As an avowed liberal, I am not entirely certain that these "revelations" either qualify as something newsworthy or shed Kerry in a better light. The fact remains that John Kerry claimed he had the support of several foriegn leaders, and then refused to name those leaders. Neither one of the articles changes this fact.
His reasons - namely that identifying his supporters would "betray confidences" - is a fairly plausible explanation. After all, those foriegn leaders have to deal with George Bush, and outrightly stating that they hope he does not get re-elected would certainly effect thier relationship. So, it is plausible that foriegn leaders have informed Kerry they support him, and that those divulgences were given in confidence.
Kerry was trying to draw attention to the way that Bush's policies have alientated us from the rest of the world:
John Kerry wrote:I stand by my statement. The point is not the leaders. What's important is that this administration's foreign policy is not making us as safe as we can be in the world."
In that respect, he is absolutely correct. It is a well known fact that Bush policies have divided the world against us. Pointing this out is a legitimate attack against the Bush administration.
Particularly amusing is the quote from White House Press Secretary Scott McLellan:
Quote:Either he is straightforward and states who they are, or the only conclusion one can draw is that he is making it up to attack the president.
No, that is not the only conclusion one can draw.
The fact that conservatives claim it is only demonstrates thier utter inability to think objectively. As outlined above, there is a plausible explanation for why Kerry hasn't divulged his supposed supporters. Sure, Kerry's refusal may be enough to convince conservatives that he is lying, but what of us with working nervous systems? How are we to decide?
In any case, whether or not a reporter misconstrued the word "more" for "foriegn" is utterly irrelevent.
I find it probable that Kerry is telling the truth. I find his explanation for not divulging his supporters to be reasonable. I also find the Bush Administrations argument that
his refusal to name sources indicates he is lying to be completely retarded. In any case, the larger issue at hand - and the one which is worthy of further examination - is how Bush's policies have affected our relationship with the world.
