The wingnuts went absolutely looney aver "Rathergate." Nobody needs to be reminded that Rathergate refers to Dan Rather's story about Bush's non-military service, which was based on documents that are generally regarded as being forged. To this day do not know the source of those documents, and the wingnuts have been steadfast in their insistence that Rather resign, or be fired or perhaps executed.
The curious thing here is that while the documents Rather relied on may be suspect, nobody has challenged the accuracy of the information in the documents or the overall truth of Rather's story.
Now, since the wingnuts are so concerned about relying on questionable sources, you would expect them to be at the forefront of a movement to impeach Bush for using unreliable sources as the basis for invading Iraq. Well, you would be wrong.
Rather: distinguished career spanning dozens of years. Used unverified source as basis for story that was basically accurate. He should resign.
Bush: short four year career saw worst terror attack in U.S. history, a million jobs have been lost, and a huge budget surplus was turned into record deficits in order to fund tax cuts for the rich. Used unverified sources as basis for disastrous invasion of Iraq. The information relied on for invading Iraq now known to be false.
He should be elected for a second term?
Somebody help me out here. Isn't there some awful inconsistency here?