I want to know WHY Wes Clark has to confront *'s AWOL instead of *

[MoonRiver]

This is insanity. If an accusation is out there, then the one accused should be responsible for responding, DUH! Why should a third party who is neither the accuser or accused be expected to prove what the f#@% happened???

Let AWOL explain his missing 18 months in the National Guard. PERIOD, PERIOD, PERIOD.

[texasmom]

1. I was thinking the same thing

this morning. That, in itself, shows what is wrong with the press in our country. Everything is inside out.

[MoonRiver]

2. Yes, it's a total distortion of reality.

I think Clark should just refer all questions on that matter back to *. Let that basturd explain why this accusation is flying around.

[Ripley]

3. Good question...I wish he had thrown it back at Jennings.

Why didn't Clark say "Well, Peter have you or anyone in the Press Corps asked GW Bush where he was during the time period in question?"

It is sickening that I hear Monica and Bill Clinton referred to almost daily in the news (in a derogatory way of course) and yet NEVER hear the TNAG story even mentioned except to say "oh it was debunked."

[Printer70]

4. Take responsibility, General

If a major endorser of yours makes a charge, step up to the plate, don't pass the buck. It makes you wonder about Clark. He talks tough about "gittin'" Osama, but didn't even capture Serbian and Bosnian war criminals like Mladic. Ultimately, you gotta' walk the walk.

[MoonRiver]

6. The BUCK is on bush*s desk not Clark's.

* should explain where he was when he was supposed to be in the National Guard.

[maddezmom]

7. doesn't make me wonder at all n/t

[lovedems]

5. No doubt. Next Ed Gillespie is going to be demanding an apology

Should Clark do that too? Hell, no. Let the idiot who has sent 500+ to their deaths explain how he got out of 18 months. Was he a deserter or just have political connections? Either way it stinks and shows what a coward he really is.

[bain_sidhe]

8. Excellent! Clark should just say

I dunno, it's not my problem. Ask Bush*

[gulliver]

9. I think you misunderstand the situation.

I had a thread on this earlier today.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=189011

Clearly Bush should have to deal with his AWOL issue. The whole point is that someone has to make him deal with it. The idea needs a champion. It won't stand on its own, and you can't depend on the media to give it life.

Don't even think that because some Democrats accuse Bush of anything that Bush will feel compelled to respond or that the media will force him to. That is not the world I have experienced the last three years. I can't speak for you.

Clark has an opportunity to fill the Bushwacker role that Democrats want most in their candidate. He is doing extremely well without the AWOL stick. My argument is that he doesn't need to directly accuse Bush. He only has to decide whether he wants to fill the role the media is offering him in some way: champion Bushwacker of the pack. If Clark does anything at all, however conservative, to feed the frenzy, he will get a lot of media attention.

[onecitizen]

10. You would think that..........

bush would be going crazy over this. Why hasn't HE produced the records or the people who were there with him at the time so they could verify that they served with him? I would be screaming it from the rooftops if this was going on with me.

[gulliver]

11. Good point! We don't see Bush defending himself.

He's vulnerable. Clark could nail Bush (if Clark thinks it is necessary). Kerry has demurred. No one else has standing.

[Strelnikov_]

12. Because This Is Post Patriot Act America

Guilt by association is now an actionable (Moore<=>Clark)

[jonoboy]

13. why the hell aren't those media slut/whores asking BUSH