Honesty also requires the writer of this piece to explain why he didn't feel compelled to write a similar piece regarding the recent allegations against Bush.

I demand proof that Kerry did not have an affair. He should release all documents that prove he has always been with his wife and only his wife since they were married.

Or, the Dems should shut up about the fake AWOL issue, since the proof that it is false is out there.

Most of the not so die hard dems i work around never even spoke of the awol/service record issue when talking about bush. They would rather argue the WMD claim and tackle the gay rights/abortion issue's. Then again maybe we have a different bunch of liberals here.

Sean,

Why give Kerry any benefit of any doubts?
That's no fair and no fun !!! Ha!

Are you writing a sequel to the cesspool novel

Lies, Damned Lies, HUMONGOUS Damned Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them? Ha!

If so, feel free to use this Title.... if not, anyone
else care to include all of the Demos "puff stuff".

It has gotten pretty deep out on the Demo
primary campaign trail, you know.

Seriously, probably 90% (or more) of ALL
accusations on BOTH sides is pure. B.S.

Don't let it bother you. Life is too short for that.

well well well is there a difference in the seriousness of the charges? AWOL...vrs...Affair?

Maybe they would be equal if we weren't in a war but at this time I can't see that they are. Is anyone claiming that Bush didn't use his family's influence to get into the guard and avoid the draft? No biggie I guess unless you are a president who believes in unilaterialy starting wars

Sean Kriby is not under any obligation to write a similar article concerning Bush=AWOL story. We can't fight each and every fight, no matter how much we may or may not believe in them. I got a similar argument in e-mail on another subject. Because I did not say X I an disqualified from saying anything about Y, no matter how tenuous the connection between X and Y may or may not be.

And I have to agree with Kirby on this point, no matter how much I dislike Kerry. Let the facts come out, apparently the alledge intern has returned and is denying the stories last I heard. Innocent until proven guilty. Something that liberals such as kong should remember more often.

The instant I heard this, I thought of the robber, running out of a bank, guns blazing, across a street. I cop tells him to halt, and he immediately yells, "I WAS NOT JAY-WALKING! HOW DARE YOU ACCUSE ME OF JAY-WALKING!"

Nobody cares what Kerry does or did sexually, as most people didn't care what Clinton did sexually; however, it makes a great distraction from REAL vices and corruption. In the case of Kerry, his shameful Vietnam treacheries.

So disregard anything about jay-walking, pay attention to the bank robbery.

I am interested in forming a hypothesis on Kerry's obfuscations. It principly applies to the use of the word, 'It.'

"I never heard 'it.' "

"Nothing to 'it.' "

Interesting use of the term, ' It'.

No, Sean isn't obligated to write anything he doesn't want to write, about anything. However, his assertion that "honesty requires" that Kerry be given the benefit of the doubt is demonstrably falsified by his own actions.

Again, for those having difficulty with the concept: Sean is being dishonest by writing such an article from only one perspective. No, he is not obligated to write anything about Bush. But that doesn't change anything.

If he had said that he feels that he is required to give Kerry the benefit of the doubt I'd have no quarrel. But that's not the tone of his message. Using "honesty requires" is a veiled imperative for the rest of us. He is attempting to bestow something to Kerry, while clearly denying that same benefit to Bush. And, and this is key: everyone else has to feel, and therefore act, the same way.

Classic liberal-PCism. "I feel this way, and thus do this, and if you don't, you are being dishonest." (or racist, or mysogenist, or ...)

Regarding the canard about seriousness of the charges: Lemme see if I have this right in that regard: KingKong is asserting that the more serious the charge,the less likely people should be to give the benefit of the doubt. Heh, interesting perspective. In Law, the more serious the charge, the more likely the benefit of the doubt is given. Murder trials need to be proven beyond all doubt. By a jury of peers. Civil suits need only the prepondeance of the evidence.

Interesting the attempts made to stack the deck....
The benefit of the doubt goes to the Democratic Party members.

Nice new Cartoon on your blog today CERDIP.

This is NOW on Fox News under

Kerry Momentum Grows.


The Democratic front-runner made his campaign rounds Friday while repeatedly denying an unsubstantiated rumor of an extramarital affair. "I just deny it categorically. It's rumor. It's untrue. And that's the last time I intend to" respond to questions about it, he told reporters who asked about reports on an Internet site.

