The rumor I mentioned below is true, and NRO’s Don Luskin has some very kind words for me as well.

I wonder if or how (De)Long it will take Krugman, Atrios or others to respond.

Sen. John F. Kerry recently said:

“I’ve met foreign leaders who can’t go out and say this publicly, but boy, they look at you and say, `You gotta win this, you gotta beat this guy, we need a new policy,’ things like that.”

This quote comes via an article in the New York Times, off “a transcript from a reporter who attended the session.” More on the transcript in a moment…

Our good friend Scott Lindlaw, the AP reporter who refuses to correct his mistake that Bush deemed Iraq and “imminent threat,” provides this:

at a campaign event Sunday in which a heckler challenged Kerry to produce names, the Democrat declined, saying, “that’s none of your business.”

If it is none of our business, why tell us about it, Mr. Kerry?

“I think the quote, the quote in the comment I made publicly, I believe, was that I `heard from,’ that’s the direct quote,” Mr. Kerry said. “I’ve likewise had meetings. I’ve also had conversations. I said I’ve heard from, that was what I believe I said.”

No, he set “met” and “they look at you and say,” not “heard from.” But, anyway, I thought this was none of our business…

Secretary of State Colin Powell comments: “I don’t know what foreign leaders Senator Kerry is talking about… It’s an easy charge, an easy assertion to make. But if he feels it is that important an assertion to make, he ought to list some names. If he can’t list names, then perhaps he should find something else to talk about.”

Now Drudge is reporting that the Globe journalist who recorded the transcription “screwed-up.” According to the report, Kerry said ‘more’ leaders, not ‘foreign’ leaders.

If that’s the case, why does Kerry evade the question by by talking in general about American foreign policy? See this example:

“The point is that all across the world Americans and America is meeting with a new level of hostility,” Mr. Kerry said, “and that there are relationships that have been broken, and everybody who follows the foreign policy of the United States understands that.”

If Kerry meant to say domestic leaders, why not correct the people who are asking these questions, instead of attacking Bush’s foreign policy? Why also claim that you said “heard from” if you’re talking about domestic leaders… wouldn’t it be easy to claim you “met” with domestic leaders? And why can’t you name names if you’re talking about domestic leaders?

Update: Instapundit adds this better quote:

“I’m not going to betray a private conversation with anybody,” he said Sunday. “I have heard from people, 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.”

Pressed on the campaign trail and by reporters to name the leaders, Kerry declined, although he said they were U.S. allies.

“I’m talking about people who were our friends nine months ago,” said Kerry. “I’m talking about people who ought to be on our side in Iraq (news - web sites) and aren’t because this administration has pushed them away.”

Update: here’s the last part of the reporter’s new transcript: “Tell them, whereever they can find an American abroad they can contribute.”

Here is the next brilliant Kerry quote:

“I think simply Powell, who I know, like and admire, has been never permitted to be fully a secretary of state in the way that I envision the secretary of state… I think Powell — I’m not sure they didn’t lock the keys to the airplane up sometimes.”

But…

[Powell] said Bush “has me right now on the lead” on many issues, including China, Haiti, Iraq and Iran… “I know what the president wants, I know what his agenda is, and he knows that I am working his agenda,” Powell said. “So, these sorts of charges are always interesting to read and fun to gossip about, but don’t have any standing in reality.”

Next Kerry wants to fight Bush over anti-terrorism measures with this third and most ridiculous quote:

“When it comes to protecting America from terrorism, this administration is big on bluster and short on action,” said Kerry. “As we saw again last week in Spain - real action is what is needed.”

Ah, but here is a side-by-side comparison of the Kerry response to terrorism and the Bush response to terrorism. Kerry’s position is taken from a recent debate:

“This war on terror is far less of a military operation and far more of an intelligence-gathering, law-enforcement operation.”

Here is Bush’s position, taken from policy notes created during the 2000 election (long before 9-11):

1. [My administration] would deter terrorist attacks by ensuring that every group or nation understands that if they sponsor such attacks, the U.S. response will be devastating. 2. [I] would strengthen our intelligence community’s ability to detect terrorist threats, and develop long-range strike capabilities to eliminate such threats before they arise.

First, which one of these policies emphasizes “real action”? Second, has Bush done what he said he would do? Third, is it working so far?

My advice to Mr. Kerry is “put up or shut up, preferably the latter.”

Welcome Commercial Appeal readers! Columnist Jon Sparks, a great guy I met at a local blog get-together, has some kind words for this space: “Here’s a well-thought-out and well-designed site by Memphian Mick Wright: http://www.fishkite.com/. Must see.”

Slate’s Jacob Weisberg is distorting things again in order to attack President Bush. Weisberg writes,

“…how did Bush become a victim of a weak economy, rather than the perpetrator of one? There is …some explicit dishonesty [in Bush's new TV ads]. …In fact, as Bush acknowledged quite recently in his Meet the Press interview with Tim Russert, he did not inherit a recession from President Clinton. The recession began two months after he arrived, in March 2001. …This is the only demonstrably untrue statement to be found in these three ads. Tellingly, it is also nearly the only statement of fact in any of them.”

First, Bush never “acknowledged” that. Here is what he did say:

“The stock market started to decline in March of 2000. That was the first sign that things were troubled. The recession started upon my arrival. It could have been some say February, some say March, some speculate maybe earlier it started, but nevertheless it happened as we showed up here.”

His point is that the recession started around the time the Bush administration came into office, which was obviously before any of his policies became law. According to a recent article in the Washington Post titled Economists Say Recession Started in 2000, the economy tanked under Clinton’s watch. It got worse when we were attacked on 9-11. But since then, under Bush, the economy has improved greatly, to the point we were when Clinton was running for re-election on a supposedly great economic record.