Dems set to start new attack on National Guard Records...

insein

Senior Member
Apr 10, 2004
6,096
360
48
Philadelphia, Amazing huh...
http://drudgereport.com/dnc77.htm

I think that they'll check that these fakes are more accurate this time. :lame2:

XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX SUN SEPT 12, 2004 19:02:38 ET XXXXX

DNC TO LAUNCH FRESH ATTACK ON BUSH GUARD DUTY: WILL RAISE QUESTIONS ABOUT 1978 CAMPAIGN LIT

**Exclusive**

Faster than a CBS eye can blink, dogged Dems are set to take to the airwaves anew hoping to keep questions about President Bush's National Guard duty in play, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

Candidate Kerry apparently has rejected former President Clinton's advice not to get further locked in a 2004 Vietnam quagmire.

"George W. Bush's campaign literature claimed that he 'served in the U.S. Air Force.' The only problem? He didn't," slams a new DNC press release set for distribution.

Dems will attempt to increase the heat on Bush ahead of his planned Tuesday address before The National Guard Association gathering in Las Vegas.

In 2000, Bush opened his National Guard Association speech: "General, I am reporting for duty."

MORE

Kerry plans to speak to the group on Thursday, but he personally hold back questioning Bush's service, sources explain.

The coordinated nationwide effort this week by the DNC has been code-named "Operation Fortunate Son."

"George Bush has a clear pattern of lying about his military service," DNC Communications Director Jano Cabrera blasts in the new release. "From 1978 to the present day, George Bush has refused to tell voters the truth about his service. It's time for the President to come clean."

"Flyers distributed to Texas voters during Bush's failed Congressional race say 'he served in the U.S. Air Force and the Texas Air National Guard.' But according to Air Force officials, Air National Guardsmen are not counted as members of the active-duty Air Force."
 
In 2000, Bush opened his National Guard Association speech: "General, I am reporting for duty."

Hehe. Where have we heard this before?
 
"George W. Bush's campaign literature claimed that he 'served in the U.S. Air Force.' The only problem? He didn't," slams a new DNC press release set for distribution."

Huh????????

If that's the new "secret weapon" they are not only factually incorrect, they are pathetic.

Apparently the Democrats are re-inventing the language - again - to suit their needs. I suppose that GW's time in the Air Guard does not qualify as serving in the Air Force.

Interesting, but stupid.
 
insein said:
Maybe after they lose in a landlside. :D

The polls show Bush leading by single-digits. Why do so many people on this board think Bush is going to win in a landslide? I think the ramifications of the 2004 Presidential election are huge, for both sides and their respective ideologies. I'm not saying you're being cocky, I'm just saying that taking into account the stakes, it may be a better idea to hedge your bets, be active in your community (getting people to register, getting your candidates' views out there, etc etc etc) and make sure your guy, whoever that may be, is a sure thing.
 
theim said:
when are they gonna learn that people really don't care?

Vietnam was the greatest event in the lefts mind. They dont understand that actions during Vietnam whether its Kerry's service or Bush's service doesnt matter much to people in leading to an election. It only mattered when Kerry started bringing it up and he screwed himself over with that because people looked into his record like he asked them too.

Many of us are a new generation of Americans. Many of us have had several defining moments in our life already. the fall of the Soviets, the Berlin wall coming down. And most recently 911. They are living in the 60s. we are living in the 21st century. 911 changes it all. We can either let it change us for the worse or the better. we can either give into fear or have faith and rise to the challenge that faces us. But pretending as though we are living in the sixties isnt going to make our challenge go away.
 
nakedemperor said:
The polls show Bush leading by single-digits. Why do so many people on this board think Bush is going to win in a landslide? I think the ramifications of the 2004 Presidential election are huge, for both sides and their respective ideologies. I'm not saying you're being cocky, I'm just saying that taking into account the stakes, it may be a better idea to hedge your bets, be active in your community (getting people to register, getting your candidates' views out there, etc etc etc) and make sure your guy, whoever that may be, is a sure thing.

Oh dont worry we will work hard to get Bush elected, in the end though, we have trust in the American people. Not even the Democrats really want John Kerry to be President, they just want anyone but Bush. That isnt the kind of momentum you need to win it.

