What's Old is New Again in Rep attack on Dems, Kerry

[StClone]

Yesterday and today I hear the exact same wording in an attack on Dems in three widely separated media:

"Clinton destroyed military, Dems Weak on Defense, Clinton let Bin Laden get away..." Followed closely with "Nam Vets do not like Hanoi Kerry and his war protesting Liberal history."

If Clinton destroyed military why did it do so well in Afghanistan and Iraq.

If Dems are weak on Defense why did LBJ rev up Nam and why did Clinton bomb places to get Bin Laden? And if Bin Laden was such a Republican priority why wasn't he #1 when Bush given the WH? Seemed like 9-11 was a horrible reminder of what Big Dog told Bush "Terrorism/Bin Laden will be your biggest concern."

As for Kerry I thought that Nam Vet support was the reason for being in front.

[Bandit]

1. "Liberal Media"

The more the lie is propagated the more it becomes presumed fact.

[Moderator]

2. Locking

Rules to start discussion threads in the General Discussion forum.

...

7. Discussion topics that mention any or all of the Democratic presidential primary candidates are not permitted in the General Discussion forum, and instead must be posted in the General Discussion: 2004 Primary forum.

Thank you for your understanding and cooperation,
DU moderator