As I have been trying to explain to Mary Anne on another issue, the righteous indignation of the Left on the Kerry incident looks pretty damn lame coming on the heels of yet another enthusiastic witch-hunt on Bush by the exact same people.

- Bush releases statements and documents, and Guardsmen step forward to vouch for him: "Questions remain." "It isn't enough." "Why weren't they released sooner?" "What does Bush have to hide?"

- The woman in Kenya releases a denial: "I guess we can stick a fork in this one," as Kevin Drum instantly said.

I'm sorry, but I can't let the rampant double standards go by. The issue isn't Kerry, or any mythical affair. The issue is how the mainstream media deflects things for the Democratic frontrunner while chasing down every aspect of anything at all that might hurt Bush. Most of the mainstream media is in the pocket of the Democratic Party, and they aren't even trying to fake it any more.

Can you honestly say that if the exact same thin "intern" evidence had come up with Bush as the target, that the media would have spiked it like they did the Kerry story? Or would every goddam reporter at press conferences be asking Bush about it, and hundreds of reporters be camped out in Kenya?

If you want to discuss the facts of an issue, or lack thereof, fine. But save the crocodile tears for the rubes.

Anybody remember how Bush Sr. was treated based on similar evidence?

The mainstream media hates Drudge with a passion. It was Drudge who exposed their hero Clinton, and dragged the media kicking and screaming into the issue, which they had already attempted to spike. Clinton lied in his teeth about the issue on national television, and if it had not been for the tapes, and at the bitter end, actual DNA evidence, Clinton would be lying to this day, and Monica would be in a nuthouse.

As for denials, does anyone at all remember this?