Clark gives in to Wolf Blitzer

[dennis4868]

On CNN today General Wesley Clark told Wolf Blitzer that Bush is not a deserter and that Michael Moore was wrong but that he had the freedom of speech to say it.

Is there a democratic politician alive who has the guts to stand up to Bush and his media machine? I lost respect for Clark for saying that. He is still my first choice but not as strong as yesterday...to be honest I am not happy with any of the major candidates...Clark because of what I stated above, Kerry because he is not tough on Bush over lying to us about the WMD only how Bush is handling the war, Dean because he does not seem electable, and Edwards because it does not seem like his time yet.

[mhr]

1. What Did You Expect From A DLC Democrat - The Truth?

Seems that Clark is bought and sold by the corporate interests.

Just examine his where his paycheck has come from since leaving the military.

End of story!

[dennis4868]

2. Well.....

Clark is slowly but surely losing my support....never thought I would say that.

[MariaS]

3. Under the rules of the

military is Bush actually considered a deserter or AWOL. I thought I understood deserter to mean having no intent to return. Maybe Clark was technically right but I agree he shouldn't have said Moore was wrong even though Moore himself said he was only kidding.

[dennis4868]

7. Moore never said....

he was joking. Meet the Conservative Press with Tim Russert said he said that but that is not true. Also, Bush did not show up for over a year in the Alabama national gaurd so he was either AWOL or a Deserter....we are splitting hairs here.

[sventvkg]

15. Bush is a Deserter.Plain and simple. If I pulled that when i was in

I would have been sent to Levinworth...His connections ensured that his record would be wiped clean...You and I would have gone to prison. Get a grip...I'll say it to the Chimps face.

[LandOLincoln]

27. Yes, Moore says he was joking.

You might want to check his website (www.michaelmoore.com) before you stick your foot in it any more. You might also want to read my other post on this thread. Thank you.

[dennis4868]

30. Call me stupid but...

where on his site does he say je was only joking....I could not find it myself.

[LandOLincoln]

34. No, he doesn't literally say "I was joking," he says

"I was just attempting my best impersonation of that announcer guy for the World Wrestling Federation, asking the cheering crowd if they would like to see a smackdown ('debate') which I called "The Generaaal Versus The Deserterrrr!!"

which is close enough for me.

[dennis4868]

36. I heard him in an interview the other day....

and he said that he was trying to act like a wrestling announcer and was having fun....but he also said there is ample evidence that he was absent from his national guard duty and was either AWOL or a deserter. He was very serious about this during the interview. I think the way he announced it he was trying to have fun but he is very serious about the substance of what he was saying....

[kerry-is-my-prez]

18. Why should Clark give up the Presidency for something that can't be proven

He has completely screwed himself by appearing to agree with Michael Moore.

[Dark Star]

4. Other posters said Clark dodged and weaved

while others said he let it go altogether.

I saw him on another show saying basically, 'deserter? AWOL? whatever you want to call it, Bush was not where he was supposed to be.'

I respectfully request you provide a link to the transcript of what you say happened today with Blitz and Clark. Thank you.

[dennis4868]

8. Let me try to find you a transcript....

may be hard to find so soon after the interview....

[Doctor_J]

5. Ouch

that smarts. I hope Clark is not planning to hop back over the aisle after he is out of the race.

Don't make me sorry I sent you all that money, General.

[lancdem]

11. I don't you have to worry about that

[Catch22Dem]

12. Giving up?

after he is out of the race
Are you giving up on the General?

[truebrit71]

6. Link???

eom

[Toucano]

9. This looks like a job...

for fact check.

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=131

Clark ’s reluctance to contradict Moore was criticized the next day by the newspaper that started it all, the Boston Globe, which said in an editorial:

"News reports, including some in the Globe , have questioned Bush's constancy as a National Guard airman at the time, but he has not been credibly accused of desertion, a serious charge. Clark should have distanced himself from the remark."

