MSNBC's "Imus In The Morning," 2/3/04 (Excerpt from RNC Research w/Sen McCain interview) MUST READ

Republican National Committee ^ | Feb 3, 2004 | RNC Research

[Ben Hecks]

I think we should welcome a full review of Kerry's records as well. He testified before Congress about atrocities committed by soldiers in Vietnam that were proven to be false - his buddies in the VVAW were imposters....most had never served in Vietnam and some had never served at all. One phony was Joe Yandle who used PTSS as an excuse to beat a murder rap - when it was later learned that Yandle never served in Vietnam, he was re-arrested and sent back to prison. Kerry knowingly gave false testimony to Congress and participated in a fraud.

[cyncooper]

I thought this crap was disproved already. Am I wrong?

You are not wrong. The evil dems are desperate.

[Huck]

McCain said that Cheney et al are decent people and he just doesn't buy Imus's "assumptions." He actually sounded a little offended by Imus.

[cyncooper]

Very good for McCain, and I see in the post right above yours that McClellan slammed these jerks for parading this lie around.

[twigs]

I agree with your take on the interview. For the most part, McCain was very good and addressed the issue well. But he did leave plenty of weasel room. I didn't find it a very good endorsement of the president's credibility; it left the possibility that something could yet be uncovered that would hurt him. The interview left me feeling uncomfortable. McCain strikes me as a soft-spoken back-stabber. I'm not sure he's forgiven the president for beating him in the primaries in 2000.

[woodyinscc]

I think Brokaw was used in the last debate, to get this issue back on the table. It is the flavor of the week, and all the usual suspects have been hitting the talk shows, spewing this issue. This from the people who defended an actual draft dodger.! sheesh!!

[backhoe]

PKM, I'll cross-link to this:

-The Real Military Record of George W. Bush: Not Heroic, but Not AWOL, Either-The Original Story--

[Huck]

Bernie really hates Rumsfeld and Cheney. I do listen to the show fairly regularly, but not loyally. If there is a good interview, I listen. I don't listen to their sports, news, charity-thons, or interoffice chit chat. Just newsmaker interviews. I usually don't listen to mathews, brokaw, fineman, etc. But I'll listen to russert. Anyway, Imus is a front runner. His support is worthless.

[Scenic Sounds]

You know, I've never paid too much attention to any of these claims because I've assumed that they would just dry up and blow away, but I'm apparently wrong. One of the problems here, I think, is that the whole thing comes across as very murky to the average person. For example, I'm sure a lot of people must wonder why it is claimed he was AWOL from the Alabama National Guard when he was in the Texas National Guard.

Somehow, someone needs to get the facts on all this and figure out a way to describe his National Guard experience in two or three short paragraphs, including an identification of the charges and the facts that refute those charges. Clarity is desperately needed here.

[alnick]

Seems that Imus is of the opinion that if I accuse him of, say, being a pedophile, it's true unless he can prove otherwise.

[Huck]

Once it became clear that these "weapons of mass destruction" would never be found in Iraq,

How do you say that and not get flamed? I admit to feeling a little betrayed by WMD developments, or lack thereof.

[Alberta's Child]

Imus is one of the few radio people who will have Pat Buchanan on for an interview. Like him or not, Buchanan is a smart guy who knows what he's talking about, and is always an interesting interview.

The Imus show is worth a listen just for the odd chance that "Dennis the Puerto Rican" will be on the air for a 60-second comedy routine / shouting match with Don Imus . . .

"Yo, I-man -- what's with these Knicks hiring David Dinkins as their new head coach?"

[McGruff]

For those who don't listen to him, IMUS has been backing Pres. Bush since he defeated McCain in the primaries, but his support is starting to waiver since the Iraq war thanks to Baghdad Bernard MaGirk's anti Rumsfeld and Cheney attitude.

As far as Sen. McCain he has really come around lately. In New Hampshire he was solidly behind the president. I guess there's hope for all of us.

[Williams]

You see, they are letting the issue be Bush and his supposed non service. This is being done to scare the republicans away from attacking Kerry for his left wing behavior after returning from Vietnam. The repubs need to strongly attack Kerry for claiming, without justification, that the American soldiers in Vietnam were war criminals. The dems are scaring the repubs out of it, and even getting the bonus of going on the offense against Bush.

Bush has nothing to be ashamed of. Defend his service, and bash Kerry over the head with his poor judgment in falsely accusing soldiers of atrocities, throwing away other peoples' medals, etc.

By the way, the dems started this so it is all fair game! It really troubles me that the repubs can't turn on a dime, as is needed: "Senator Kerry, I served in the national guard and flew jet fighter aircraft and was ready to be called to combat as so many brave guardsmen were in Iraq. But this election is about our ability to make sound judgments as president. I applaud the bravery you showed when called upon in a combat situation. But in my opinion you disqualified yourself from the presidency when you then chose to appeal to left wing politics in Massachussets by condemning your fellow soldiers as war criminals and accusing them of the most outrageous atrocitiies - which you later had to admit you saw none of in Vietnam. And I also respectfully believe you showed poor judgment when you made a public show of throwing away soldiers' war medals - medals of the type you now display in your Senate office." etc.

[petercooper]

imus is a moron

[Alberta's Child]

How do you say that and not get flamed?

Because I've been saying it for more than a year now, and people generally avoid flaming me because my instincts on this issue have rarely been proved wrong. Over the last 12 months I've laid out about five or six predictions/comments about the war in Iraq, and since I'm now about 3 for 3 on them it doesn't bode well for people to argue about #4, #5 and #6.

[hoosiermama]

WIsh I could find an e-mail that was forwarded to me a while back....It was from a soldier in Iraq. His comment on the WMD went something like this....

"It's sort of like hunting for a "cup of hot coffee" We've found the pot, the beans, the grinder, the cup, the cream, the sugar, and the spoon to stir it with, but no we haven't found the "cup of hot coffee"!"

My hope is we don't find the cup half full.

Does this make you feel better.

[McGruff]

DNC CHAIRMAN TERRY MCAULIFFE DOES NOT THINK NATIONAL GUARD IS PART OF U.S. MILITARY: "George Bush never served in our military and our country." (ABC's "This Week," 2/1/04)

[Howlin]

Once it became clear that these "weapons of mass destruction" would never be found in Iraq

Where is that report? The one that states that they will NEVER be found?

[Alberta's Child]

The Democrats are simply making the best of a bad political situation for them. Last year, it was believed that their best shot at winning the White House in 2004 would be if the economy tanked or the war in Iraq went badly. Kerry was the early front-runner because it was perceived that the economy would be the major issue. Dean became the front-runner (and Clark entered the race) when the economy began to recover but the casualty figures from Iraq started to bother voters.

Contrary to conventional wisdom, Dean's demise had nothing to do with his infamous melt-down after Iowa. Remember -- his meltdown came after he had finished third in a state where he had piled a ton of money and resources. His "official" term as front-runner for the Democratic nomination ended when the U.S. military dragged Saddam Hussein out of that hole in Iraq.

Since the economy and the war aren't the major issues it was hoped they would be, the Democrats are in a position where they must bank on a long-shot: they will put forward a candidate who can claim that he never liked Saddam Hussein (hence his voting record in the U.S. Senate), but "would have done things differently." Since the party is devoid of any ideas about how things might have been done "differently," they are left in a position where they must rely on a candidate whose only real claim to fame was that he did something heroic in Vietnam more than 30 years ago.