<a href=“http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4542516/”>Senator Joe Biden</a>: “I have had world leaders, heads of state, make it pretty clear to me that they’re hopeful that there is a change in the Administration.”
Senator Joe Biden: “I have had world leaders, heads of state, make it pretty clear to me that they’re hopeful that there is a change in the Administration.”
Forget about anyone else. That isn’t the issue at hand here. The question remains, as a non-U.S. citizen, WHY are SO concerned with our politics and who we elect? While, you’re as entitled to post your opinion as anyone else, as a non-U.S. citizen, why should anyone care what your opinion of our politics or candidates are? By refusing to practice full disclosure, you are no better than the people you complain about. It appears, for some unknown reason, that you are trying to masquerade as a citizen and exert influence on OUR politics. And that ain’t kosher.
Actually, it’s because I’m a member of the Trilateral Commission, and we like to keep tabs on everyone. Plus, I like to know as much about the U.S. as I can. I keep the details in my ‘America log’. I’m sure it will come in handy after the invasion.
But thanks for alerting me to the new ‘full personal disclosure’ rule on the SDMB. I was unaware of it.
Dang it, I blame George Ten-- er, elucidator, for giving me bogus intelligence data!
(Now I gotta go scrape what little self-respect I have left for Colin Powell off the kitchen floor. Where’s my spatula?)
This seems to me a “Let’s toss some red meat to our supporters” moment by the Bush campiagn rahter than a substantial issue.
If Bush were interested in countering the vapid claim that Kerry has had encouragement from some foreign leaders, the answer would be: “So what? Of course, with hundreds of countries, all having dozens of prominent leaders, some of whom are hoping to gain political advantages by cozying up to a Presidential nominee, I’m perfectly sure Senator Kerry has the encouragement of at least a few. The real question is: how many does he have, and who are they, and how does that compare to the foreign leaders who have spoken encouraging words to me? I’m pretty sure he’s not going to divulge such details, and I know I’m not about to, so let’s just move on, shall we?”
The truth is that Bush’s team is scouring the news for everything Kerry does, says or thinks, and tries to put a taint on it. To be arguing about so petty an issue is to enjoy being played, IMO.
FYI, despite his diction, col is an American.
The US is going to kick in an (unbudgeted?) BILLION dollars to back up Powell’s claim. :eek: THAT’s some Serious Samolee!
If you open that massive PDF file that SimonX linked to, the poll of how other countries feel about Bush is question 8c on page 31 of the PDF. There’s also a graph in there somewhere.
His favorable-unfavorable ratings in Britain are 39-57 unfavorable; in France, Germany, Russia, and Turkey, they’re unfavorable by 15-85, 15-84, 28-60, and 21-67 respectively; in Pakistan, Jordan, and Morocco, Bush’s favorables don’t even get into double digits.
Suffice it to say that world popular sentiment is so anti-Bush that of course there have to be a significant number of world leaders who’d like to see him out of office. Anything else is absurdly improbable.
So Kerry was telling the truth. And it was probably a stupid thing to say anyway, but Bush’s stupid things to say have been about jobs, WMDs, and tax cuts. The fundamentals, IOW.
JFTR, I think it’s quite natural for everyone in the world to feel strongly about US foreign policy, and anything that directly impacts on it (like who the next president will be). Let’s face it: when Uncle Sam sneezes, Australia catches a cold. And by ‘foreign policy’ I’m not just speaking of diplomacy and use of military might; I’m talking about trade and economic policy as well, even our fiscal policy, which inevitably has ripples around the world, and will continue to, as long as our economy has the special position it does in world affairs.
On occasion, the interest of a foreign poster such as Sam Stone in some of our national issues that don’t have international implications surprises me, but what the hey. If he (or anyone else beyond our borders) is interested and can make a good argument on one side or another, I can’t see why he shouldn’t put his oar in.
In sum, the premise of the OP is incorrect, at least at this point.
I don’t think these are comparable. In the case of the war in Iraq, the level of support that the war had in the international community was a major issue (brought up mostly by the war’s opponents) which had to be confronted. The idea that foreign leaders are rooting for Kerry is not something that had to be brought up at all.
Sorry, the first half of that post was meant for a different thread (the Republican disillusioned one). My most humble apologies. :o
Well, no. If Kerry had said, “Polls throughout the world show that people want a leadership change, and I’m that leader” or something like that, no one would have questioned him.
But he said, “I have MET with leaders…” A reporter recently said that he didn’t say ‘foreign’ leaders, but that doesn’t make sense because Kerry has been asked specifically about his mention of foreign leaders, and he hasn’t denied it. And in fact, he has argued for the claim.
