Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (29989)	2/16/2004 6:40:13 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 794405

Now we hear from the Post. Woman Denies Relationship With Kerry Internet Report Makes Its Way Into Mainstream Media By Howard Kurtz Washington Post Staff Writer Monday, February 16, 2004; 4:49 PM A 27-year-old woman who became the subject of Internet rumors about a supposed relationship with Sen. John F. Kerry said today those reports are "completely false." Alexandra Polier, an Associated Press reporter from October 2002 through last March, was responding to an unsubstantiated report by Internet gossip columnist Matt Drudge that gradually made its way into the mainstream media. "For the last several days, I have seen Internet and tabloid rumors relating to me and Senator John Kerry," Polier said in a statement to the AP issued from Kenya, where she is visiting her fiance's family. "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. Whoever is spreading these rumors and allegations does not know me, but should know the pain they have caused me and my family." The rumor surfaced last Thursday when Drudge reported that several news organizations were looking into the matter. The posting, seen by 15 million Web site visitors, drew particular attention because Drudge reported in 1998 that Newsweek had spiked a story on an investigation of President Bill Clinton's relationship with Monica Lewinsky. Drudge's report was promptly picked up by conservative radio hosts Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh and by the Web sites of National Review and the Wall Street Journal, and was analyzed online by Slate, Salon and commentator Andrew Sullivan, among others. Although it was probably the most talked-about story in Washington that day, most of the mainstream press, including The Washington Post, declined to report it because of the lack of evidence. On Friday, Don Imus, whose radio program is simulcast on MSNBC, asked Kerry about the rumor. "Well, there is nothing to report," the Massachusetts senator said. "So there is nothing to talk about. I'm not worried about it. No. The answer is no." Kerry told reporters that day: "I just deny it categorically. It's rumor. It's untrue." Kerry's denial catapulted the story onto the front pages of the New York Post and New York Daily News. ABC anchor Peter Jennings reported Kerry's denial that day, as did CNN. The New York Times mentioned the senator's denial in a campaign story Saturday. Several British newspapers, meanwhile, named Polier and ran her photo. The story was prominently featured by the Times of London ("Dirty tricks row hits race for President") and the Sun ("New JFK Hit by Scandal"), which, like the New York Post, are owned by conservative media baron Rupert Murdoch. In a separate statement today, Polier's parents, Terry and Donna, also dismissed the rumor, saying: "We appreciate the way Senator Kerry has handled the situation, and intend on voting for him for president of the United States." Alexandra Polier asked "that the press respect our privacy and leave all of us alone."

To: Lane3 who wrote (29989)	2/16/2004 7:43:04 PM
From: Neeka	Respond to of 794405

That a Communist would even make it through the nomination process is highly unlikely. Yes, I would. But I would do a lot to make sure a Communist wasn't elected president. I'd also hope that his or her opponent were not my parent. <gg> But I would still vote for a philanderer over a communist and I'd bet that you would, too. M@impossiblehypotheticals.here

To: Lane3 who wrote (29989)	2/17/2004 3:11:56 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 794405

An imminent threat - to his own credibility Paul Greenberg February 16, 2004 How dare George W. Bush now claim that he never said Saddam Hussein posed an imminent threat to the United States! Listen to this quote from 2002 on the danger posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction: <font size=4> . . . I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security. Oops. Actually, that wasn't George W. Bush. It was John F. Kerry<font size=3> explaining why he was going to vote for the congressional resolution authorizing the use of force against Saddam's regime in Iraq. Senator Kerry now explains that he wasn't really for using force in Iraq. He may have voted for the resolution but he didn't mean it, not then anyway, or maybe not ever. He was just trying to pressure Saddam. (Another term for this approach is bluffing. It has not been known to work very well on dictators, who can smell weakness continents away.) But that was a different John F. Kerry who voted for war. That one wasn't the front-runner in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, a candidate who now has to Energize the Base, which is 2004-ish for stirring up the mob. <font size=4> In his new incarnation, Senator Kerry - and many of his fellow Democrats - have taken after the president for saying, well, pretty much what John F. Kerry was saying a year or so ago. The Big Lie in this rapidly over-heating presidential campaign is that George W. Bush claimed Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat.<font size=3> Also-rans from Wesley Clark to Howard Dean - which pretty much covers the gamut from left to lefter - joined John Kerry in leaving that false impression. Or maybe it was he who joined them. It scarcely matters by now; the claim has become part of the regnant political mythology. Actually, what George W. Bush said in his State of the Union address last year was just the opposite - that this country dare not wait until a threat is imminent before responding to it, not after what happened September 11, 2001. <font size=4> But no matter how many times the president's actual words are dug up and pointed out, they're not likely to have much effect on those who know what they know, or rather what they want to know, and aren't about to be confused by mere fact.<font size=3> Maybe the problem is that, amidst all the sound and fury of a gathering presidential campaign, you have to shout to be heard. So let's take a look at the president's words up close, as if they were the first line on an eye chart: Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words and all recriminations would come too late. - George W. Bush, Jan. 28, 2003 <font size=4> Or to put it another way: "Why is Saddam Hussein attempting to develop nuclear weapons when most nations don't even try? According to intelligence, Iraq has chemical and biological weapons . . . ." That was John F. Kerry on Oct. 9, 2002, speaking from his vantage point on the Senate Intelligence Committee. Is Senator Kerry now going to accuse himself of hyping the intelligence reports, misleading the American people and generally taking this country into war under false pretenses?<font size=3> Before this long, long campaign is over, John Kerry may be running not just against George W. Bush but against his own, earlier self. And it won't be just this one stand of the senator's that will be scrutinized, but his vote for all those other measures he once backed but now attacks - NAFTA, No Child Left Behind, the Patriot Act . . . . Who was that imposter who supported all those measures? Has he morphed into a kind of Howard Dean with a war record and a Brahmin accent? A presidential election is not just about issues. It's also about which candidate, for all his stumbles and bumbles, is the more authentic. It may be the one who doesn't have to explain away earlier positions when they grow inconvenient. George W. Bush may be our second dyslexic president, counting Dwight Eisenhower, but he doesn't have a long list of roll-call votes for the opposition to mine for inconsistencies. As this presidential campaign goes on - and on and on - people may start to wonder which is the real John Kerry, and which the constantly updated Web site. This new John Kerry may win the Democratic nomination, but once he's got it, and the general election begins heating up, how's he going to explain the old one? ©2003 Tribune Media Services townhall.com