This article:
http://nationalreview.com/owens/owens200402090833.aspreads like one of George Bush's speeches, weaving together two related but rather disparate topics. First, the article "debunks" the "myth" that George Bush was, at a minimum, AWOL. Second, the article asks the question: "Is a highly decorated war hero a more apt leader during war than a stateside Guardsman?"
What are some of your takes on the "debunking?" I find the article lacking in sufficient breadth to be convincing; Mackubin largely parrots an email from FactCheck. I'd tend to believe Straight Dope's analysis before I'd believe FactCheck (see
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/030411.html).
What about Kerry playing his War Hero card, if he is nominated? Kerry supported the 2002 Iraq invasion, so perhaps he could make the case that he is the more qualified to lead as he knows the horrors of combat. This could woo Republicans into dissertion but could isolate Democrats who don't agree with the war support in the first place. Either way, it would be a tenuous position for Kerry to hold, but I think it has strategic merit.
Thoughts?
Endless distractions are yours for the buying,
it's easy for you if you're not the one dying.
Endless destruction, I'm sick of the waiting
for humans to realize, enough of the hating!
This moment we are given must be good for something.
Listen to me, I say War Changes Nothing! -- Informatik