the question wasn't whether Clark "worked" for his country, but whether he paid his own way through school, something he clearly did not do. it's not a question of semantics, but of clark stretching the truth, or in this case fabricating the truth to make his background seem "more common" than it was. once again, why? isn't it enough that he grew up poor in arkansas? read the noonan article again to get a bead on why this guy creeps people out, and not just republicans.
Slightly humorous piece onthe topic at hand... ____________ Standard Issue by Jonathan Chait Only at TNR Online Post date: 01.26.04 The Saturday before last, filmmaker Michael Moore, appearing at a rally with Wesley Clark, called President Bush a "deserter." Then, during last Thursday night's Democratic debate in New Hampshire, ABC's Peter Jennings took Clark to task for Moore's remark: General Clark, a lot of people say they don't [know] you well, so this is really a simple question about knowing a man by his friends. The other day you had a rally here, and one of the men who stood up to endorse you is the controversial filmmaker Michael Moore. You said you were delighted with him. At one point, Mr. Moore said, in front of you, that President Bush--he's saying he'd like to see you, the general, and President Bush, who he called a "deserter." Now, that's a reckless charge not supported by the facts. And I was curious to know why you didn't contradict him, and whether or not you think it would've been a better example of ethical behavior to have done so. This has to be the most hostile and slanted debate question I've seen in a long time. Let's stipulate that Moore is a deranged demagogue with an allergy to the truth, and that the almost-inevitable grief Clark takes as a result of his unfathomable decision to appear beside him is, at some level, deserved. Nonetheless, Jennings's question symbolizes the unfair double-standard reporters have long applied to the question of presidents and military service. The first thing to point out here is that claiming the charge that Bush is a deserter is "not supported by the facts" is, at the very least, an overprotective interpretation. Reporters have pretty clearly established that Bush did not show up for a year of his service in the Texas National Guard, in contradiction to Bush's account in his book A Charge to Keep. Documentation for that can be found, for instance, in this Boston Globe article. The fact that the mainstream media paid little attention to Bush's spotty military service during the 2000 campaign relegated it to the fringes of Internet discourse, and gave it a taint of nuttiness that Moore's embrace only enhanced. But it's not wacko to say that Bush failed to fulfill his duty merely because most of the people who say so happen to be wackos. Is it fair to call Bush a "deserter"? Not precisely. Even if he went AWOL during his service for the National Guard, which seems highly likely, most people understand the term "deserter" to mean someone who flees his post during combat. Bush did serve during the Vietnam War, but he was safely ensconced in Texas. (If you reject the charge that Bush was a deserter, then you must also reject the spin that he was valiantly protecting the country during wartime.) Calling Bush a deserter, in other words, is hyperbolic. But it's not the outright fiction Jennings made it out to be. The closest parallel is President Clinton and Vietnam. As a young man, Clinton attempted to pull family strings to avoid service in Vietnam, and was later able to abandon those efforts when he received a favorable draft lottery number. Republicans, including George Herbert Walker Bush, characterized this as draft-dodging. In fact, "draft-dodging" means avoiding the draft illegally, which Clinton did not do. But prominent members of the press did not flatly refute the charge, or demand that Bush renounce it. Republicans, it seems, have carte blanche to level irresponsible charges at Democrats when it comes to military service. But the media cuts Democrats--even one with as unimpeachable a record of service as Wesley Clark--no such slack. Finally, there's Jennings editorial comment that the episode shows that you "know a man by his friends." As I said, Clark's appearance with Moore does not speak well of him. (As this week's Notebook points out, Moore has described the Kosovo intervention, which is Clark's crowning achievement, as an act of genocide.) But President Bush has plenty of nutty supporters, too. He has been endorsed by--to take just one example--Pat Roberston, who makes Moore look measured by comparison. If Moore's endorsement disqualifies Clark for the presidency, then the media should have disqualified Bush years ago.
NOVAK: Ms. Steenburgen, I'm just dying to know if you agree with your candidate, General Clark, that the president of the United States is a deserter? Desertion is one of the most heinous crimes. It's a felony. You put people in prison. Do you think -- do you think -- do you agree with that? STEENBURGEN: Well, I don't agree with the spin you just put on it. If I understand correctly, it was Michael Moore that said that, not Wesley Clark. And I would also say that, if being critical of an administration was a crime, I don't know what you would have had to do during the Clinton administration. So -- so, you know, I think you better keep it straight who said what.
really? did Chait not see Jennings' question on the federal reserve to al sharpton, or the question on islam he put to edwards? Still gotta wonder if Clark even knows about this. Robertson's an idiot, but's where's the footage of him introducing Bush while calling his opponent a criminal? i'm off until tonight. until then:
My prediction... 1. Kerry 2. Lieberman! 3. Dean 4. Edwards 5. Clark This bump for Joe will be the big story, but Edwards will end up winning it all.
Feeling that Joementum eh Serious? 1:00 pm exit polling leaked by media reps had it tracking as a contest between Kerry and Dean for 1st and Clark and Edwards for 3rd. Joe was a bit further back.
