Kerry Credibility Problem?

[flickster]

Does Kerry have a more pronounced problem with credibility than your average politician? Ran across the following Washington Times article:

Kerry fails to back up foreign ‘endorsements’

The article addresses some areas where it would appear that there are credibility issues.

[Marley23]

The Washington Times has some credibility issues of its own.

[Squink]

The right leaning press needs to be a little more careful with its attack pieces. If too many of them bounce off, they’ll leave Kerry with a nice teflon coating.

[flickster]

Personally, I don’t have enough exposure to the Washington Times to have an opinion of the publication in general.

This particular article does seem to lay out some pretty strong investigative evidence which puts Kerry’s credibility in question.

Sen. John Kerry refuses to provide any information to support his assertion earlier this week that he has met with foreign leaders who beseeched him to prevail over President Bush in November’s election.
The Massachusetts Democrat has made no official foreign trips since the start of last year, according to Senate records and his own published schedules. And an extensive review of Mr. Kerry’s travel schedule domestically revealed only one opportunity for the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee to meet with foreign leaders here.

According to travel records kept by the Secretary of the Senate, Mr. Kerry’s last official trip abroad was in early 2002 when he visited the United Kingdom, Jordan, Egypt and Israel. The only other trip noted in Senate records since that time is an October 2002 domestic trip to Charleston, S.C., to appear on MSNBC’s Hardball program.
The Washington Times also scoured White House, State Department and other public records for all official trips made to the United States by foreign leaders since the start of last year. During more than 30 such trips, Mr. Kerry was out of town campaigning, at home or in the hospital for a prostate-cancer operation, according to his travel schedules from this year and last.
The only instance found when Mr. Kerry was in the same town as a foreign leader was Sept. 24, when New Zealand Foreign Minister Philip Goff was in Washington meeting with State Department officials. On that day, according to his schedule, Mr. Kerry received the endorsement of the International Association of Fire Fighters in Washington.

If the above statement are true, then how can you possible accept the following statement with any credibility?

On Monday, Mr. Kerry told reporters in Florida that he'd met with foreign leaders who privately endorsed him. 
"I've met with foreign leaders who can't go out and say this publicly," he said. "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." 

[annaplurabelle]

Well, there’s this:

Business & Financial News, U.S & International Breaking News | Reuters

Europe Eyes Kerry as Hope for Better Ties with U.S.
Don’t expect the “cheese-eating surrender monkeys” so loudly derided by Bush’s Republican allies over the Iraq war to endorse the Democratic frontrunner in public – French, German and other EU leaders know they may well face four more years trying to get along with a Bush who can seem indifferent to their concerns.

But the French-speaking Kerry, scion of a diplomatic family with a wife raised in Portuguese Africa and a well-connected clan of French cousins, has already struck a chord in Europe by criticizing Bush’s “erratic unilateralism.”

"If Kerry wins, the more he conquers America’s indifference toward Europe and the more he expects of us, the better it will be for transatlantic relations," former German President Richard von Weizsaecker said in the Welt am Sonntag newspaper Sunday.

And this:

Leader: The hope of the world

The Hope of the World
Senator Kerry carries the hopes not just of millions of Americans but of millions of British well-wishers, not to mention those of nations throughout Europe and the world.

Oh, and this:

http://www.ipsos-na.com/news/pressrelease.cfm?id=2076

AP/Ipsos Poll March 5, 2004
A majority of people living in the two countries bordering the United States and in five major European countries say they think the war in Iraq increased the threat of terrorism in the world, Associated Press polls found.
The AP polls were conducted by Ipsos, an international polling firm, in Britain, Canada, France, Italy, Germany, Mexico, Spain and the United States.
The polls found that people living in all the countries except the United States have an unfavorable view of the role that President Bush plays in world affairs. Only in the United States did a majority, 57 percent, have a positive view of the role played by the U.S. president.
Just over half in Mexico and Italy had a negative view of Bush’s role. In Britain, the closest U.S. ally in the war in Iraq, and in Canada, two-thirds have a negative view.
Three-fourths of those in Spain and more than four in five in France and Germany had a negative view of Bush’s role in world affairs.

As to the Libya assertion:

http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/indyk/20040309.htm

The Iraq War did not Force Gadaffi’s Hand
The Financial Times, March 9, 2004
In fact, Libyan representatives offered to surrender WMD programmes more than four years ago, at the outset of secret negotiations with US officials. In May 1999, their offer was officially conveyed to the US government at the peak of the “12 years of diplomacy with Iraq” that Mr. Bush now disparages.

The fact that Mr. Gadaffi was willing to give up his WMD programmes and open facilities to inspection four years ago does not detract from the Bush administration’s achievement in securing Libya’s nuclear disarmament. However, in doing so, Mr. Bush completed a diplomatic game plan initiated by Mr. Clinton. The issue here, however, is not credit. Rather, it is whether Mr. Gadaffi gave up his WMD programmes because Mr. Hussein was toppled, as Mr. Bush now claims. As the record shows, Libyan disarmament did not require a war in Iraq.