It’s an interesting tie-in to the complaint that I shouldn’t be involved in this discussion because I’m not American. If Americans are supposed to butt out of these issues, then why in hell would Kerry think it’s a good campaign tactic to tell people that he’s been meeting wtih foreign leaders, and refuses to tell anyone who they are? Can you understand why that might make some people a little nervous? Why they might want to know just who these leaders are? Why they might want to know what Kerry is saying to them, and promising them?
But I can certainly understand why many think that it’s important to know who these leaders are that he’s been meeting with and gaining the support of. If it’s Tony Blair and John Howard, then that’s a huge blow against Bush’s credibility and leadership. On the other hand, if it’s Gerhardt Shroeder, Jaques Chirac, and Yassir Arafat, I think the American people would have an entirely different reaction to their support for Kerry.
My guess as to what happened is that Kerry took the fact that he likely DOES have the best wishes of many foreign leaders, and turned it into an off-the-cuff claim that he has met with them to discuss an American election. That was small fib, and he got caught in it. And rather than try to dodge it or apologize, he took the ‘tough Kerry’ stance and fought back, and now he’s boxed himself into a corner. Typical politician error.
Sigh … someone whose opinion is uninformed, and whose ‘opinion’ is not based on having to take responsibility for the consequences, is naturally contributing far less of value than those who do. Got it?
First, why are you addressing me specifically instead of the several others who have made the same point here? Habit, perhaps? I meant “mind your own business” seriously - your business, in this context, is your own country and its own government and politicians. Yet all you ever say about what you *do * have responsibility for, even when prodded, is that they pretty much all suck. That attitude gets all the respect it deserves, namely zero. I *would * ask what your attitude would be toward an Aussie, say, who spams your favorite Canadian politics board with the latest rant of the day from the NDP’s press releases - except that I don’t think you’d actually give a damn, and that is truly sad.
There is no doubt where their own senses of responsibility lie. LC, since he’s the only relevant example, is certainly concerned with his own country above all others, and his discussions have never AFAIK been knee-jerkingly partisan at all, much less about any party to which he cannot belong. Rather, he has discussed every political matter I’ve seen him participate in as either a citizen of the world or as a citizen of the UK or as a citizen of an alliance member. His posts also show independent thought, though not always to the agreement of everyone, even me. He doesn’t pretend to be something he’s not. That is not the case with you, sadly - you might just as well post the links to Newsmax and the other partisan-RW blogs that seem to comprise your entire reading matter, and save us the trouble of reading your wordy paraphrases.
You’re clearly a smart guy, but just not a thoughtful one, ya know? You could contribute a great deal if you really tried to be honest and responsible in your use of facts and reasoning. But that’s what gets you into trouble here every time, isn’t it?
Snort. And so are all the others here asking you the same thing? Pit it or zip it.
Now, to your latest loyal effort at upholding the Republican party’s position:
Where do you get this “claim that he has met with them” for that purpose? Are you jumping on this novel concept that he set up formal meetings with a list of people just to discuss electoral odds as the only way to maintain the position that he told a “fib”? Bullcrap and you know it - it’s “reasoning” like that that gets you labeled a thoughtless partisan. The basic fact of the statement he made is true, as even you admit. But you’re calling it an error for a politician to tell the truth? If you think that’s an error, and that it will cost him, you understand American politics even less than you guess.
Izzy:
Not comparable unless you think that “Democrats” as defined in this poll are equally as partisanly tied to their nominee as “Republicans” - but that goes against everything we think we know about strength of party affiliation. Also not comparable unless the quantities of party members are equal. The total votes, broken down by state, are all that matter, of course. A more straightforward interpretation of that limited poll might be that Bush already has most of the support he’s ever going to get, while Kerry still has some upside. Further, the fact that a party’s well-known incumbent nominee does not have the support of a quarter of its membership should be more worrying to him than Kerry’s number should be to him.
Elvis,
I’m not sure what the point of your recent post was in response to mine, but it is possible that you overlooked my subsequent post in which I clarified that the part that you responded to was posted here in error, and was related to a different thread. (In the context of that thread my comments were apt, but I’d rather not discuss it here and hijack this thread).
One thing; before Kerry explains the incongruities of his proclamation that many (or some) foreign (or domestic) leaders (or their sidekicks) met with (or phoned) their heart-felt wishes that he be elected President of the United States (May God forbid), I’d like to ask Senator Kerry to belatedly disassociate himself with the phonies and charlatans that he associated with while he was involved with the Veterans Against the Vietnamese War. Kerry and this opportunistic crew marched about the states decrying the atrocities which they said were being committed against the Vietcong by American solders even as Kerry and friends prissily marched.
