Krugman shows how it is done
Paul Krugman hits all the relevant points in his analysis of Bush's little photo-op. (1) American President's don't go running around in military garb for a very specific reason, because they are supposed to be the civilian head of state (Eisenhower never put on the uniform or flashed a medal while he was running or was in office). (2) It was a lie that the tailhook landing was necessary because the ship was so far out to sea (it was actually within thirty miles of shore). (3) The establishment American press provided little but gushing coverage of this event (Krugman quotes British journalists who say that Blair would have been laughed off the stage if he had tried a stunt like this.) (4) Bush failed to show up for duty while in the National Guard. (5) Bush still hasn't found bin Laden. (6) It was primarily U.S. soldiers who brought the statue of Saddam down and not the hordes of Iraqis (all one hundred of them) as reported by the press. (7) It really is important that no WMD have been found yet in Iraq (world opinion? who cares about that?). (8) The GOP's plans to hold their nominating convention in early September, in NYC, in order to use the bodies of the 3000 killed at the WTC for political purposes. (9) The foot-dragging of this administration on putting together and funding the independent commission to study intelligence failures prior to 9/11. Now, why is it that Democrats can't hit bullet points like this over and over and over and over again? Dean is the only one who even comes close and even he has fallen short of the mark at times. Listen up guys: you will never defeat this yahoo unless you are willing to absolutely hammer him on every single one of these points non-stop from here until next November. Don't let them distract you with irrelevancies. Demand answers to these questions.