Bush will be able to hide - unless Kerry calls him AWOL

[bushwakker]

for nearly a month the campaign has been consumed by bogus assertions about what John Kerry did 30 years ago. The idea that that CNN and the like will not be interested in assertions about what George W. Bush DID NOT do 30 years ago is crazy. If the Kerry campaign asks the questions they will be on this like flies to shit. We need to throw Bush off guard and the Swft Boat Liars have given us the opportunity. When not on script Bush and the lackeys who work for him look weak and stupid. They can't explain where Bush was in 1972 because he was arrested on a drug-ralated offense. Do I have proof? No I don't. But I do know that Helen Thomas (a 90 year old woman is the only person in DC with balls - pathetic) asked McClellan if Bush did community service in the early 70's - and he would not and could not deny it. Just a lot of yadda yadda yadda. Couple that with the Salon story recently in which it seemed apparent that the family wanted to get him out of Houston to work on that campaign in 'Bama and we have the makings of a scandal - or at least an opportunity to put THEM on the defensive.

Bush has denied getting special treatment to get into the guard. Ben Barnes will be on 60 Minutes to put the lie to that. I say the next day on the stump Kerry call Bush out - mano a mano as Bush would say.

[unblock]

1. bush has been AWOL on the economy. bush has been AWOL on jobs

that's the way to attack on AWOL.

the point is that you don't directly accuse him of being literally awol in the national guard. that's too direct and unseemly, at least, for kerry himself (ok for more distant surrogates).

but by constantly using the term AWOL in contexts OTHER THAN the national guard, the point is driven home without having to make it directly. moreover, when you call bush "AWOL on jobs", you get TWO attacks in only 3 words!!

[bushwakker]

4. Just ask him where he was...

no one seems to know what this fucker was doing for a year. Kerry is well within his right to ask nsince what he was doing during that time has been questioned. You can be cute about it - don't say AWOL -let CNN reach that conclusion. There is an official definition which I'm willing to bet Bush qualifies for. Something went down with Bush during this time period - this is the way to get there. You see - the Swift Boat Liars have given us an opportunity that must be seized.

[Bluebear]

2. "Mano a mano as Bush would say."

"Que bueno! Look, now I'm bilngual too!" Remember that smarmy little comment when a reporter spoke French to pres. Chirac?

[Bread and Circus]

3. All the Democratic talking heads need to do every time this

comes up is just raise the issue: "I'd like to know where was George Bush was during those years when he was supposed to have served in the guard. I've heard that he failed to report for duty and I would like some clarification on it."

And if even if the White House tries to clarify they just reiterate the same statement over and over and over and over.

The point is to raise uncertainty and doubt. You don't have to even have a legitimate question. Even if the answer is legitimate it doesn't matter. As long as people keep hearing the question they will think less favorably of Bush. The fact that he truly was AWOL is a convienent truth. It's not essential, but it helps.

However, the Democrats don't do this. Rather, they leave it to Michael Moore to do the heavy lifting and when he gets his credibility ripped apart by the RW smear machine, they abandon him to the wolves and wash their hands of his blood.

[bushwakker]

5. Kerry has to start it because

if dem talking heads start asking, eventually the media will ask JK if he is on board with this line of attack. he should be the lead dog on the attack - not the follower. if he's not willing to go this route then why ask others to?

[Leilani]

6. I seem to remember Wes Clark

paying a heavy price for this during the primaries.

Remember the debate, where Clark would not say Moore was wrong, & they kept pounding him? He really got screwed on that. And some other Dems, who shall remain nameless, left him twisting in the wind.

And we Clarkies were told it was the wrong time to discuss the issue.

[bushwakker]

7. what was that about?

my mind has drawn a blank?

[girl gone mad]

8. I remember.

Moore called Bush AWOL and the moderaters tried to get Clark to denounce Moore and refuse his endorsement or something like that.

Clark wouldn't, he simply said that Moore had a right to his opinion.

Clark was right, but you and I both know the media would be hounding him to this day for being endorsed by Moore. They would be calling him an extremist and probably a terrorist. Grrr.. (Clark was my candidate).

[Bread and Circus]

9. The problem wasn't Clark failing to denounce Moore....

The problem was that Clark and the other candidates failed to join in a chorus of "If the possibility that Bush was AWOL exists, then I'd like to get some clarification on that. Neither the press nor the Bush Administration have done so. I think the public has a right to know how the Commander-in-Chief fulfills his obligations".

If they had done that, Clark, Moore, and the position of the opposition would have been strengthened.

However, as Dean puts it, the cockroaches scattered.

[bushwakker]

10. Kerry doesn't have to say AWOL, just ask

why he never showed up.

[Toots]

11. Moore called Bush* a Deserter not just AWOL

That is a much stronger statement and not at all true as Bush*'s Honorable Discharge shows. The charge of AWOL has traction though. Plus the charge of disobeying an order to take a required flight physical. They need to attack with truth and not exaggeration. That is Moore's greatest failing. He uses far too much exaggeration and not just plain facts.