Why does it matter whether John Kerry reveals these supposed supporters? Somebody, please explain this to me.

I believe that Paul Martin, Prime Minister of Canada will be one of the supporters. Of course, I'm hoping that with an upcoming election we'll have a change of leadership here in Canada.

Gary:

If you're PRO-Kerry, it would be an interesting comment on the level of support Kerry would garner (supposedly) from foreign leadership that, presumably, have lost confidence in Dubya.

If you're ANTI-Kerry, it would be interesting to see who is supporting Kerry over Bush.

Regardless of whether you're supportive of Kerry or opposed to him, it would be interesting (and actually important) to know which leaders are apparently trying to cast some influence on the American political race.

And, separate from all this, it is an issue because John Kerry himself raised the subject in the first place. Remember that this was not a response to a question or a "gotcha" by reporters. John Kerry basically came out and volunteered that it was important that Dubya be defeated, and that he had met foreign leaders, and they had told him this. That's pretty serious stuff, if it came from US allies, and pretty serious stuff, if he's been meeting w/ less-than-friendly leaders who would say this to him.

but note that unlike bush in this stage of his 2000 candidacy, no one is doubting Kerry's ability to KNOW the names of foreign leaders.

What about the French prime minister, you know, whatshisname, that guy with the french-sounding name.

Well, today we know one of the 'world leaders' that is for Kerry: Zapatero. I hope the endorsement helps him as much as an endorsement from Gore would.

but note that unlike bush in this stage of his 2000 candidacy, no one is doubting Kerry's ability to KNOW the names of foreign leaders .....those doubts didn't speak for me.

no one is doubting Kerry's ability to KNOW the names of foreign leaders.......I am.

Got any other generalizations you wants to throw around?

Yeah Kerry should tell which foreign leaders support him.

Maybe he will after Dick tells who all was at that energy meeting he won't tell about.

I'll tell you why it matters if Kerry gives those names, because it goes to the character of the man. And John Kerry has been talking about the credibility of the President since he started campaigning. And then Kerry tries to slide this smug comment in about foreign leaders who really want him to win, without backing it up. Now who's the one with a lack of credibility? If it sounds like Kerry's making this up, how can you believe some of the other things he may say later on in the campaign. Not to mention the many things inheritly wrong with a US Senator saying something like that. Especially when records show that he hasn't been abroad and has only been in the same city at the same time as one foreign leader (from New Zealand no less)in the past year or so.

This claim should be investigated by the press, Kerry should say who they are, if not, I would agree with the administration that this statement was a lie and an attack against the President.

Kerry has finally named the foreign leader who has supported him.

See

Kerry has finally named the foreign leader who has supported him.

See: http://www.borowitzreport.com/

hey onecent--here's another generalization. if bush said let's invade (insert name of country here), you'd support him.

oh, that tricky liberal media didn't quite get its facts straight regarding the quote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/16/politics/campaign/16CND-POOL.html?hp

perhaps that liberal media misquoted bush and his flunkies when they said iraq had wmd. and perhaps they misquoted bush and his flunkies when they said that the economy would produce millions of jobs. and perhaps they misquoted bush and his cronies when they said that his medicare reform would only cost $400 billion when a month later they revise their estimate to $500 billion.

no, actually, not likely the liberal media's fault. more likely that bush and his adminstration are full of liars and treat the american people like lapdogs and sheep.

but watch out--there is a grave and gather (not to be confused with "imminent") danger.

Really dinesh, Kerry was misquoted. Then why the defense from Kerry when it now has come into question? Did you think he was talking about American leaders?

And all this comes after a Boston Globe reporter reviews his tape recording of the incident (what 3 days after the initial story) and every media source starts correcting themselves. funny how that didn't happen with the "imminent threat" misquotes. The media is bending over backwards to not put Kerry in a tight spot. Your blinded by your hatred for Bush if you can't see this happening.

And just to clarify, if by Bush's flunkies you mean: Bill Clinton, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, the United Nations et al, you would be correct. They all stated that Iraq had WMDs. Even though some people out there seem to forget that.

Why does it matter? Is that a serious question?

News flash--a lot of world leaders did not have your best interests in mind. In order to know whether Kerry's endorsements are laudable or not, we'd kind of have to know who endorsed him. I think the American people need to know if Chirac prefers Kerry to Bush.

he's not my kerry. but he is your bush.

mike:

by flunkies, i meant cheny, powell, rumsfeld, rice.

you apparently forgot how this administration has changed its tune.

here's powell's statements to remind you.

