Woman denies rumors of Kerry affair

Gee, why isn’t Drudge (or any other conservative chump) apologizing?

Posted by: x at February 16, 2004 07:56 PM

To X (if that is indeed your REAL name):

Wow- a denial. Imagine that.

And the “conservative chumps” should be apologizing for . . . ?

Inquiring about a topic considered legitimate and germaine to voters’ decisions since at least 1992 (see Drudge’s notes re: the oscillating approach to this kind of issue by journalists such as Joel Conason), when G.H.W. Bush was closely questioned about affair rumors? Did any “other [liberal] chumps” apologize when the rumors fell apart? If they did, I didn’t notice.

Is it difficult to imagine that a mistress who has allegedly already fled to Africa to protect her lover’s reputation and electoral chances would deny the rumors when asked?

Would you take “No” for an answer from an alleged mistress of GWB?

Is the public not entitled to question the character of the CinC? Or does character not matter?

Should the public not be informed or concerned about the classic blackmail/security-risk scenario, where a high official might take undue and possibly endanger national security to conceal an affair?

Do you seriously believe that this kind of question is purely one of partisan politics? Would you prefer less information or more, true or not?

In all seriousness, I am inclined to believe Kerry- however much I may despise his bewildering policy positions- because he would have to be AN ABSOLUTE IDIOT to deny this in this day and age, when most people could probably deal with it if he were to come clean.

As a final note, I don’t think that Wesley Clark’s blogmaster- by whom the issue was first commented upon- is a card-carrying “conservative chump.” Check your facts on the origin of the story, X.

Andy

Posted by: Andy at February 16, 2004 08:48 PM

i remember working as an assistant to the district attorney in the trial of david berkowitz. i recall perfectly the following exchange:

d.a.: mr. berkowitz, isn’t it true your actions resulted in the death of 6 people and injuries to 7 others.

son of sam: no. you’re wrong, chump.

d.a.: oh. well now. your honor, in light of mr. berkowitz’s testimony, we would like to dismiss charges and apologize to… wait a minute! he has his fingers crossed! strike that last motion!

…and so we were that close to setting a serial killer free on the streets.

what was the matter with kerry’s denial, x, that you didn’t then demand apologies from the media? did you think that he might have been lying?

really, there just is no reason for ms. polier to lie. certainly her fiancee would be most understanding if her personal morality allows for extra-marital relationships. i mean, it’s perfectly accepted behavior among the french elite.

Posted by: wafflestomper at February 16, 2004 09:54 PM

Andy and ws:

So you think that this topic is germane and you are both free to conjecture, without support, about alternative “real reasons” for people’s behavior?

I’m just curious. What was you position on the questions surrounding Bush’s ANG service.

Posted by: Todd at February 16, 2004 10:40 PM

jeez, todd, i thought i understood the rules, but i’m coming around now. so may i please have permission to conject on this issue?

perhaps you would like to reread my statements and tell me what i’m conjecting here. reading your posts, i assumed you were fairly reasonable, in arguendo. so tell me who’s conjecture was more reasonable, mine or that of x?

and perhaps you would like to actually phrase a question about the ang lest you belittle me again for your lack of comprehension.

Posted by: wafflestomper at February 17, 2004 11:33 AM

Todd:

One difference is this: in the Kerry situation, the presence of slight (and not terribly convincing) evidence of an affair, and in GWB’s ANG situation, the absence of 100% conclusive evidence of the quality of his service (it now having been established that he was paid and, according to eyewitnesses, was there). Generally speaking, I have a hard time lending credibility to theories predicated on the absence of evidence, as should we all. Also, it is much more difficult to believe that a conspiracy existed to 1) get GWB into the ANG to avoid Vietnam (many ANG units were sent to Vietnam); but then 2) expose him to the needless risk of learning to fly F102s, and then that he 3) actually skipped his duty requirements, risking criminal sanctions, and finally that- if he did indeed skip- ANG officials were willing to risk their own careers to ensure that he was honorably discharged, despite his lack of service, when a general discharge was available as an alternative. There are simply too many risky elements for too many people, with no incentive to take the risks. Still, people are entitled to believe in such theories, however unlikely they may be.

Re: Kerry, it is simply not difficult at all to believe that 1) a politician 2) had an affair. I need to see a little more evidence before I would believe that he also 3) had her bundled off to Africa. Furthermore, as I said above, he would be an idiot to deny this kind of thing in the post-Clinton era. And even if it is all TRUE, it still remains for actual voters to decide what it means with regard to his duties as CinC.

As far as being free to conjecture is concerned, you bet I’m free to conjecture- as free as anyone is to speculate about GWB’s IQ (look up the correlation of IQ to SAT score and see how he does), Clinton’s sale-by-proxy of newly declassified nuclear tech to China, Gore’s manic switch from a GWB alterna-clone on issues like Iraq and terrorism to his current stance (would Joe Lieberman and Al Gore be able to be running mates again? Who’s been more consistent here?), alleged “no-bid” contracts to Halliburton (administered through the DoD’s LOGCAPS program, which no journalist seems intelligent enough to investigate), Al Sharpton’s race-baiting and anti-Semitism, and Dennis Kucinich’s tin-foil hat theories. You are also free to do so.