We don't know enough.. We don't have any proof. We only have the daughter's father's interview with the UK Sun. In that interview the father calls John Kerry a sleazeball that he wouldn't trust his daughter near.

He also says there was no infidelity. Perhaps there wasn't. No one is saying that Kerry comitted an affair, but rather that something along the lines of infidelity (a little more than simple flirting) went on between Kerry and this woman. The question is, "What went on?" The other question is, "Why is the woman (who fled to Africa) not speaking up?"

the more serious the charge the more important the verdict, i think the charge of using family influence to get ahead of 500 others is not very serious, it just the way things are done, just admit it.

Now I wonder... is this nothing ? :

John Kerry girl tells all

Maybe we ought to hear what she has to say about it ?

What was it I saw earlier about Bush...? lemme see, something like: it's not the original offence, it's the cover-up that's the problem....was that it?

The saying "It's not the crime, it's the cover-up" is more often applied to the web of lies spun in response to real wrongdoing like that of Bill Clinton, not the utterly fatuitous claims of dissertion made against President Bush. (By the way, the reason I never wrote a column such as this about Bush's military record is that, unlike Kerry, Bush has openly refuted the rumors spread against him with hard facts and evidence. His 'scandal' has already moved beyond the realm of baseless rumor into that of demonstrably untrue, and therefore has passed the test of falsifiability I proposed.)

At this point, the facts do appear to be against Sen. Kerry, but that does not change the validity of my original opinion: that lacking any evidence, the public should ignore rumors as worthless and hostile to the exchange of information.

Sean, whether or not Bush was able to refute the chrages against him should not be the metric used to gauge the attacks.

The media were all over Bush, and quite vocally, about his ANG service. They did not give him the benefit of the doubt, yet now they accord to Kerry that which they denied Bush. We all know why they are behaving that way, and it has nothing to do with either the substance of the issue, nor the validity or the seriousness of the charges.

We all know why the Media is giving Kerry the benefit of the douth? It still seems you think that if Kerry had an affair its news that should be tracked down as a top priority. Where's Ken Starr when you need him.
Bush set himself up for the attacks about his service by the way he made opposing his policies equal to being uncomitted to American security. I think thats asking for someone to say "Hey I was on the firing line while who knows where you were thanks to your Daddys influence"

The question here isn't whether one is more or less entitled to a presumtpion of innocence than another.

All are equally entitled to be thought of as innocent until the evidence rolls in.

In Kerry's schlong vs. Bush's absenteeism, there is a significant difference: evidence.

Kerry's evidence consisted of one thing only, a Drudge report.

Sorry, but that's not enough to begin to raise suspicions. What's Drudge's batting average? 10 percent? Less?

And within days, Kerry had issued a denial and now, the woman has done so, too. Her parents' statement also supports Kerry's claim.

As for Bush, there were documents in the public arena that raised questions. And the candidate offered no answers, no evidence to the contrary, other than a flat denial.

So he's still innocent, but in the manner of a suspect in a criminal investigation -- innocent, but we're looking into the allegations.

Documents have been released since then which show he got paid but don't prove he didn't take a hike from his duties, and former Guardsmen have said alternately that they saw him or they never did.

Kerry: zero evidence. (Anyone considering a Drudge or Brit tab report as evidence needs medication.)

Bush: evidence that cuts both ways and demands further investigation.

Kerry: Clearly states no wrongdoing. (Please let's not parse "it". In the context of the sentence around it, the meaning is clear.)

Bush: A fuzzy statement, that he recalls being on duty. It is reminiscent of the Watergate hearing cliche, "...to the best of my recollection, Senator..."

And, yes, the military service of a President is a worthy subject for exploration. It would be nice if the President would explain his conversion from a young man who got out of war through connections to a middle-aged man who used his connections to get into war.

" (Anyone considering a Drudge or Brit tab report as evidence needs medication.)"

Evidence is evidence. Proof it may not be, but it is certainly evidence. Anyone who gets up in court and lies under oath is still giving evidence, even if you don't believe it.

So anyway, try again to justify the Bush witch hunt. You can't do it, and all the guilty attempts to rationalize an extensive smear campaign won't assuage your guilt.

