This isn't the sort of thing I normally wade into; I'm not a big fan of petty partisan politics. But sometimes it's important to establish whether a particular person is or is not lying when making a particular claim. And sometimes you can learn a lot just by looking at a little thing.

Round One

In this case, it starts with Kerry firing the first shot. Not in defense, but in offense. According to the UK Guardian:

Speaking to supporters in Florida, the Massachusetts senator declared: "I've met foreign leaders who can't go out and say this publicly, 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."

First, let's note this is from The Guardian, an English paper, and a somewhat left-leaning one. I say this because I hear charges that this is all due to some machinations by the Bush administration. But to the contrary, Kerry's statement was offered freely, to supporters, in a why-you-should-elect-me context, in the presence of reporters.

(In case there's any doubt, one can also check this Boston Globe article for the exact same quote. The Globe is the publication which mentioned the original quote, and is not known for having a conservative bias. :-))

Next, let's note that it's crystal clear from the quote that Kerry is saying he has "met" foreign leaders. In fact, he goes further and says: "I have met foreign leaders... they look at you and say..."

One might claim that "met" actually meant "talked with by telephone." Yet most people are very clear on the distinction between "met" and "phoned". Further, Kerry portrays them as looking directly at him, John Kerry, when saying what they said.

Lastly, let's note that Kerry's quote asserted he'd been conversing, in person, with several foreign leaders, plural. "I've met with foreign leaders... boy, they look at you and say..." This is a regular experience he's having!

Round Two

The time to straighten out any misquotes or misunderstandings would be on Kerry's first rebuttal, right? If Kerry had really meant a phone conversation, or even misspoke, that would have been the time to clear it up, no?

So what was his first response?

Mr. Kerry declined yesterday to name any of those leaders, saying private conversations should stay private.

"No leader would obviously share a conversation if I started listing them," the senator told a town-hall meeting in Bethlehem, Pa.

The Massachusetts senator said he would not "play that game" of whether he had had conversations with foreign officials other than heads of state and heads of government.

"The point is that all across the world, America is meeting with a new level of hostility," he said. "I have heard from foreign leaders elsewhere in the world who don't appreciate the Bush administration and would love to see a change in the leadership of the United States."

These quotes were picked up by the Associated Press and appeared in Yahoo News, Washington Times, the Macon Daily, and other news outlets. And The Seattle Times reports another response from Kerry:

"I'm not making anything up at all," the Massachusetts senator said. "They're just trying to change the subject."

In a telephone interview, Kerry said "it's no secret" that people in some countries are "deeply divided about our foreign policy. We have lost respect and influence in the world.

"I stand by my statement. The point is not the leaders," Kerry added. "What's important is that this administration's foreign policy is not making us as safe as we can be in the world."

In the first quote, he appears to be saying now that he only "heard from" foreign leaders -- a phrase which could now even include something like receiving a letter or hearing a rumour. In the second, he says he "stands by" his first statement. In both cases, he confirms that he interacted with a variety of foreign leaders, not just one.

Does this sound like a guy who had a phone conversation with a leader of a foreign nation and accidently described it as a "meeting"? Why not clarify it was by phone? Or by letter?

Things get ever weirder, if possible, in...

Round Three

Today, the Los Angeles Times reported that the Globe reporter who first mentioned the quote had gone back over his tape and, lo and behold, he now claims he misquoted Kerry:

The Boston Globe reporter who was covering a Florida fundraiser for Kerry on March 8 wrote in a pool report, which was distributed to the rest of the press corps, that Kerry said he had spoken with "foreign leaders" who had indicated they want him to beat Bush.

But on Monday, the reporter said that, upon review of his tape, he realized that Kerry had in fact said "more leaders" want him to beat Bush.

How interesting! Kerry wasn't talking about "foreign" leaders at all, just "more" leaders that he'd "met with" -- perhaps local ones?

We'll get back to this in a moment. First, let's see how Kerry reacts:

Meanwhile, the Kerry campaign attempted to back away from the original assertion, seizing on a reporter's clarification... the campaign said Monday that the Globe's clarification demonstrates some ambiguity about what Kerry meant. His reference to "more leaders," said Kerry's spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter, "could mean anybody." The media's repeated references to "foreign leaders" allowed critics to suggest he was talking about heads of state. "He was misquoted," said Cutter. "Had he not been misquoted, this wouldn't be a story."

