Interesting, but inconsequential. Everyone has had a girl/boy friend in the past. Just hope what you do will not come back to haunt you, especially if you want to be President.

"a scrapbook of a purported romance with then bachelor Senator John Kerry. Is this for real? I have no idea."

Why did you post this? I have no idea.

will the sharkblog update his previous posts regarding the unjustified attack on kerry's war record?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A13267-2004Aug18?language=printer

i have no idea.

Sharkblog should definitely do that, dinesh... as soon as John Kerry releases his war records and demonstrates the charges to be irrefutably false.

matt--you guys are hilarious! the epitome of double-standard. you actually support a guy whose records have been conveniently been destroyed only in those areas which would reveal whether he actually reported, and who will not release his own records which could prove he actually reported. but you will demand that a decorated war veteran release his own records to show he earned his valor.

can you see your credibility shrinking away......?

(Sigh) Bush has made his handling of the war and the economy the center of his campaign. These topics are subject to daily review and scrutiny. I am also satisfied that the two individuals who made the charge against Bush (one with an axe to grind against the Bushes, one in the early stages of Alzheimer's) have been sufficiently refuted.

On the other hand, Kerry won't tell us what his plan for Iraq is, nor much about his economic policies beyond raising taxes a lot and raising spending a lot more. He has made his Vietnam experience the centerpiece of his campaign. Therefore, it deserves to be scrutinized in detail, particularly when 60 or more of his contemporaries produce an extensively footnoted and researched book with affidavits and sworn statements from individuals putting their name and reputations on the line to make the charges.

At a minimum, fairness demands that Kerry's Vietnam Era record be vetted as thoroughly as Bush's, which is manifestly not the case.

Double standard, Dinesh? Remember Bill Clinton dodging the draft yet still being embraced by Democrats? Remember Bob Dole mentioning that Clinton's war time record was not important because it was a different era from when he served in WWII and lost use of his right arm? Republicans never argued that dodging Vietnam (Bill Clinton or George W) was wrong, but democrats seem to be doing an amazing flip flop. It wasn't important in 1992, it wasn't important in 1996, but all of a sudden it's important in 2004. How convenient.
And yes, anyone who makes their military record a centerpiece of his campaign deserves to have his record scrutinized. It would be great if he had a Senate voting record to scrutinize too, but alas, he never showed up to vote.

you guys kill me. they all dodged, but no one on the right can bring themselves to admit that their boys (jr. and dick) dodged. you guys can't admit that he pulled strings to avoid completing his service, was somehow grounded from flying (but can't explain why), engaged in document-gate to cover it all up. as the rabbi points out, funny how nobody in alabama remembers the son of a prominient politician showing up for duty.....

yes the dems embraced clinton (even if a dodger and chronic sex machine). so what? the point i am trying to demonstrate is that your criticism is one-sided (e.g. anti-kery) and your partisanship is so severe that you cannot differentiate between 1) a guy who served and is a decorated war veteran and 2) a guy who pulled strings to avoid serving, and never completed his service.

that's what partisanship gets us. facts don't matter. spin does.

your partisanship is so severe that you cannot differentiate between 1) a guy who served and is a decorated war veteran and 2) a guy who pulled strings to avoid serving, and never completed his service.

Nope, no "partisan spin" in those characterizations. None whatsoever.

In case you don't get it, let me put it a different way.

your partisanship is so severe that you cannot differentiate between 1) a guy who spent four months in Vietnam, then returned to vilify his fellow soldiers 2) a guy who was rated in the top five percent of pilots in his training wing

Dinesh, we're not trying to kill you, we're trying to educate you :)
"you guys can't admit that he pulled strings to avoid completing his service.."
I can admit that. He did the exact same thing that Bill Clinton did. No one had a problem with Clinton (including Bob Dole) so why do you have a problem with Bush or Cheney? Gee, maybe because of your partisanship?

1) serving then vilifying is his right--he earned his right to characterize his experience and the war. you may not like what he said, but that's a different subject.

2) i'm sure jr. was a fine pilot before he was disqualified from flying. i wonder why he was dq'ed? any ideas? and i'd like to agree with kerry and mccain that jr. served honorably, there's just a lingering issue as to whether he completed his service. any clues?

3) clinton dodged. you have no problem saying that b/c you probably dislike clinton. i have no problem saying that clinton dodged, in that he pulled strings and i like the guy. no spin, just a plain fact. but your LOYALTY prevents you from applying the same standard to w. so be it--just an observation.

look i think that politicians, left and right, have become walking infomericials. what they think and accomplish on a day in, day out basis seems to differ from the 'politician speak' that comes out of their mouths round about election time. it used to be that voters spotted this and called them on it. nowadays, voters just repeat the pablum. that's what is so sad.

i'm no fan of kerry--i think the dems could have done a lot better than him.

but listening to you guys denigrate kerry (and implicitly pump up your own guy) often seems 1) hypocritical (in that your criticisms of kerry are often applicable to w., but go unapplied); or 2) wrong on the facts (e.g. quoting these 'other veterans who served with kerry.'

so you guys are attempting to accomplish the ultimate up-is-downism. kerry is dishonorable for falsifying his war record, while w. served honorably. classic--i think fox news has a job for you.

dinesh, we're all aware that you think of yourself as the Queen of Objectivity. But I think it's been amply demonstrated, you ain't all that, Miss Thing.

A comment from LGF I totally agree with.

If the MSM examined Kerry's voting record, his habit of playing hookie from Senate votes, and the fact that in almost 2 decades on the Hill the most significant legislation he ever authored was to make more SBA loan money available to female owned businesses, the Viet Nam stuff wouldn't be that important.