Andy

Posted by: Andy at February 17, 2004 03:08 PM

Andy, you make some good points, but with regard to the Democratic presidential candidates - you’d have to acknowledge that if the Republicans fielded nine primary candidates, there’d be some which were substantially outside the mainstream.

Posted by: lewy14 at February 17, 2004 04:13 PM

Re: first post.

I see.

So Kerry is innocent until proven guilty, and “conservative chumps” should apologize.

But Bush is guilty until proven innocent, despite this issue was already disproven 4 years ago and even then, we need more investigation, and it’ll be a cold day in hell before anyone might apologize.

Words cannot sufficiently describe the hypocrisy here.

Posted by: johnnymozart at February 17, 2004 05:11 PM

I have a question for Kerry. Why was he filling an E-7 or E-8 billet as an O-2? Commanding a Swift boat was the job of an senior enlisted man. A normal officers billet would have been commanding 4 or 6 boats, IIRC. If Kerry was assigned that job it was because someone farther up the food chain was un-happy with him. Sort of like a department head being sent down to the mailroom to push carts around. One has to wonder why. As a former naval person, the times I have seen this happen was when the officer scewed up and he was given a shit job (for an officer) instead of a court martial. Now that Bush has given up his Vietnam records and explained the little things that pop up in all DOD records, shouldn’t Kerry get his chance. Fair is fair.

Posted by: ableiter at February 17, 2004 06:03 PM

WS,

Did not mean to belittle you, and I appologize for the lack of a question mark. This was an honest question. This is America, friend, and you are free to conjecture all you want.

My point, which I failed to articulate, is that this affair story stinks to high heaven. I am yet to see any credible evidence supporting ANY of the allegations. (e.g., who are these reporters that are alleged to have overheard Clark?)

I find two elements of conjecture in your statement. First, your analogy to SOS assumes he is guilty which, given the current status of the information in the affair story, would not be a fair comparison. A more apt analogy would be the recent olympics bribery case in which the government was embarassed by accusing two defendants of bribery, they denied it, and the alleged victims claimed that they were not bribed. In that case, the prosecution did scurry back to NYC after the judge called them, in effect, chumps for bringing the case in the first place.

The second item of conjecture I see is that you intimate that Ms. Polier is lying because you conjecture about a possible motive to lie. I don’t want to spen too much time on this but I believe according to the allegations, to the extent Kerry was after her, it was pre-fiance era. Hence, I don’t believe there is any support for a “extra-marital relationships” when there isn’t a martial relationship.

In any event, I actually agree with the underlying point of the SOS analogy that even with a denial, people have a legitimate claim to explore the issue futher. And, in fact, I argued that exact point to much distain last week regarding Bush’s ANG service. And I agree there is a point where accusers need to give it a rest. I think that point has been reached in the affair story without further evidence.

I see a distinction with the ANG inquiry. Andy, your point is well taken: there is a fundamental unfairness with attempting to prove a negative. But here is the problem as I see it. For many years in the ANG, Bush had glowing evaluations as a strong leader. And then arround the time of his Alabama service, the glowing evaluations stop, and there is a derth of documentation in the file that should be there. It has been alleged that prior to the 2000 campaign, his ANG file was sanitized. The derth of documentation supports this theory. Yes, it is conjecture, but it is not unfounded conjecture. In fact, there is a latin term for this kind of proof: res ipsa locquitor: the thing speaks for itself. It is the process of creatoing a rebutable presumption. People started wondering about all the possible documents that should be there that aren’t. The white house’s plan was to throw a couple of med records out and hoped to fill the void. The general tenor of the media was, you haven’t rebuted the presumption. So that, I believe, is a fundamental difference that makes a difference. And I think the media was justified in saying “not so fast, an honorable discharge doesn’t answer everything.” Hell, I got an honorable discharge; that doesn’t mean I should be CinC. And I think Bush has but his service at issue by (1) going to war and (2) pulling the carrier landing stunt.

So, WS and Andy, you are free to conjecture. I didn’t wish to intimate otherwise. I just wanted to establish some ground rules. I freely admit that I can be trigger happy on calling bullshit, but that was not my intention here. And Andy, I appreciate your reservations on the affair story; it proves to me you are a reasonable man. But the Drudge story was pathetic. Look, everyone knew Clinton was a liar when he was elected in ‘92. Everone knew Bush was a moron when he was selected in 00, and the bottom line is he was walking into work at noon every day on a political campaign after a night of boozin and god knows what else while other members of his generation were actually puting it on the line in Vietnam and, in fact, elswere around the world.

After the whole Clinton matter, conservatives asserted character as the ultimate issue. They should not be indignant when the character of their candidate is scrutinized. They should welcome it.

Posted by: Todd at February 17, 2004 09:41 PM