Last week, John Kerry put a stop to rumors of an alleged affair with Alex Polier (a young woman who was rumored to be an intern – which turns out wasn’t true). However, as with everything else Kerry says, he has only raised more questions than answers (to borrow a line from the "unbiased" media – a line they used repeatedly in their attacks against Bush and that phony-baloney "AWOL" story). This still doesn’t answer why Wesley Clark said that the Kerry campaign will ‘implode over an intern issue,’ but if the news media wants to sweep it under the rug, consider it swept.

In an interview with a British tabloid, Alex Polier’s father was quoted as saying Kerry is a "sleazebag." However, last week he came out and said he will VOTE for Kerry. Something smells funny (and I’m not talking about that grilled cheese sandwich my four-year-old stuffed in the VCR a month ago). I’m starting to think that John Kerry should stop using "Bring it On!" as a campaign slogan and replace it with "John Kerry: Raising More Questions than He Answers." His doublespeak and playing both sides at the same time is getting to be a bit tiresome. Let’s take a look:

Regarding Kerry’s status as a war hero: Kerry is a decorated Vietnam vet. Nobody can question his credentials, and I’d be as much of a prick as HE is if I tried to minimize his service (the way the left keeps trying to belittle the National Guard). However, turning a blind eye to what he said and did after returning back from the war is just retarded. Kerry is on record as saying to a Senate Committee he witnessed "atrocities" committed by American soldiers in Vietnam. This brings up more questions than answers. IF he was a witness to these war crimes, then doesn’t that make HIM a war criminal as well? How can someone who was right in the middle of it (who remained silent) be considered a "hero" for letting such things happen. And if he DIDN’T witness any "war crimes," then isn’t he a lying sack of crap??? Huh???

What about Kerry’s horrible voting record in the Senate? How can he claim to be anywhere near as good a leader as Bush when it comes to foreign policy? He voted repeatedly to gut the military and the CIA (yet he complains when the CIA continues to crank out bad intelligence). Doesn’t he deserve at least SOME of the blame? Wouldn’t it be nice to have a candidate with some integrity (you know, like someone who admitted his past decisions were wrong and that he now wants to IMPROVE our intelligence)?