Regarding Kerry, I smell a rat. How many bottles of Heinz 57 does it take to buy cooperation I wonder?


"It would be nice if the President would explain his conversion from a young man who got out of war through connections to a middle-aged man who used his connections to get into war."

You know, you oughta come into the 21st Century with the rest of us. It is no longer 1999 and Clinton is no longer President.

Kerry: zero evidence.

presume for only a minute, mathmajor, that the story might be true (only presuming - i'm not saying it is) and kerry and polier are merely lying as part of a coverup.

i ask you, what do you want for evidence? a baby? a grainy video with green night vision effects? another blue dress with nasty stains? the credit card receipt for flowers never sent to theresa? someone remembering the distinct smell of someone else's perfume on kerry? kerry just acting different?

one person coming forward and to say they saw kerry and polier enter a hotel? maybe having dinner? Or another that says he doesn't recall kerry going home to be with his wife - and kerry 'misplaced' his bus pass that would otherwise prove he did?

should have the media or the republicans hired investigators to trail kerry and get photos of him in the act prior to him having aspirations of presidency?

drudge is correct 10 percent of the time (per you), but you can't even begin to raise suspicions if he is the source? is this part of the new math where the first step in problem solving is to guess at the answer?

As I understand it, the source of the Kerry
intern story was Chris Lehane, Al Gore's
man in 2000.

A Spokesperson or something wasn't he.

It has been published in other places that
this story eliminated Kerry as a potential
Vice President in the Gore campaign.

So sad, the scandal died...
The alleged intern:
"Because these stories were false, I assumed the media would ignore them. It seems that efforts to peddle these lies continue, so I feel compelled to address them. Because these stories were false, I assumed the media would ignore them. It seems that efforts to peddle these lies continue, so I feel compelled to address them. I have never had a relationship with Senator Kerry, and the rumors in the press are completely false."

Her parents:
"the allegations linking their daughter to Kerry were completely false and unsubstantiated. We appreciate the way Senator Kerry has handled the situation, and intend on voting for him for president of the United States."

Some links:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2004/02/16/politics1300EST0543.DTL
http://www.iht.com/articles/129844.html

Meanwhile as to the AWOL controversy: I believe I still have a couple of unanswered questions including:
"Who the F--k was Bush to ignore a direct order to get a flight physical and loose his flight status as a result, after costing the taxpayers a million bucks, and what was done about it?"

Kig6Kong, you need to learn something about the Military. If Bush wanted to avoid the war he had many ways to do so that didn't involve learning to fly one of the most dangerous airplanes ever built by the US Air Farce. And about that physical, A drug screen was not a normal part of a normal physical back in those days. Drug screens were ONLY done if there was an accident, which in a F-102 meant posthumously more often then not. There is no beef there. You have air between your buns. That leads me to the observation that Lt. Bush most likly wasn't that keen on having a finer forced past his spincter. Normal enough reason to blow off a physical. Although I understand why that thought would never occur to you.
Kerry akbar

Buy a Newspaper, get an education, read something besides blogs and the National Inquirer be a man or a woman....THINK be analytical get a life!!!

Buy a Newspaper, get an education, read something besides blogs and the National Inquirer be a man or a woman....THINK be analytical get a life!!!

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (Click here should you choose to sign out.)

As you post your comment, please mind our simple comment policy: we welcome all perspectives, but require that comments be both civil and respectful. We also ask that you avoid the extensive use of profanity, racist terms (neither of which we consider civil or respectful), and other boorish language.

We reserve the right to delete any comment, and to prohibit you from commenting on this site, if we feel you have broached this policy. As a courtesy, we will first send you an email noting a violation so you understand the boundaries. This will occur only once, however, and should we ban you from our comment forums we expect that ban to be permanent.

We also will frown upon those who suggest that we ban other individuals for voicing unpopular opinions, should those opinions be voiced in a civil and respectful manner. The point of our comment threads is to provide a forum for spirited though civil and respectful discourse … it is not to provide a forum in which everyone will agree with your point of view.

If you can live by these rules, welcome aboard. If not, then we’re sorry it didn’t work out, and thanks for visiting The Command Post.

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: