? I’ll leave it up to your imagination; you seem to have more than enough of it to spare.
Bird Dog
A history of Kerry cheap shots, which he apparently can’t resist, are here.
A common practice for Kerry is to bring up some vague or long-ago Republican attack, then Kerry attacks.
To me, the equally disturbing quote in the Miami Herald was: “I will never privatize Social Security,” Kerry said. “Never.”
Misha I
Sorry, Ron, I wasn’t quite specific enough. “Traitor” is another one of those words that the Loony Left reserves for themselves. When directed at them, they go nuts howling about people “daring to question their patriotism”.
This in itself is funny. How do you question something that doesn’t exist?
Dean
Misha:
Of course traitors exist. On the right.
There was never any political correctness during the 1980s. It only came about with the rise of the Right (and complaints about professors and the Academy).
There was no media bias. Until the rise of Foxnews and the Washington Times.
There was never a vast conspiracy of leftists, not even in the late 1940s. Only a Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy.
It is the Right that has brought about all that they complain about—had they been properly suppressed, all would’ve been hunky-dory.
HH
“Snopes backed off on their ‘debunking’.”
Actually they backed off on part of their debunking but an unimportant part IMO.. you also need to check out Spinsanity.
HH
From the article: “In the two days immediately following the September 11 terrorist attacks on America, the U.S. government allowed bin Laden family members to fly within the country during a general ban on air travel: True.
During that same period the U.S. government allowed bin Laden family members to fly out of the U.S.: False.
The flights carrying bin Laden family members out of the U.S took place over the objections of the FBI: False.
The FBI was denied any opportunity to question departing bin Laden family members: False.”
Link
Jon H
Slarti writes: “The FBI helped the bin Ladens get to where they could leave the country once international air travel was allowed again. What would have happened if they hadn’t done this for them? I’ll leave it up to your imagination; you seem to have more than enough of it to spare.”
What would have happened to them? The implication here being that those poor bin Ladens would have been subject to all kind of threats and violence, in the aftermath of 9/11.
How about what SHOULD have happened to them?
As in, being locked up in small cells for a few months as the FBI traced every last one of their calls and financial transactions for the last year?
Jon H
HH writes: “The flights carrying bin Laden family members out of the U.S took place over the objections of the FBI: False.
The FBI was denied any opportunity to question departing bin Laden family members: False.””
Members were not detained anywhere near long enough for an adequate investigation: TRUE
Was that enough time to examine their financial records? NO. Was that enough time to examine their phone records? NO.
They were questioned, to some extent, but do you honestly think ANY of them would admit to connections with the 9/11 people?
Do you really think the FBI had enough time to investigate and verify their answers?
WTF?
These people were clearly treated far differently from the hundreds of people arrested post-9/11, who were lucky to even get a lawyer.
I’m glad you’re so concerned for the safety of the bin Ladens. God forbid that they be inconvenienced.
Slartibartfast
“How about what SHOULD have happened to them?”
You tell me what you think ought to have happened to them, Jon. In other words, I can’t believe you’re this stupid, and I’m going to ask you to demonstrate:
“As in, being locked up in small cells for a few months as the FBI traced every last one of their calls and financial transactions for the last year?”
So, you’re in effect advocating the holding of foreign nationals without due process, or even probable cause. Great. Well, nice demonstration. You’re officially an idiot. But just to show you how much of an idiot you are:
Oh, and:
Slartibartfast
“Members were not detained anywhere near long enough for an adequate investigation: TRUE”
Jon’s got absolutely no idea what he’s talking about: TRUE
Jon H
“So, you’re in effect advocating the holding of foreign nationals without due process, or even probable cause. Great. Well, nice demonstration. ”
That’s what the Bush administration did to hundreds of other people, on flimsier evidence.
Why were these Saudis/bin Ladens treated differently?
Clearly, the Bush admin has no particular qualms about locking up foreign nationals. Hell, they don’t have any qualms about locking up US citizens without access to lawyers. Or sending Canadians off to Syria to be tortured.
Sheesh, there are teenagers being held at Gitmo, and they were captured on the other side of the world, rather than being *inside* the US. Nor are they likely to have the financial wherewithal to assist Al Qaeda in that way.
Why do you think these people were fortunate enough to be allowed to leave (“cleared by the White House”) without adequate scrutiny?
And don’t give me some FBI flack’s ass-covering. How could they have done a sufficient investigation job on the people, that quickly, when other suspects have been held for MONTHS?
“There’s nothing to indicate that any of these people had any information that could have assisted us, and no one was accorded any additional courtesies that wouldn’t have been accorded anyone else”
What a load of crap. They were given the courtesy of NOT being sent off to, say, Syria for torture.
Just for starters. They clearly got special treatment, compared to the others who were hauled in and held for months, incommunicado.
Slartibartfast
As I thought: you’ve got nothing.
“That’s what the Bush administration did to hundreds of other people, on flimsier evidence.”
How much evidence is flimsier than zero?
Jon H
Slarti writes: “How much evidence is flimsier than zero?”
Are you denying that, post-9/11, hundreds of people from the Middle East were detained, often for extended periods, with limited access to lawyers, without any evidence connecting them to terrorism or 9/11?
What planet were you living on at the time?
Slartibartfast
“Are you denying that, post-9/11, hundreds of people from the Middle East were detained, often for extended periods, with limited access to lawyers, without any evidence connecting them to terrorism or 9/11?”
Actually, I’m saying that them being held on flimsier evidence is not possible, given that there was no evidence at all implicating the non-Osama bin Ladens in anything at all. Is that really difficult to comprehend?
Maybe, for a guy who (apparently) still thinks that Bush personally arranged for the travel of the various bin Ladens.