But if Kerry could have meant anybody at all, then, in "Round Two" (above) why did Kerry repeatedly confirm the "foreign" part of the quote? ...

"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."

And:

"The point is that all across the world, America is meeting with a new level of hostility," he said. "I have heard from foreign leaders elsewhere in the world who don't appreciate the Bush administration and would love to see a change in the leadership of the United States."

It certainly seems Kerry was under the impression he was referring to "foreign" leaders, doesn't it?

My Analysis

Considering the number and tone of reaffirmations Kerry issued, I find it difficult to believe he was initially confused about whether he'd been meeting with foreign leaders as opposed to local ones. (And if he was confused, what would that say about his competence?)

Second, I find the Globe reporter Patrick Healy's retraction highly suspicious, given that Kerry himself confirmed, reiterated, and even "stood by" the remark as originally quoted, and continued to use it as evidence we should prefer him in matters of foreign relations.

Third, it's clear that the statement was issued in the context of a discussion on foreign relations. According to the Boston Globe, itself, Kerry's first remark had followed "a statement from Milton Ferrell, Kerry's Florida fund-raising chairman, voicing foreign displeasure with the current president. Ferrell said, 'Europeans and elsewhere, they're counting on the American people. They hate Bush, but they know we're going to get rid of him.'"

Why would he follow up a remark like that with evidence that local leaders like him?

So in the end, the only thing I can make of this, logically, is that Kerry made the quote, Kerry confirmed the quote, but also tried to direct attention away from it. Then a reporter realizes he's hurting his guy, and comes up with a different interpretation of the quote which negates the original meaning (shifts from "foreign" to mean any leader of anything), and then the Kerry camp flips and dis-owns the original with: "Oh yeah! That was what he meant!"

As best as I can tell, this looks like one and a half or two lies from Kerry (the original, and then his campaign's disowning of the original), and now, apparently, one more from the reporter himself. Patrick Healy could easily clear up this whole mess by putting his tape in the public domain where we all could hear it. (Though I predict, for the record, that he won't.)

I'm open to other explanations, if anyone has one to suggest.

Why This Matters

Politicians do and say stupid things all the time. It because they're human beings, like all the rest of us. We shouldn't expect a politician to never say something stupid, and we should be generous towards the explanations they give for their gaffes.

But we've got another matter here entirely.

First, if Kerry's original claims are true, it should matter to us which foreign powers are endorsing him and why. If an ally like Tony Blair is dissatisfied, that's one thing, but if Jacques Chirac or North Korea's Kim Il Sung are eager to see his presidency, that's another matter entirely.

Asking about such things is not, as Kerry would have it, a mere political stategem. He himself put the issue out there as being important, and rightly so, as I explain above. But if so, then why are we then to be blamed for wanting more information on this formerly-important claim of foreign endorsements?

Second, even if the original quote was, again, completely factually true, the fact Kerry said it at all reflects poorly on his self-control and planning skills.

If it was true, as Kerry implied, that he had been meeting secretly with foreign leaders, and also, as he also asserted, that "'No leader would obviously share a conversation if I started listing them," then it reflects poorly on his self-control to have put the information "out there" in the first place, in order to impress a rather small group of supporters.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that when you start claiming foreign endorsements, the American people will legitimately want to know who you've been talking to and what you've been telling them you'll do for them.

And if he's this cavalier with his alleged sensitive negotiations with unnamed foreign governments now, what will he do in yet more important matters?

Third, we should be concerned about these and other apparent position changes from Kerry because they tell us something else about his character which touches on his ability to conduct foreign relations: his credibility and resolve.

I don't mean that I'm worried certain hostile foreign leaders won't "like" him -- with many despots in the world, that's a luxury we can't always afford -- but I mean that when our President says something or makes a promise to a foreign leader, friend or foe, that leader has to have a confidence (or fear) that our President won't be changing his mind later, or will later publicly claim that he meant something else by it.