Bush just came off an excellent convention. He has substantial leads in a majority of the states he won before. He has a lead in several swing states, enough that Kerry shifted money out of those states to focus on others. Bush has started advertising in traditionally democrat states and is making traction.

Add to that that Kerry still hasnt been able to identify with the People, the fact that the war on terror is going well and Bush is seen as a stronger war leaders. The fact that the economy is the best its been in a while with unemployment below that of the Clinton administration. That the President has a forward thinking agenda and has spelled out what he plans to do.

Add the fact that we still have the debates to go and Kerry wont be able to hold up from all his many positions.

the fact is this wont be a close election. Like i said we trust the American people to make the right choice.
 
Avatar4321 said:
Oh dont worry we will work hard to get Bush elected, in the end though, we have trust in the American people. Not even the Democrats really want John Kerry to be President, they just want anyone but Bush. That isnt the kind of momentum you need to win it.

Bush just came off an excellent convention. He has substantial leads in a majority of the states he won before. He has a lead in several swing states, enough that Kerry shifted money out of those states to focus on others. Bush has started advertising in traditionally democrat states and is making traction.

Add to that that Kerry still hasnt been able to identify with the People, the fact that the war on terror is going well and Bush is seen as a stronger war leaders. The fact that the economy is the best its been in a while with unemployment below that of the Clinton administration. That the President has a forward thinking agenda and has spelled out what he plans to do.

Add the fact that we still have the debates to go and Kerry wont be able to hold up from all his many positions.

the fact is this wont be a close election. Like i said we trust the American people to make the right choice.

Haha another conservative espousing economic success.

Well, say what you will about optimistic thinking...The cocky hare had a similar attitude. And a similar smirk.

I'm going to hedge my bets and start inhaling a few weeks early in preperation for a big ol' 'I told ya so'. Perchance to dream...
 
nakedemperor said:
Haha another conservative espousing economic success.

Well, say what you will about optimistic thinking...The cocky hare had a similar attitude. And a similar smirk.

I'm going to hedge my bets and start inhaling a few weeks early in preperation for a big ol' 'I told ya so'. Perchance to dream...

Um what is so unseccesfful about the economy? We have unusually low unemployment. stocks are soring. Growth is high. where is the problem?

It would take an act from a supernatural power to get Kerry into office.
 
Avatar 4321: "Not even the Democrats really want John Kerry to be President, they just want anyone but Bush." Truer words were never spoken!

I read a political column the other day where two Dem pols were overhead talking about John Kerry's appearance at the Grand Canyon. One said to the other, "Too bad he didn't fall over the edge."
 
I wonder if Dems are unable to search google?

That's all it'd take to see that Air National Guard uniforms are sewn with 'US AIR FORCE' on them.

I suppose by their semantics I didn't 'really' serve in 'The Army' for two years as part of the WA National Guard?

weird. My 'Army Commendation Medal' and two other medals sure look legit.
 
-=d=- said:
I wonder if Dems are unable to search google?

That's all it'd take to see that Air National Guard uniforms are sewn with 'US AIR FORCE' on them.

I suppose by their semantics I didn't 'really' serve in 'The Army' for two years as part of the WA National Guard?

weird. My 'Army Commendation Medal' and two other medals sure look legit.

maybe we should investigate THOSE signatures as well? :laugh:
 
-=d=- said:
I wonder if Dems are unable to search google?

That's all it'd take to see that Air National Guard uniforms are sewn with 'US AIR FORCE' on them.

I suppose by their semantics I didn't 'really' serve in 'The Army' for two years as part of the WA National Guard?

weird. My 'Army Commendation Medal' and two other medals sure look legit.
The Air National Guard is a separate Reserve component of the United States Air Force

http://www.ang.af.mil/history/Forging.asp

Like all Guard components, they have had their ups and downs.
 
DKSuddeth said:
somebody wake me when the election is over. :sleep:

I think some are beginning to wonder whether they should wake you up now or that we should actually wait till november. Im sure your wife wants you up now though, she probably has some chores for you:p
 
Avatar4321 said:
I think some are beginning to wonder whether they should wake you up now or that we should actually wait till november. Im sure your wife wants you up now though, she probably has some chores for you:p

well, seeing how I'm casting my votes for republicans this year, somebody better wake me up.

the wife always has chores for me to do. :funnyface
 

Forum List

Back
Top