Really just trying to make a wild ass prediction. Since Independent's outnumber Rep or Dems, figure anything can happen... By the way, I can't stand Joe.
I hear you. Looks like there will be four serious candidates after tonight. I happen to think Edwards is in the best position here... Kerry's trying to take out Clark and Dean, Dean's trying to take out Kerry, Clark's trying to stay alive until a Kerry vs. Dean winner emerges, the Bushies are attacking Kerry and Clark, the media is playing against Dean. All the while, Edwards just keeps plugging along under the radar.
Here's an excerpt from a slate.com article. They're bucking the media establishment again and posting exit poll results. You won't see these anywhere else except maybe Drudge. Here's a link to the full article: http://slate.msn.com/id/2094506/ The following is an average of midday exit polls performed by six different news organizations, which—with one exception—were highly consistent with one another. (We averaged the polls in the hope of smoothing out blips or anomalies particular to any one of them). Kerry: 35.8 Dean 31.1 Edwards 12.6 Clark 11.5 Lieberman 6.5 The outlying poll, which is included in the above average, showed Dean running just ahead of Kerry.
Source: AP Kerry - 36 Dean - 31 Edwards - 12 Clark - 12 Lieberman - 6 Source: Not sure Kerry - 36 Dean - 30 Edwards - 16 Clark - 10 Lieberman - 6 Source: Probably ABC Kerry- 37 Dean - 31 Edwards - 12 Clark - 12 Lieberman - 7 Source: LA Times Kerry - 33 Dean - 34 Edwards - 12 Clark - 11 Lieberman - 9 Source: CBS Kerry - 37 Dean - 30 Edwards - 12 Clark - 12 Lieberman - 4 Source: 2:30pm exit numbers from who knows where, supposedly a network... Kerry - 35.7 Dean - 30.6 Edwards - 11.9 Clark - 12.1 Lieberman - 6.9 All these lead to Batman's average.
At least the other candidates shouldn't have Lieberman running them down after tonight. I don't think he'll embarrass himself by staying in the race. The race for 3rd should get interesting.
rimrocker: Where'd you get those? Deckard: There is no race for third -- Clark's third. If there's a race, it's in the South where he'll try to move up to second. With apologies to my good friend wrath_of_khan, if these exit numbers hold, NH has ended two campaigns. Dean has plummetted in every 2/3 state. He's got nowhere else to go. He might hang around (in fact, he kind of owes it to his supporters and donors to stick around for a while), but he really is done. And Drudge is reporting that Lieberman's considering "suspending" his campaign (one more way he's like Tsongas). That leaves Kerry, Edwards, Clark. In that order. If Clark doesn't surprise on 2/3 (and I don't think he will), he's got to start thinking about dropping out too.
I think others have already done a nice job of addressing this. I just want to sum it up to say that Bush was not formally charged with being AWOL, but Bush was AWOL. People can bring in the commanding officers, the other members of that unit etc. and all of them agree that Bush didn't show up. So whether or not he was formally charged with being AWOL in a political campaign sense he will be perceived as such.
I agree that it won't have as much impact as it might have. But it wasn't really brought up in Bush's first run probably because of his association with Clinton who was labeled a 'Draft Dodger'. I still think this holds water this time because Iraq is so controversial. If we are talking about being mislead into a controversial war by a guy who was AWOL during the Viet Nam War, then the issues are somewhat serious.
I wish I were as confident about that. I hope he comes in a solid third, but I'm not counting on it. Not after all the negative spin that's been spinning his way from both Republicans and Democrats.
Fox has called Kerry winning. current numbers w/ about 29% reporting: kerry: 39% dean: 24% edwards: 13% clark: 12% lieberman: 10% it'll be interesting to see if edwards can hold off clark, or if lieberman can gain on him.
Deckard: Maybe you got me wrong. I wasn't saying third in NH (which, with 24% reporting now, is all that's left to be determined. Edwards leads Clark by about 500 votes right now.), I was saying third in the race. And that's only because Dean's finished, whether he keeps running or not. I know you're a Clark fan, but Iowa was probably his death knell. His shot at the nomination was a Clark-Dean race. He's screwed against Kerry and Edwards. And he lost nearly half of his support in NH in the last week (while every other major candidate gained). The only one who's fallen faster and harder is Dean. Luckily for him Feb. 3 has a lot of Southern states. He'd better put together a string of serious victories or he stays in third which, after 2/3, ranks him about even with Dean, Kucinich, Sharpton, Moseley-Braun, Gephardt and Graham.
looks like Edwards and Clark will concentrate on S.C., Kerry on Missouri, and Dean on New Mexico (heads up Rim) and Arizona.
p.s. to Deckard: I fervently disagree with you about Clark receiving undue bashing from the left or the right. Kerry and (especially) Dean have taken much, much harder hits. The Clark bashing hasn't even begun. And it probably won't begin. He's sinking half because of the new Dean alternatives and half because he's a weak (and weird) candidate. And zero because of the media or opponents on either side, who have all been uncharacteristically soft on him.
