Posted on 02/01/2004 7:46:21 AM PST by Tumbleweed_Connection
Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe insisted on Sunday that President Bush "never served in the military," and said that Democrats would make reports that the president went "AWOL" from the Alabama National Guard in the early 1970s a central focus of the presidential campaign. "George Bush never served in our military in our country," McAuliffe told ABC's "This Week," apparently discounting Bush's stint in the National Guard from 1968 through 1973. "He didn't show up when he should have showed up." McAuliffe then echoed the charge by discredited filmmaker Michael Moore, who said three weeks ago that he wanted to see a debate between Gen. Wesley Clark and "the deserter." Said McAuliffe: "I look forward to that debate with John Kerry, a war hero with a chest full of medals, standing next to George Bush - a man who was AWOL in the Alabama National Guard." During the Democratic debate in New Hampshire two weeks ago, ABC News anchorman Peter Jennings said Moore's Bush desertion charge "is not supported by the facts." After the Boston Globe claimed during the 2000 presidential race that Bush had not appeared for Guard service for 17 months, its sister paper, the New York Times, admitted that report was wildly inaccurate. Referring to the May 2000 Globe report, the Times said in Nov., "A review of records by The New York Times indicated that some of those concerns [about Bush's Guard service] may be unfounded. Documents reviewed by The Times showed that Mr. Bush served in at least 9 of the 17 months in question." One document, the paper said, showed that "Mr. Bush served at various times from May 29, 1973, through July 30, 1973, a period of time questioned by The Globe." The Times said that other records showed that Bush received permission from his superiors to make up the drills he missed during the nine month period still in question. Still, despite the fact that the Bush AWOL charge has been completely discredited, McAuliffe insisted that the president's guard service would be a major campaign issue. "The facts are what they are," he told "This Week" host George Stephanopoulos. "[Bush] used his father's contacts to get a spot in the Texas Guard. He then wanted to go work on an Alabama Senate race. He went to Alabama for one year. He didn't show up. Call it whatever you want, AWOL - it doesn't matter."
Kerry didn't say of he associated with VVAW and Hanoi Jane, or provided libelous testimony to congress at the behest of the other vet too.
Now where did I put that NYTimes Report that repudiated all this and made anyone tossing out the charge a bald faced liar? I need to have that in my hip pocket for every time some DemonYutz flaps his gums about this tall tale repeating the lies.
McNutball could've really done some good while *Crinton was running against Bush back in the early 90's - eh?
Works for me. :o)
The Dem candidate in 2004 is SO toasted.
I've had roasted and toasted donkey on a spit over an open fire at a barbecue once it's not bad; a little stringy, but not bad.
How often are they ever questioned about anything? Forget all of his closet errors, ask what really happened with the AWOL and dig deep. Use open ended questions and force him to cover his statements. Back him into corners, he's lying so any respectable reporter won't have any difficulty tying Terry in knots. Force him to walk away from the interview.
One of Kerry's flunkies said on, I think, FNC a week or two ago that Kerry didn't throw any actual medals over the fence. No, he threw his ribbons over the fence.
Unbelievable, huh?
It almost as rich as Gore conferring with Ed Asner and Meathead Reiner for political strategy.
The 2000 election was close because people didn't know George W. that well. Now they know him, know him well, and give him the highest approval ratings of any POTUS at this time in his term. The 'Rats have no positive agenda so all they can do is attack, attack, attack. It will make them all feel better but there is a fundamental fact that smears only work when the electorate doesn't know the man being smeared. Ultimately, people won't vote for negativity--they vote FOR something or someone.
Kerry will be afraid to mouth too much about HIS centrist plans, because they will be so at odds with his past record. Just look at what's happened to him in the last two weeks:
1. Kerry voted for the Iraq war resolution--but he really didn't want George W. to use it to go to war.
2. Kerry voted against the 1991 Desert Storm War resolution, but he was really for it--he just wanted Bush 41 to wait a little longer for more national consensus to build.
3. Kerry's first act as POTUS would be to add 40,000 troops to the military because we're spread too thin. But this is against the backdrop of voting against our military and our intelligence most of the time. Kerry just voted against the 87-billion continuing funding for the Iraq war.
The key for Pres. Bush and Karl Rove is not to counter-attack, but to let Kerry self-destruct with his own words and his own flip-flops.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.