The New York Times reported Nov. 3, 2000:

But a review of records by The New York Times indicated that some of those concerns (about Bush’s absence) may be unfounded . . . . A review by The Times showed that after a seven-month gap, he appeared for duty in late November 1972 at least through July 1973.

[kovasb]

10. You can only win this if you have the solid facts

Look, if you are running for president, you better not level a charge as serious as desertion against the sitting president unless you have bullet proof evidence.

Thats just the way it is.

And while there is evidence, it is too murky to not be easily dismissed as a bit looney. I dont think any of us knows what really happened, and im sure bush's minions have helped destroy records etc. But in this country the president will be assumed innocent untill proven very very guilty, and the case just is not strong enough to be casually bandying about candidacy-ending charges.

Clark is the only one consistently saying that the iraq and afghan strategies were based on politics, not security. He is the only one says that 911 may have been preventable, and that bush's ideological agenda pushed the persuit of missile defense over terrorism defense.

Clark thinks that the issue in this election in the performance of the president in office, and is socking it to him on these important issues that others are afraid to touch or cant articulate properly. And thats enough for me.

[sventvkg]

13. Dean doesn't seem electable to who? Why is that?

Dean is the only one with balls and so he is branded "unelectable" Give me a friggin break, crawl out of your hole, and get a clue..If Dean is the Nom he will stimulate the entire Democratic base like you have never seen!! Of course no repubs will vote for him..That's a Given..But he will get EVERY Dem out there to vote and i'm positive we can remove Chimp...Not with a boob like a Kerry though. People will just equate him as no different really then a Bush and probably not bother..

[dennis4868]

17. Maybe I am wrong....

but Dean will need to win over independent/moderate voters to beat Bush in the GE....I dont see that happening. Just my opinion. I will still support any Dem over Bush.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

20. I know some Repubs who will vote for Dean

There are many Repubs who say that they will vote for whoever the Dems nominate, because Bush has to GO. The ones I have personally talked to were impressed with Dean's record of balancing the budget and his pragmatism.

[incapsulated]

14. Yes, he said this

I wish he had just left it an open question.

But.

This isssue has never had legs in the mainstream media except as something to hang around Clark's neck. They would have killed him over what I consider to be a pretty small issue, considering the fact that we are in serious trouble both at home and abroad and need to get rid of Bush now.


I forgive him.

I'm moving on.

[Toucano]

21. Dubya was not a deserter.

Michael Moore, while I appreciate his work, is often guilty of using imprecise language and logical fallacies. The imprecise language is the case here. Worse yet, Moore may be guilty of SLANDER for his lazy language because you can't accuse someone of a CRIME that the evidence doesn't support. His carelessness gives so much fuel to the right.

Clark knows the difference between being a deserter and being AWOL. He has to come down on the side of the truth. He could not go on saying "I haven't looked into the allegations," any longer. He still defends Moore's right to interpret the evidence as he chooses and say what he wants.

Jude Law in "Cold Mountain" is a deserter; he has no intention of going back.

Dubya was AWOL; lost on a controlled-substance induced haze, he didn't return when he should have. Still not good, but not as serious as desertion.

Clark is wise to disarm the right's attempt to sideline him with this pointless issue. Does anyone really think Dubya's going to be brought up on charges for being AWOL?

[dennis4868]

23. Well if you look at the code....

section for Desertion Bush comes mighty close to being a deserter....would be a close call in a court of law or military tribunal....whatever you want to call it.

[incapsulated]

26. The semantics won't matter

to those for whom this is a "big issue" or test of some kind.

It is neither to me, so I don't care either way.

AWOL, Deserter, whatever the code. Without hardcore evidence, and media acceptence, this is just an issue that they are trying to kill Clark with, they don't give a shit about it's substance now, yesterday or tommorow.

