[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']
1. Bush pulled political strings to get into the Guard. (not a big surprise, but nice to have confirmation)
Coming from a man who has generated over $100,000 for John Kerry and is expected to become a cabinent member in a potential Kerry administration. A man who gave sworn affidavits before that no such thing was done with his knowledge. Too bad Ben Barnes is a horrible source of "truth".
Link Yes, this is a GOP site but ALL sources of information are indexed to their mainstream source.
2. Bush didn't fulfill his service while he was in the Guard. (keep releasing those records)
Yet these records have come under fire online and even on broadcast TV as being fake. The NBC Nightly News tonight cast serious doubt on their authenticity.
3. Kitty Kelly's book with allegations of George & Laura snorting coke at Camp David. (Honestly, I put this just slightly above the Swift Boat liars and only because her book has supposed been scrutinized to death by the publishers lawyers. We'll see how well her allegations hold up...)
Yet Sharon Bush (Niel's ex-wife.) who is supposed to be a major source of information and "truth" in this book has come out point blank denying any information attributed to her in Kelley's book. I'm not even going to get into a diatribe about Kelley, she's been proven wrong so many times on so many issues that she makes Oliver Stone's filmography look like historical source documents.
4. Letting Cheney of the chain. (let him keep telling voters that a vote for Kerry is a vote for terrorists, see how far that gets ya)
I thought it was Cheney that let GW off the chain? Can't you lefties keep your stories straight?
This one will land victory in November. Fact of the matter is in war you always test out new commanders on the opposing side. You find out Rommel is in Berlin? You invade and see what his number 2 is all about. You find out you've killed a strong general? You attack to take advantage of a hoped for weakness. You bloody an enemy in battle? You attack where he's weakest in an attempt to finish him off.
You see a leader of your enemy has been forced from office and perceive that his successor is weak? You attack. Only liberals seem to ignore this military fact and claim the statement must be partisan politics.
Yep, it's a bad month all right. I debunked all of your points in 5 minutes or less.[/quote]
Your points, in order:
(1) Ben Barnes is such a partisan that he supported the election of Republican State Comptroller Carole Keeton Strayhorn in 2002. You know, the mother of White House spokesman Scott McClellan.
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_08_29.php
(2) I note you say that NBC News cast doubt on the memos, but provide absolutely no link backing that up. I just looked on MSNBC and saw nothing of the sort on their website. Where do you come up with this stuff?
(3) The New York Daily News cited an "unimpeachable" source in today's paper who says she was with Kelley and Sharon Bush at that lunch and that Bush is lying.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/gossip/story/230275p-197775c.html
(4) This is such a sick argument I don't know where to begin. So if you have a leader who has failed during wartime, you shouldn't replace him because that invites an attack? This is the classic definition of failing upwards, something Chicken George has done his whole life.
I think this argument will have the opposite effect you anticipate. Fear works short-term on Americans, but I don't think we as a country like to be pushed around by boogeymen, or by the people using boogeymen to prop up their sagging Administrations.