___________________________________________Bastards.
But hey! That was a long time ago. Kerry was just a kid and I, for one, am willing to forgive Kerry’s childhood indisceetions, although many American solders probably died because because of the lies manufactured by Kerry and his group.
All I want for Senator Kerry to do is to denounce the phony stories that he and his lying pals told congress and the American people about the widespread atrocities that were being committed everyday by our brave troops in Vietnam.
(It’s tough being a Christian and having to forgive pretentious folk like John Kerry.)
So much horseshit, so little time…
I see, yes, of course! Kerry and the VVAW leaped upon the bandwagon just as the popularity of an anti-war opinion soared to new heights! Well, it’s news to me, scooter, and I was there. I even recall being angry with Kerry for pulling away when he thought that the VVAW was getting too radicalized, too determined to sieze America by the lapels and scream into our collective face.
“Opportunistic”? Don’t make me laugh.
So they weren’t really 'Nam vets? My old pal Smitty, he picked up that wheel chair at a garage sale? “Hey, Doc, time for another pretend-operation”. “Sure thing, Smitty, we’ll just slice you some place at random, sew it back up and pretend there was some shrapnel…” Or was it perhaps thier opposition to the war that was phony and made up. Really, they knew it was a great thing happening over there, but were brainwashed by Jane Fonda into pretending otherwise so that they could bask in the approval. So you’re a bit unclear there, Milum, m’lad.
Puerile. A verbal pustule, lanced and drained on my screen. You should sit quietly at the feet of Robert McNamara for a couple of hours. Observe the horror of a man facing his last years knowing he sent thousands of good men to thier deaths in service of a lie. Which would have been bad enough, save that he knew.
Left yourself some very useful weasel room there. “Widespread” and “everyday”. Wouldn’t once be too many? How many do you need, what is your threshold of nausea, how many My Lais before you puke yer guts out? Five? Ten? Fifty? Was Lt. “Rusty” Calley just a good ol’ boy who got a little rambunctious? Those ditches full of dead old men and children, a photo op ginned up by Ho Chi Minh, with the connivance of Walter Cronkite? Maybe they committed suicide in the hopes of embarrassing America?
“Well, sure, there were a couple of massacres, here and there, but shit! it’s not like it was an everyday thing…”
John, 11:35
Where to begin?
I’m pretty sure that ElvisL1ves wasn’t suggesting that Americans should butt out of the US election issues. But there’s American and there’s American. You live in North America, but not in the US. You don’t get to vote in the US. How difficult is that to understand?
As far who the unknown foreign leaders are, they’d be pretty much every single one of them apart from Sharon, Blair and Howard. It’s pretty obvious isn’t it? Even to a foreigner like you?
And what would Kerry be promising them? How about “I will be anyone but Bush”, or “I won’t be a complete lying fucking tool?” That’d probably be enough to gain the support of everyone apart from the above mentioned three.
P.S., I don’t know about Blair, but there’s no way in this Universe that Howard is going to survive the election this year. Sucking GWB’s dick is a ticket to oblivion.
>Good gravy, man, at this point in the game, the only people who believe
>the “George W. Bush was given bad intelligence” myth are addle-minded
>children, Barbara Bush, and Dubya apologists. For the rest of us, the fcats are
>in – the Administration was told there was no WMD threat from Iraq, and lied
>about it to sell a war.
Wow! With massive numbers of utterly reasonable and nicely faceless “rest of us” against me and only “addle-minded children” and Pubbie apologists (which, in case you didn’t know, means “defenders” and has no derogatory meaning), why bother to debate at all? I mean, there’s no need for you to back up your outlandish claims with facts or anything…
>Oh, you believe the “liberal media” fairy tale as well…
First of all, I said that the liberal papers, meaning “those papers that have a liberal bias”, not “those papers, all of which have a liberal bias”.
That said, you mean that you believe the "balanced media: fairy tale as well?
>As far who the unknown foreign leaders are, they’d be pretty much every single
>one of them apart from Sharon, Blair and Howard. It’s pretty obvious isn’t it?
>Even to a foreigner like you?
Then why did Schroeder (sp?) and the Australian president, among others, deny having said anything? Claims like “everyone except for a couple of insignificant countries supports me” requires some sort of proof, doncha think?
No, we don’t believe such fairytales. If the media was truly doing its job of presenting balance and not just repeating lies and deceptions of the Administration, e.g., in regards to the war in Iraq, then there presumably wouldn’t have been so many people believing blatantly false things about the war back in the summer and fall of last year, such as the “fact” that WMDs had been discovered by the U.S.