[elucidator]

Kerry has a credibility problem to the extent that he has credibility. GeeDubya has no such problem.

Gleeful sarcasm aside, Kerry’s “credibility problem” was minted in Karl Rove’s office. There was no such issue to discuss until Bush’s chihuahua attack-dog ads tried to make it one. To my gimlet eye, it reeks of desperation. The attempt to paint him “Jane Fonda hippy protestor” didn’t work, the paint in that bucket dried up years ago. Hell, Bill Clinton actually was a draft-dodger, and hardly anybody cared.

The Bushiviks were lazy. They figured the game was bagged, the defense got drunk. They figured they could run on maudlin and lachrymose patriotism, drape GeeDubya in the bloody flag and sing hymns to his bold leadership. But that first delicate dipping of the toe into the water resulted in a toe snapped in half by piranha. They’ll think twice before they dip thier collective scrotum.

Gay Marriage? About all they got left. Can’t pump up a Japanese condom into a dirigible. I see hints that the Gay Agenda’s propaganda has had some positive effect: showing gay people as middle aged, middle class…ordinary, normal, and dull as dish water… who just want to get married hits us right in the sentimental. Awwww, isn’t that cute? Well, heck, why the hell not? Those look like pretty nice folks, they want to sit around in the living room and argue over Star Search or Matlock, why not? (Note to bent brethren and sistren: if that was a plan, it was friggin’ brilliant. When you’re done, could you help us save the rest of us?)

The Rightards have a gazillion bucks. They can afford a thorough investigation, right down to shoe size and belly-button lint. They know everything there is to know about John Kerry. And what they got is D-for-diddly-squat.

Can you spell “doom”?

[Dogface]

@flickster

Does Kerry have a more pronounced problem with credibility than your average politician? Ran across the following Washington Times article:

I generally don’t give the Moonies much credit. That’s what I have to say about anything from the Washington Times.

[flickster]

@annaplurabelle

Well, there’s this:

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=4361150
And this:

The hope of the world | US elections 2004 | The Guardian
Oh, and this:

http://www.ipsos-na.com/news/pressrelease.cfm?id=2076
As to the Libya assertion:

http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/indyk/20040309.htm

Interesting sources, none of which carry any more credibility than the Washington Times.

Plus popularity polls do not equal a leader. The question remains - just who are these foreign leaders that Kerry is referring to that he has met. IMHO, they don’t exist nor did the meetings ever take place.

As for the link you included regarding Libya, what does that have to do with Kerry’s credibility question?

[Airblairxxx]

@flickster

Plus popularity polls do not equal a leader. The question remains - just who are these foreign leaders that Kerry is referring to that he has met. IMHO, they don’t exist nor did the meetings ever take place.

'Course, maybe he just meant he spoke to them on the phone.

[flickster]

There is a difference between “met” and “spoke to on the phone”. It may be a case that he just “mis-spoke”, but if that were true seems to me that it’s something that could have easily been corrected by his staff. To date, that has not happened. All they have done so far is side-step the issue.

[furt]

“Leader” may not mean “head of state.” “Influential person in his country.”

Bogus? Maybe. Provably false? No.

My own guess is it’s based primarily on Kerry’s desire to make it known that people in other nations don’t like W. Why that should make me want to vote for him is less clear.

[theR]

@flickster

Interesting sources, none of which carry any more credibility than the Washington Times.

So shall we agree that non are particularly credible and it is a non-story? Or they’re all credible? Or one is more credible?

Plus popularity polls do not equal a leader. The question remains - just who are these foreign leaders that Kerry is referring to that he has met. IMHO, they don’t exist nor did the meetings ever take place.

Well, I’m actually perfectly willing to believe that they are not Heads of State (Kerry is a leader, for instance, despite not being the President) and that Kerry tried to play it up despite that fact, or even that he is flat out lying about meeting with them and is going by stated public opinions of foreign leaders. If he actually met with them, though, I would not expect him to give out names, especially if they were leaders of countries that we are currently working with in Iraq.

As for the link you included regarding Libya, what does that have to do with Kerry’s credibility question?

It is directly related to the Times article’s questioning of his credibility:

Mr. Kerry has made other claims during the campaign and then refused to back them up, including statements that Mr. Bush delayed the deal with Libya to give up its weapons of mass destruction program for political reasons.

[flickster]

It is directly related to the Times article’s questioning of his credibility:

Mr. Kerry has made other claims during the campaign and then refused to back them up, including statements that Mr. Bush delayed the deal with Libya to give up its weapons of mass destruction program for political reasons.

Sorry, should have re-read the article again.

What confuses me about this is that according to the link Libya made the offer in May 1999. If true, the Clinton administration found something in the offer not worthy of action as well. So what exactly is Kerry’s beef?

