Frank, it's very frustrating to respond to you. Read my statement and your reponse below:

What I said:

there is no PROOF, but a lot of EVIDENCE.

Your response:

If there is no evidence how can something be proven?

You are making no sense. I didn't say there was no evidence, I said there WAS evidence, but that it did not constitue PROOF. What is so hard to understand about that?

Your statement that evidence is invalid if it is not hard proof is untrue in practially every venue. In Science, for example, evidence is used to construct models or theories of how the universe works. But these are never considered "hard proof." It is always possible that other evidence will come along and disprove a previous theory.

In the law, a case can be made on the grounds of circumstantial evidence that does not constitute "hard proof." You have to convince a jury that the person accused had "means, motive and opportunity," and eliminate the other possible explanations.

If Bush were put on trial right now for misleading the American people, he would probably not be convicted. But one way or the other, the case made by the prosecution would by necessity be one of circumstantial evidence like I described above. To get "hard proof" you'd have to read Bush's mind, or produce a document in his own hand stating that he did not believe that Iraq had WMD. I doubt if such a document exists.

This is why I say that my claims about Kerry are similar to your own claims about Bush. Kerry was the only one with the means to do the calls in both states (he had the ground research to identify Dean's "ones," which even the Republicans didn't have), the motive to do it in both states (Gephardt and Edwards had nothing to gain in NH), and the opportunity (Gephardt was already out by NH). That is what constitutes a strong case based on circumstantial evidence. It's just as strong as the case against Bush at this point, though a subpoena to Bush's records might produce a "smoking gun" document.

I think he blasted Dean for saying that because it was a stupid thing to say. Kerry would insist that everyone has a fair trial.

You're simply revealing your ignorance again. Dean was asked directly whether Osama Bin Laden should have a trial, and he answered with exactly what you claim to be Kerry's position, that everyone deserves a trial. Kerry attacked him for it.

This is what got Dean into trouble (from CNN.com)

New Hampshire's Concord Monitor reported that Dean said he would not state his preference on a punishment for bin Laden before the al Qaeda leader was captured and put before a jury.

"I've resisted pronouncing a sentence before guilt is found," Dean said in the interview. "I will have this old-fashioned notion that even with people like Osama, who is very likely to be found guilty, we should do our best not to, in positions of executive power, not to prejudge jury trials."

Now, Kerry went on for weeks claiming that Dean's statement had been otrageous, without explaining what he meant. This is how he led many Americans to believe he was for simply shooting Bin Laden.

After railing against Dean on this issue for a long time, Kerry finally admitted that he, too, thought Osama Bin Laden should get a trial, but that he had already decided Bin Laden would get the death penalty:

Speaking to reporters after his speech, Kerry said of Dean's bin Laden remark: "The question asked [to Dean] was, do you believe Osama bin Laden should be tried in the United States and given the death penalty? The answer to both questions is a simple yes. Yes and Yes."

(http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/12/28/kerry_urges_nh_to_vote_against_dean/)


So, Dean's stated position:

We should respect the rule of law and not pre-judge a jury trial

Kerry's:

Osama should be tried, but I've also already decided he should get the death penalty.

Kerry argued that Dean's remark was outrageous because he wouldn't pronounce a sentence before the trial.

Now which makes more sense to you? Personally, I think Dean does.