Should Bush have been brought up on charges? Absolutely. Is this issue what this election is all about? No. Not even close.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

16. There's no REAL evidence that Bush went awol. We all know he did

but there's nothing that out and out proves it. People keep chnaging their stories about it and one story contradicts the other.

[dennis4868]

19. Sure there is....

the media just ignores it. The Boston Globe back in 2000 prove it. There are Bush's military records plus no one remembers Bush serving in the Gaurd....

[Toucano]

22. There is evidence of having been AWOL

but no evidence of desertion. :)

[dennis4868]

24. Why do you say that?

what is that based upon?

[Toucano]

35. http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=131

"The New York Times reported Nov. 3, 2000:

But a review of records by The New York Times indicated that some of those concerns (about Bush’s absence) may be unfounded . . . . A review by The Times showed that after a seven-month gap, he appeared for duty in late November 1972 at least through July 1973."

It appears he returned, made up missed days, and was released of his obligation early.

That would be absent since he returned. Deserters don't come back.

It really can't matter anyway, though. He was honorably discharged so any misdeeds are long since covered up. That's the bottom line, I think.

He was AWOL on 9/11 and he's been AWOL from every single soldier's funeral. That much I know.

[dennis4868]

37. The Boston Globe did a ....

much more in depth investigation....you should check it out....and the records clearly show that he was AWOL from May 1972 through April 1973...was suspended for flying because he failed to show up for his physical....also, some records show that he was gone for 18 months....but the records I saw shows him absent for a whole year....CHECK OUT awolbush.com (site is down now :-(

[Valjean]

40. AWOL is tenuous

AWOL is tenuous because Bush was never charged. We all KNOW it's true. But making a clear cut case is next to impossible.

The firecracker issue here is Bush's refusal to take a physical. He was suspended from flight duty at a time when the military began testing for drugs.

This is 100% provable. There is no reasonable explanation as to why Bush COULD NOT report for his physical. It is certainly dereliction of duty.

The Democrats can hit Bush with this especially considering his statement that he hadn't taken illegal drugs since 1974. He refused to say that he has NEVER taken drugs.

Given Bush's current proposal to test high school students for drugs, I find this VERY hypocritical. The issue is sensationalist, so it SHOULD get SOME traction. A direct confrontation at a debate will make it IMPOSSIBLE for the media to ignore it.

Maybe Michael Moore needs to have another rally and call Bush a Coke head.

[LandOLincoln]

25. Oh for god's sake, pay attention!

Someone on this forum (different thread) spelled it out for all of us very clearly:

The National Guard is not subject to the UCMJ, therefore * was officially neither AWOL nor a deserter. Do you really think Clark doesn't know that?

And once again, I suggest you check Moore's own website (www.michaelmoore.com) and notice especially that, as a result of the flap, the website--with all the pertinent information about Dubya's Disappearance--has had 15 million hits since last Thursday.

Clark and Moore are deliberately playing good cop/bad cop, and I think it's a brilliant strategy.

Or strategery, as some people might say. :evilgrin:

[dennis4868]

28. The National Guard is not subject to the UCMJ

I have been told many times from military people the exact opposite....where in the code does it say it does not apply to the National Guard....The Boston Globe agrees with me.

[Bonobo]

32. I was waiting for someone to say that! Thanks!

I was thinking of writing that, but frankly I'm so exhausted with the day already that I was too tired to do it. Plus, like you said: "Pay attention" (although I think that thread has already gone a page or so back...)

Anyway, you caught it and I thank you. THAT is one reason that he "caved in" as some say. Personally, I also think that Wolf phrased the questions in such a way as to make Clark look like Naom Chomsky if he had answered the other way.

Here was Wolf's question to the best of my memory: "You don't really think that President Bush, our commander in chief, was a deserter, do you?" Further it was asked in this particularly beseeching sort of a way, like "You really wouldn't run over my grandmother just to buy a lottery ticket, would you?"