SECRETARY POWELL: I received a very warm welcome from the leaders and I know there is some unhappiness as expressed in the Egyptian press. I understand that, but at the same time, with respect to the no-fly zones and the air strikes that we from time to time must conduct to defend our pilots, I just want to remind everybody that the purpose of those no-fly zones and the purpose of those occasional strikes to protect our pilots, is not to pursue an aggressive stance toward Iraq, but to defend the people that the no-fly zones are put in to defend. The people in the southern part of Iraq and the people in the northern part of Iraq, and these zones have a purpose, and their purpose is to protect people -- protect Arabs -- not to affect anything else in the region. And we have to defend ourselves.

We will always try to consult with our friends in the region so that they are not surprised and do everything we can to explain the purpose of our responses. We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions -- the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq, and these are policies that we are going to keep in place, but we are always willing to review them to make sure that they are being carried out in a way that does not affect the Iraqi people but does affect the Iraqi regime's ambitions and the ability to acquire weapons of mass destruction, and we had a good conversation on this issue.

http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2001/933.htm

so please provide cites to remarks by clinton, kennedy, and others as to saddam's possession of wmd.

and perhaps you can explain why bush & flunkies can't get their assertions in line with the facts re wmd, budget deficits, medicare expenses, etc.

dodge and weave, dodge and weave. accountability matters. to paraphrase bill maher: something his wrong when the only person that got fired after 9/11 was bill maher.

I bet Mugabe in Zimbabwe is hoping for a Kerry victory too. Probably Arafat as well. Anyone but an American president who believes in dialogue with dictators over action intended to undermine them and prepare the way for a liberal democratic government to succeed them.

In January 2003, Kerry Described Threat Of Saddam Hussein With WMD As Real. “[W]e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. … And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War.” (Senator John Kerry, Remarks At Georgetown University, Washington, DC, 1/23/03)

excerpts from a speech Sen. Kennedy gave on September 27, 2002 at the School of Advanced International Studies:
Let me say it plainly: I not only concede, but I am convinced that President Bush believes genuinely in the course he urges upon us.
There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed.
We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.
Indeed, in launching a war against Iraq now, the United States may precipitate the very threat that we are intent on preventing -- weapons of mass destruction in the hands of terrorists. If Saddam's regime and his very survival are threatened, then his view of his interests may be profoundly altered: He may decide he has nothing to lose by using weapons of mass destruction himself or by sharing them with terrorists
But there is again no persuasive evidence that air strikes alone over the course of several days will incapacitate Saddam and destroy his weapons of mass destruction
Nor can we rule out the possibility that Saddam would assault American forces with chemical or biological weapons. Despite advances in protecting our troops, we do not yet have the capability to safeguard all of them.
Clearly we must halt Saddam Hussein's quest for weapons of mass destruction.

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

Would you like some more Dinesh?

yes mike, i would like more. i don't see anywhere in those quotes stating that saddam has wmd, rather they refer to the threat posed by such a dicator (too bad that when rummy met up with saddam back in the early 80's, he didn't slip a knife in his gut but instead shook his hand). i suspect kennedy's speech relied on the cooked intelligence that georgie was reading, as his speech dates from 2002. as for the others, they pre-date the powell speech.

as for dictators supporting kerry, how about bush's acceptance of that dictator musharaff whose country has been export nukes to libya, n.korea and iran. too bad georgie can't step up to the plate and give us some 'straight texas talk' about that axis of evil.
comments or silence, let's see what comes back....

What the heck are you talking about. It seems I could quote anything and you'll just choose to interpret any which way that suits your argument. The fact is that everyone I quoted and you quoted were talking about the THREAT of Iraqi WMDs. Bush just decided to do something about it before they wound up in New York harbor. I, for one, am glad that he did. Now those who were against the war have conveniently chosen to forgo their original views for their own partisan political gain.

DYKWIA (do you know who i am) kerry thought he may impress few of his followers and it BACKFIRED.
Well,when you have such a big head without tongue/brain coordination,you end up with whole lot of BS falling back right on your face.

Hmm,he did the same thing when he thought the mike was off.
I guess he doesn't mind it much since it happens to be his own bile.

mike--i am not interpreting anything 'the way i want.' secty of state powell stated in 2001 that saddam was contained and had not developed any significant wmd capability. something changed, according to the administration's (faulty) intelligence (see david kay's recent statements re bush 'coming clean with the american people). except for the kennedy speech, all of the quotes you provide: 1) pre-date powell's conclusion; and 2) talk about a threat vs. an actual ability. it's not partisan interpretation--it's chronology of events (aka facts, which this administration seems unable to distinguish from wishful thinking--hence the 'bush credibility' issue). it's not that complicated--and if the right would just quit trying to spin their way out of this one and, as david kay says, level with the american people, it would be more consistent with THE TRUTH.

Today moonbat former Malyasian Prime Minister and forever anti Semite Mahathir Mohamed endorsed John Kerry.

and no doubt, the house of saud, the largest exporters and financiers of fundamentalist islam and wahhabism will undoubtedly endorse bush.

talk about appeasement......