Again, a man's consistency and word are equally valuable when dealing both friends and foes. And Kerry's record here is far from comforting.

Fourth, Kerry keeps trying to dismiss this ruckus as an evil Bush machination. But it was Kerry who fired the first shot, while campaigning publicly, and it was first printed in the Boston Globe, a newspaper not generally sympathetic to conservative views.

Even if we do merely think of this as a chess game with only two players, Bush and Kerry (and I don't -- that analysis reflects a profound contempt for the intelligence and importance of the American voter), it reflects poorly on a player to blame his opponent for his own uncoerced missteps.

Further, his charges about the current administration's reaction seem spurious and distractionary: I, as a voter, want to know if Kerry's statements are true. Any interest expressed by the current administration doesn't somehow mitigate my legitimate concern, as voter, in this matter.

And yet further still, if a candidate indeed has been trying to do an end-runaround on foreign policy, it seems to me that it is also legitimate for the existing administration -- contrary to what Kerry seems to be saying -- to express an interest in what be going on with that. As the Seattle Times reports:

Vice President Dick Cheney said Americans deserve to know what Kerry has been telling foreign leaders. Cheney noted that at a campaign event Sunday in which a heckler challenged Kerry to produce names, the Democrat declined, saying, "That's none of your business."

"But it is our business when a candidate for president claims the political endorsement of foreign leaders," Cheney said at a congressional fund-raiser in Phoenix. "At the very least, we have a right to know what he is saying to them that makes them so supportive of his candidacy."

Call me a rube, but that seems reasonable.

Fifth, Kerry's original statement and subsequent handling thereof exposes troubling questions about his priorities. Why, in Kerry's mind, should he be president? Because foreign powers like him!

When a man makes a claim like this, it sounds to me as though he thinks we should assemble the leaders of the world together (dictators et al) and let them choose our President and set our policies. Even if we look only to democratic nations, do you honestly think Vincente Fox (much as I like him), Jacques Chirac, Schroeder (who has been caught in a tremendous number of lies and scandals), or Vladimir Putin would select policies for us which would be in their political interest or yours?

Contrast this apparent need for the approval of foreign leaders with Kerry's treatment of the Pennsylvania voter mentioned above: 52-year-old local businessman Cedric Brown demanded Kerry tell him which foreign powers he'd been meeting with. Kerry responded: "That's none of your business!"

Apparently, in Kerry's mind, foreign leaders like him, and their opinions and approval are very important. But when a voter and citizen (however politely or obnoxiously) asks what's happening with that, he is told that it's none of his business.

I find that juxtaposition chilling, regardless how nicely Kerry may have framed the answer. The belief itself is disturbing.

Sixth and last -- and I admit this is a personal observation and speculation here, but hear me out -- it looks to me like this speaks poorly of Kerry's grasp of reality. Since I'm currently persuaded he didn't actually meet with any foreign powers, this also suggests he said what he said because he wanted it to be true; that his assertion -- regarding these foreign leaders staring into his eyes and pleading for his, John Kerry's, help -- proceed from his vanity, not some real experience, or even a cold but dishonest political calculation.

Closing Notes

When I hear a man tell me anyone but Bush would make a better US President from 2005-2008 -- unless he would vote for Nader or a liberatarian -- I hear a man telling me he's sold out to a political party, and will blindly accept and vote for whatever candidate that party puts forth, no matter what their description. There is no point in arguing with such a person: Their mind is made up, and they are telling you that no amount of evidence of this or that will ever alter their views.

While that's certainly a great coup for the Democratic Party -- I mean, that stops them from having to, you know, work to earn our approval -- I fear it serves the needs of our Republic poorly.

I'm not a blind partisan who checked in his alliances before a Democratic candidate was even selected, and I was not among those who voted for Bush in the last election. The Democrats could conceivably have put forth a candidate who might have earned my vote.

But in my opinion John Kerry is rapidly squandering the goodwill I grant all candidates until they prove otherwise.

Barring further evidence: If this is what you want, good luck, America.

You've been warned.

UPDATE: BitsBlog and The Evangelical Outpost argue Kerry's claims, if true, indicate he is commiting a crime, violating the Logan Act.