By BRIAN FLYNN
in New York

THIS is the girl at the centre of a sex scandal that threatens
Democratic front-runner John Kerry's run for the White House.

Presidential hopeful Kerry, dubbed the new JFK, has denied claims he
had a two-year fling with brunette Alex Polier. Alex, 27, was a
cross-country runner and in the world affairs club at her Philadelphia
school.

One source said: "She was attractive, intelligent and one of the
leaders in her year."

She went on to graduate from Columbia University, New York, and met
Kerry, 60, as she began a career as a freelance journalist.



Denial ... John Kerry


But a probe was under way yesterday into allegations that twice-wed
Kerry seduced her after inviting her to join his campaign team in
spring 2001.

There is no evidence to support the claims. Dad-of-two Kerry was set
to seal the nomination to take on George Bush in the November election
when the allegations surfaced.

Alex, who is in Africa with her fiancé Yaron Schwartzman, refused to
comment.

On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 22:54:37 -0800, Christopher Robin wrote:

By BRIAN FLYNN
in New York

"Clintons" continue Kerry smear? Here is a link to the story you cut &
pasted. I see *no* mention of the Clintons.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2004071781,00.html


More links:

http://www.sirlinksalot.net/alexpolier.html

So far, Kerry denies it. The woman's parents deny it. The woman hasn't
as yet denied it, but she is in Kenya with her fiancee. It's going to be
a dirty campaign.

"thunder" wrote in message

"Clintons" continue Kerry smear? Here is a link to the story you cut &
pasted. I see *no* mention of the Clintons.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2004071781,00.html

My boat is fine. Spring will be here soon.

BTW, just because *you* can't see past the trees doesn't mean that others
can't, or that there's nothing there.

John Gaquin wrote:

"thunder" wrote in message

"Clintons" continue Kerry smear? Here is a link to the story you cut &
pasted. I see *no* mention of the Clintons.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2004071781,00.html

My boat is fine. Spring will be here soon.

BTW, just because *you* can't see past the trees doesn't mean that others
can't, or that there's nothing there.



The American public is looking at Bush as it never has before, and it is
concluding there is nothing there...but a scheming liar, easily
manipulated by his handlers.


--
Email sent to is never read.

Harry Krause wrote in message ...
John Gaquin wrote:

"thunder" wrote in message

"Clintons" continue Kerry smear? Here is a link to the story you cut &
pasted. I see *no* mention of the Clintons.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2004071781,00.html

My boat is fine. Spring will be here soon.

BTW, just because *you* can't see past the trees doesn't mean that others
can't, or that there's nothing there.



The American public is looking at Bush as it never has before, and it is
concluding there is nothing there...but a scheming liar, easily
manipulated by his handlers.


One doesn't have to be a supporter of George Bush to be able to tell
that he is getting a raw deal. Some of the charges being leveled
against him are so thin as to be nearly transparent, yet somehow, they
find legs in the court of public opinion.

Recently, DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe charged that Bush was AWOL from
his military service with the Texas National Guard. (For the record,
Terry McAuliffe never served in the military in any capacity.)

John Kerry ran with that theme, suggesting that by serving as a
fighter pilot in the National Guard, Bush was shirking combat duty in
Vietnam. (That doesn't say much for the National Guard.) In any case,
Bush was a fighter pilot, not a cook. It is only slightly less
dangerous to fly a fighter jet in combat than it is in peacetime.

I found it fascinating that the same folks who defended Bill Clinton's
obvious draft-dodging tactics now condemn George Bush for serving
without going to Vietnam. The fact that Bush received an honorable
discharge and had more than the required 50 credits needed to earn it
is dwarfed by the cacophony of charges that say the exact opposite.

John Kerry was among Bill Clinton's staunchest defenders of draft
dodging. Kerry himself was so opposed to the war that, upon his return
from Vietnam, he earned the nickname "Hanoi John."

If Kerry was so philosophically against the war, how can he disparage
Bush for not participating in what Kerry described in 1972 as a war in
which American soldiers "personally raped, cut off ears, cut off
heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and
turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at
civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Ghengis Khan, shot
cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged
the countryside of South Vietnam"? That's the Vietnam War Kerry
described to the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations in April 1971.

If what Kerry alleged is true, then why would he suggest that a
possible experience with rape, torture and brutality is a necessary
qualification for president? Unless Kerry didn't really believe what
he was saying back then. Or doesn't believe it now.

I submit that if Bush had served in Vietnam, Kerry would be running on
his opposition to the war in Vietnam, instead of his service in it.
The media is trying to make a case out of Bush being discharged eight
months before his six-year term with the Guard was up as if that were
unusual in 1973 or involved pulling strings.