[dennis4868]

39. one more thing.....The National Guard is not subject to the UCMJ....

the desertion section of the code says it applies to "any member of the armed forces." Why would someone who is in the national gaurd not be considered to be a member of the armed services? There is no exemption in the code section that describes desertion for national gaurd members...please explain???

[in_cog_ni_to]

29. What I want to know is

What the hell does George W, Bush being AWOL 30 damn years ago have to do with Wesley Clark running for president? What does it have to do with anything? The media...Faux News and Peter Jennings.....trumped this shit up on something MICHAEL MOORE said....NOT Clark. This is stupid!!!! Let Wes get in the White House and THEN maybe he can SLAM SOME ASS! OR let him become the nominee and he can lay it on the chimp! Shit.

I have had it with the media rhetoric. THEY and THEY alone have chosen our nominee for us. They do not want Wes Clark to be president and I think we can ALL agree on that.

Let the chimp AWOL issue die. It has NOTHING to do with Wes Clark. NOTHING.

[dennis4868]

31. A MAN THAT....

was AWOL/Deserter does not and should not have a right to send other kids to war to die.

[incapsulated]

33. It's a little late for that isn't it?

I think we have a laundry list of reasons why Bush had no right to send troops into Iraq, this is the least of them.

What does that have to do with Clark?

[in_cog_ni_to]

38. I know that and the man is an idiot.

I want to know what the HELL does it have to do with Clark running for president.....30 years after the fact? NOTHING.

You fell for the rhetoric. Faux News and Peter Jennings wanted you to feel the way you do. Was it an issue with you BEFORE they brought it up? I mean...had you even THOUGHT about Wes Clark attacking Bush over being AWOL before the RW media whores brought it up? :grr:

[RichardRay]

41. Rhetoric vs Fact

885. ART. 85. DESERTION

(a) Any member of the armed forces who--

(1) without authority goes or remains absent from his unit, organization, or place of duty with intent to remain away therefrom permanently;

(2) quits his unit, organization, or place of duty with intent to avoid hazardous duty or to shirk important service; or

(3) without being regularly separated from one of the armed forces enlists or accepts an appointment in the same or another on of the armed forces without fully disclosing the fact that he has not been regularly separated, or enters any foreign armed service except when authorized by the United States; is guilty of desertion.

(b) Any commissioned officer of the armed forces who, after tender of his resignation and before notice of its acceptance, quits his post or proper duties without leave and with intent to remain away therefrom permanently is guilty of desertion.

(c) Any person found guilty of desertion or attempt to desert shall be punished, if the offense is committed in time of war, by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct, but if the desertion or attempt to desert occurs at any other time, by such punishment, other than death, as a court-martial may direct.

886. ART. 86. ABSENCE WITHOUT LEAVE

Any member of the armed forces who, without authority--

(1) fails to go to his appointed place of duty at the time prescribed;

(2) goes from that place; or

(3) absents himself or remains absent from his unit, organization, or place of duty at which he is required to be at the time prescribed; shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

887. ART. 87. MISSING MOVEMENT

Any person subject to this chapter who through neglect or design misses the movement of a ship, aircraft, or unit with which he is required in the course of duty to move shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.


===========================================================


I don't know whether Guard members are subject to the UCMJ - I don't know how they could be since they're not on active duty and spend most of their time not subject to military discipline. However, even if Bush was on active duty when he wandered away, he still came back on his own stick, so it's hard to make the Desertion charge stick. It also seems unlikely that National Guard service in that place and time could be construed as "hazardous duty" or "important service". If the UCMJ applies than he was AWOL and might have Missed Movement, but he wasn't a deserter.

Rhetoric doesn't mean it's OK to support something that's simply not factual and Clark didn't. Best thing he could have done.....

[Piperay]

42. Since chimp wasn't

legally charged with desertion to keep saying he was a deserter would put other issues on the back-burner. :argh: I agree I am disappointed but I guess :shrug: I see the logic. :-(