Why is it that you only use the parts of my post with which you can attempt an argument, and ignore the rest?

The specific phrase I'm referring to is "...were snuffed from view".  During the 2000 campaign, the Bush camp refused to even address any of these topics--the DUI, his military record, his academic record, his purported drug use.  And I'm talking 2000, not 2004, which was when the Dan Rather thing came up.  It was always "no comment" and "we're not here to discuss the past".

Here's a link to an old CNN story about the refusal to talk about drug use prior to 1974.  Then there's this chestnut of a liquored up and lacquered down Georgie at a wedding reception while poppie was still prez.  Great legacy, that W.

My issue is not whether or not he sniffed, inhaled, drank, or whatever.  I don't hold that against him.  What I have an issue with was the absolute refusal to respond to any questions about any of these items from his past.

But a DUI arrest in 1976--yes, I care.  So should you.  A DUI arrest shows a remarkable lack of judgement by anyone.  And I think you would care if it were Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Obama, Hillary, or anyone on the Dem side.

Why bring up Obama, Kerry, or anyone else to counter a claim against GWB?  Again, the typical shrubbery-protection plan.  When someone gets you dead-to-rights, bring up the BJ or discredit a Dem and all will be well.

And I've never claimed to be good at this, but it's awfully easy when you change your arguments to support the few facts that you actually have.

Note:  Edited to highlight the links, just in case Dale chooses to go after fact.