Watching Scott McClelland answer the White House press corps was a
study in frustration. The press corps didn't want to be bothered by
the facts; their minds were already made up.

But has anybody noted that Kerry got out of the Navy eight months
early for the same reasons? The war was being phased out. Yet I don't
hear anybody talking about that.

Bush has been accused of lying about why we got involved in the Iraq
war. Has anybody questioned the fact that France, Germany, the U.N.
and even John Kerry reached the same conclusions that Bush did, based
on the same intelligence? Does anybody really believe Bush had
information even the CIA didn't have, and then ignored it? Where did
Bush get this information?

Bush has been accused of "betraying" America by a clearly demented Al
Gore who charged that Bush was preparing for the war with Iraq even
before 9-11. Is it likely that, having adopted a policy of regime
change in 1998, the Clinton administration didn't have a similar war
plan already in place?

The war with Iraq should have been one of the most easily justified in
American history. Saddam defied the U.N. and committed 17 violations
of Security Council resolutions in the 12 years between the wars.

Even the president's critics are not arguing that Saddam should still
be in power in Baghdad. Instead, they say the White House acted
"unilaterally" – a charge belied by the fact there exists a
"coalition" of nations. It exists now, and it existed before the war
began, and troops from a dozen countries have given their lives to
free the Iraqi people. If it was American "unilateralism," what were
they doing there when they were killed?

The Democrats are openly admitting that this election isn't about
domestic issues, the war with Iraq or the economy. It's about
"electability" – meaning whoever has the best chance of beating Bush.
If Howdy Doody had a chance of defeating Bush, he'd be their
candidate.

Politics is a rough business. But this isn't about politics. It isn't
even about what's best for America. It's all about getting revenge for
Election 2000.

But remember, that was the election that guaranteed Al Gore was not in
charge on Sept. 11, 2001.

Does anybody really think that was a bad thing?

In article ,
says...

"thunder" wrote in message

"Clintons" continue Kerry smear? Here is a link to the story you cut &
pasted. I see *no* mention of the Clintons.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2004071781,00.html

My boat is fine. Spring will be here soon.

BTW, just because *you* can't see past the trees doesn't mean that others
can't, or that there's nothing there.

Look out John, your ABOUT TO RUN INTO A TREEE!!!......KLUNK!

So much for looking past the trees.

I'm *sure* the Clintons care more about getting Bush out of office than
getting her the presidency.

Bush is toast.

"jps" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

"thunder" wrote in message

"Clintons" continue Kerry smear? Here is a link to the story you cut
&
pasted. I see *no* mention of the Clintons.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2004071781,00.html

My boat is fine. Spring will be here soon.

BTW, just because *you* can't see past the trees doesn't mean that
others
can't, or that there's nothing there.

Look out John, your ABOUT TO RUN INTO A TREEE!!!......KLUNK!

So much for looking past the trees.

I'm *sure* the Clintons care more about getting Bush out of office than
getting her the presidency.

Bush is toast.

Clinton's worse nightmare is Kerry! If Bush is out, they lose control of
the Democratic party machine. The Democrat President gets to appoint the
party chair, and you think that they want their man out when they are
scheming on getting Hillary nominated in 2008?

In article . net,
says...

"jps" wrote in message

Bush is toast.

Clinton's worse nightmare is Kerry! If Bush is out, they lose control of
the Democratic party machine. The Democrat President gets to appoint the
party chair, and you think that they want their man out when they are
scheming on getting Hillary nominated in 2008?

I think you're getting your Republican propaganda on Kerry confused with
the Republican propaganda about Dean.

Dean is the one who wants to wrest control of the Democratic party from
the status quo. Kerry is part of that establishment.

I don't think the Clintons are as selfish as you assume.

jps

Calif Bill wrote:
"jps" wrote in message
...

In article ,
says...

"thunder" wrote in message

"Clintons" continue Kerry smear? Here is a link to the story you cut

&

pasted. I see *no* mention of the Clintons.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2004071781,00.html

My boat is fine. Spring will be here soon.

BTW, just because *you* can't see past the trees doesn't mean that

others

can't, or that there's nothing there.

Look out John, your ABOUT TO RUN INTO A TREEE!!!......KLUNK!

So much for looking past the trees.

I'm *sure* the Clintons care more about getting Bush out of office than
getting her the presidency.

Bush is toast.


Clinton's worse nightmare is Kerry! If Bush is out, they lose control of
the Democratic party machine. The Democrat President gets to appoint the
party chair, and you think that they want their man out when they are
scheming on getting Hillary nominated in 2008?


You need to smoke a better brand of dope.

"jps" wrote in message

I'm *sure* the Clintons care more about getting Bush out of office than
getting her the presidency.

I truly, surely, sincerely hope that the preponderance of democrats are as
blind as you!