[annaplurabelle]

@flickster

Sorry, should have re-read the article again.

What confuses me about this is that according to the link Libya made the offer in May 1999. If true, the Clinton administration found something in the offer not worthy of action as well. So what exactly is Kerry’s beef?

This from my cite:

Why did we not pursue the Libyan WMD offer then?

Because resolving the PanAm 103 issues was our condition for any further engagement. Moreover, as Libya’s chemical weapons programme was not considered an imminent threat and its nuclear programme barely existed, getting Libya out of terrorism and securing compensation had to be top priorities…

…Mr. Bush completed a diplomatic game plan initiated by Mr. Clinton. The issue here, however, is not credit. Rather, it is whether Mr. Gadaffi gave up his WMD programmes because Mr. Hussein was toppled, as Mr. Bush now claims. As the record shows, Libyan disarmament did not require a war in Iraq.

Emphasis mine. Does that clear it up for you? Can you think of any reason why the Bush admin would not be interested in a quicker resolution of this situation through diplomatic means at a time when they were pushing a unilateral invasion of Iraq?

Speaking of credibility:

Embarrassed by the failure to find Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction, President George W. Bush is trying to find another WMD-related justification for his pre-emptive war on Iraq. Bush administration spokesmen have been quick to portray Libya’s December decision to abandon WMD programmes as the direct result of the US invasion of Iraq or, as Mr. Bush himself put it in his State of the Union address: “Nine months of intense negotiations succeeded with Libya, while 12 years of diplomacy with Iraq did not.” In diplomacy, noted the president, “words must be credible, and no one can now doubt the word of America” (applause).

@flickster

Interesting sources, none of which carry any more credibility than the Washington Times.

Now, that’s debatable.

[Milum]

Innocently the flickster simply asked…

** Does Kerry have a more pronounced problem with credibility than your average politician? **

And while most of the straight dopes here answered by cussing the Washington Times, and accusing President Bush of grandstanding, and claiming that Poor Kerry was just misunderstood, no one answered by addressing the pointed question…
–> Did or did not Candidate Kerry secretly meet with foreign leaders and
discuss matters of state with these instruments of foreign self interest?<–

My guess is no! We Americans don’t like our presidential candidates consorting and conspiring with foreign politicians behind closed doors
and discuccing our our national policies; and even though Senator Kerry ain’t very smart, he ain’t that dumb.

So then why, in the interest of credibility, don’t the people who speak for Mister
Kerry, simply say that he misspoke?

[PatriotX]

Before I begin let it be known that I am a conservative, (or Liberal in the classical sense as per Milton Friedman), a registered Republican, a donor to my local GOP, and a GOP Team Leader.
Whatever Kerry’s “credibility problems” are, they are not as important as the current admin’s “credibility problems.”

Why is our current presidential administration so demonstrably averse to pursuing investigations that’re essential to the long-term health and well-being of our republic?

This aversion, in and of itself, renders the discussion of carefully spun “credibility issues” of Kerry’s almost, but not entirely moot.

YMMV

[cheddarsnax]

Milum, politicians meet with foreign leaders all the time, and they are not always public about it. What’s your point? Kerry’s a politician? We already knew that, my friend.

[elucidator]

For the Bushiviks, Kerrys credibility problem comes down to this: Kerry still has some credibility. And that’s a problem.

[manhattan]

@Milum

→ Did or did not Candidate Kerry secretly meet with foreign leaders and discuss matters of state with these instruments of foreign self interest?<–

That’s not really a fair question. As you say, the answer to that particular question is doubtless “no.” But that doesn’t mean that his ill-considered statement was nonetheless true. Kerry is a multi-lateralist type and has extensive contacts in the diplomatic community, ee’s been to Davos several times, etc. And, of course, he’s been a possible or real candidate for president for some time. It’s entirely possible, even probable, that some of the “international leaders,” who need not be heads of state, gave him a call or encouraging email after he announced or privately told him they supported him prior to his announcing his candidacy.

As far as I’m concerned, this is a pretty stupid non-issue. A silly, irrelevant statment worthy of an equally silly, irrelevant retaliatory taunt and then quickly forgotten.

[flickster]

@cheddarsnax

Milum, politicians meet with foreign leaders all the time, and they are not always public about it. What’s your point? Kerry’s a politician? We already knew that, my friend.

Our elected officials maintain detailed travel records which if you bothered to read the linked article in the OP you would see that Kerry’s records do not account for any recent meetings with foreign leaders but yet he makes a public statement to the contrary. Now there are only two options -
either
#1 - he was telling an outright lie hoping the media would just run with it without question like they usually do.
or
#2 - he misspoke and should have said I have talked to foreign leaders instead of met with foreign leaders.

Option #2 has a very easy fix which all his camp has to do is admit the slight error and move on. Funny thing is they have refused to do this which makes people really think the problem is option #1 which is not an easy fix and does cloud his credibility.