If they bothered to ask how Kerry will give us "more jobs that pay better", and "make this country independent of Arab oil in 10 years, and how he'll get North Korea to give up nukes, and how apologizing to the French/UN, and giving the French/UN veto power over foreign policy, and how returning to the Clinton policy of treating terrorism as a simple law enforcement problem will make us safer, well, the fact that he lied about most/all his Viet Nam service wouldn't matter.

But the MSM will let JFnK run on promises and his war record without question, so I'd say the SBVT, by calling Kerry's defective character into question, is doing a great national service.

the way it used to be Dinesh? Back in the good ol' 1700s you mean? Thomas Jefferson brought party politics to D.C. and with it the nastiness of partisanship. Although Adams and Washington before him were abused heavily by opponents, they were the last Presidents not to suffer from the team mentality of political parties that has sadly influenced this country for a couple hundred years.
BTW - i take your response is directed at Matt not me since it wouldn't make much sense...

still can't admit that your boy dodged. it's nice to know that you're inquiring about how kerry will/won't accomplish his lofty goals. i agree they should be scrutizned.

too bad everyone stood around waving the flag while bush sent our troops off to fight a war on pretenses which proved not to be true and the MSM and everybody else was either waving pom poms, flags or otherwise just gung ho. no scrutiny there, eh?

i'm not objective. your one-sided logic repels me more sometimes than the vapidity coming from the extreme left.

As someone who voted for bush in 2000, but will not be voting for him in 2004 - for reasons i discuss below, here is how i see it.

Bush got away with being in the guard cause he haed $$$ and connections. It is how the world turns - if you do not want to vote for him on those grounds, that is valid and it is a valid criticism, but my problem is - does it affect the job he will do TODAY - i dont think so - he is just a symptom of having way too many people of privilege in politics. As for his ditching his time in the guard, that may be relevant but i literally cannot tell if he ditched time or not - he was discharged honorably, so be it.

With Kerry, i have a problem. One of his leading issues is his military experience and he has a record of being very against the vietnam war and accusing the military of war crimes. on this issue, he has injected himself into the vortex of this whole thing re the military. Now, i still agree though that this is all partisan B.S. - but there is one thing which concerns me. clinton was a pathological liar about lots of things and a horrible judge of character in terms of who he did business with (the mcdougals?? come on), and even though all of it had nothing to do with politics, his enemies stuck it to him. Now with kerry, he seems to have some kind of politician BSing proclivity - I mean in 1998, he was saying regime change in iraq, and in early 2003, he is the anti-war candidate, but you know what, waffling on iraq is OK, it is complex and the way bush went to war was arguable unilateral and is perhaps costing lives now. However, what i worry about is that this waffling is more of an "i will say anything, even though i am not as good as a liar as clinton was" and if kerry seriously lied about WHERE HE WAS or WHAT HE DID IN VIETNAM - well, he is like Oliver North - that guy's chronologies literally did not match up to his story. And you know what, that kind of lying will get kerry in trouble as president and we all suffer.

So, this war stuff, to the extent it bears on kerry's credibility, is way way relevant.

i wont vote for him for my own selfish reasons relating to the middle east.

As for bush, I was ready to enslist on September 20, 2001, when he finally friggin said what i ahve been waiting my whole life to hear that either you are with us or with the terrorists. But then, he calls the saudis our eternal friends, and now, even though i am not a leftist conspiracy, someone pray tell me how oil is at 50 a barrel, which will kill the economy in six months, but gas prices are coming down now? Also on immigration and spending, bush is worse than the democratic party.

jannol, I feel your pain. I tend to side with those who think most of the run up in oil prices comes from speculators. Either the bubble will burst like the 90's tech bubble and prices will fall, or there really will be a massive supply disruption leading to another spike.

Makes you wonder. Remember how al-Qaeda dumped their airline stocks before 9-11.

Anyway, dinesh seems to have this delusion that anyone who criticizes Kerry is some sort of drooling Boosh-Zomb. Not so. I would much prefer Bill Owen or Mark Sanford ... two Republicans who understand the words 'fiscal restraint'... over that fiscal crackwhore Bush, just as I would prefer John Breaux or Joe Lieberman over that arrogant poppinjay John Kerry (in the case of Breaux, I'd prefer him over Bush as well).

But, hey, that's not what we've got. And Kerry promises to spend even vaster amounts of money than Bush, so that's not a compelling reason to vote for him. And he wants to raise taxes, which I oppose on principle. He seems to embrace a Clintonesque foreign policy perspective that says that American power is a greater threat than American weakness. Also, his pathetic attempts to try to take every position on every issue make me think he's an empty suit, solely driven by egomania and an elitist's sense of privilege to seek the presidency. That he probably lied about his Vietnam experiences is icing on the cake, really.

So, one reluctantly concludes that Kerry is marginally worse than Bush. And besides, I like Dick Cheney.

The war on terror is really an effort by combat and other means to transform the middle-east and difuse the threat to Western civizilation. It can't be done in a manner of weeks or years but is a decades long project. We face this conflict now or at some point in the future.

Oil complicates the picture. Like it or not, there are not effective substitutes on the horizon and the middle-east will play a key role supplying the west with energy for years to come. The world's economies cannot afford the disruption if we remove the despots and move to democratize the middle-east all at once.

Iraq is the key to the begining of the end of these middle-east regimes. It's reserves are substancial, undeveloped and current production is low. It's oil production must be ramped up as a backstop before Iran or the Saudi problem is tackled. It's not in our or the world's best interest to roil the oil markets by completely toppling the regimes controling these energy sources all at once.

Consider what the current spot price of oil would be if fronts against Iran and Saudi Arabia were also open? I very much doubt if Bush really believes any compliment delivered about S.A.