More responses to Frank:

Quote from yuor post of 04 Feb 04 - 03:24 PM:

"You said, however,
" I said there was no proof, but a lot of evidence."

How can there be evidence with no proof of it's existence?

Wha? Proof without evidence of "it's [sic] existence?" What the heck are you talking about? What I said was that there is no PROOF, but a lot of EVIDENCE. I didn't say there was "no proof of the existence of evidence," which is what you seem to be saying.

I compared this with the WMD claims of the government, thus: in order to PROVE that Bush misled us you would have to show decisively that HE DID NOT BELIEVE there were WMD in Iraq when he made the claim. You can never prove that, because you can't read minds. So there is NO PROOF of this. As you rightly say, there is a lot of EVIDENCE.

As to the push-polls: the evidence I have is from FIRSTHAND ACCOUNTS. I have spoken to people who received the calls. I cannot recreate these conversations for you. However, a few negative Kerry calls have been caught on tape, including one that accused Dean of "environmental racism" because Vermont's nuclear waste was dumped in Texas--even though Texas had control of where the waste went, not Dean! You can find this story at:

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/Politics/ThisWeek/Kerry_Dean_calls_040117-1.html

So that's a documented negative call made by the Kerry campaign.

The others did occur, unless you want to call my friends liars. No one can prove that Kerry was behind them, except that as I pointed out only he could hope to gain in both states. So I gave the evidence, and the reasoning, AND explained why it's similar to your own claim that Bush misled the American people.

To wit: I gave evidence, not hard proof, just as you have done.

Again, what is the source of the statement that Kerry wanted to execute
bin Laden without a trial? I find that hard to believe.

That's not what I said. What I said was that Kerry made it LOOK like he was willing to execute Bin Laden without a trial, by attacking Dean for saying that Bin Laden SHOULD have a trial. Kerry took no firm position, so he could waffle later. This occurred at one of the debates.

But Kerry did not stop there. On December 28th, Boston Globe:

Kerry urges N.H. to vote against Dean
Places emphasis on state's primary
By Patrick Healy, Globe Staff, 12/28/2003

(...)

Kerry, speaking to supporters at this city's public library, blasted Dean for recently saying that Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden deserved a fair trial for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks

(...)


Is this clear enough for you, or will you even defend Kerry taking THIS unconstitutional position?

Frank, this can go on and on. But I don't think our fellow 'catters care to read our arguments anymore. Something tells me we're not helping our respective candidates with this thread anymore.