Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Peter Jennings did the Dems a huge favor with the "Deserter" question

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
trumad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-04 10:40 PM
Original message
Peter Jennings did the Dems a huge favor with the "Deserter" question
Edited on Thu Jan-22-04 10:41 PM by trumad
I really feel that this time the Bush Awol story will grow legs... It's out there more than ever and it's made stronger by a stronger word than AWOL.."DESERTER"! Faux made a big deal out of it after the debate and was aghast that Wes didn't denounce Moore for saying it... Then Moore strikes back instantly on his web page restating that Bush is a Deserter...

I think this is going to be a big pissing contest which will force the lazy media Ho's to re-investigate it....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MIMStigator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-04 10:42 PM
Response to Original message
1. and don't you owe someone a thank you for that Mr. Trumad?
Edited on Thu Jan-22-04 10:42 PM by MIMStigator
I don't mean Jennings

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trumad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-04 10:45 PM
Response to Reply #1
8. I'm a Clark guy
Edited on Thu Jan-22-04 10:47 PM by trumad
and I wish my canidate would have answered better... LIKE... How come Peter, ABC doesn't investigate it....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MIMStigator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-04 10:46 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. you're right I give him an 8.5 out of 10 for his answer
.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LTR Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-04 10:43 PM
Response to Original message
2. The seed has been planted
Clark kept the ball in play, and without committing political suicide (i.e. thowing the AWOL issue out there).

I know us DUers would salivate over this being brought to the forefront, but let's face it - the average person out there thinks Saddam masterminded 9/11. Let's not overload them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AntiCoup2K4 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-04 10:48 PM
Response to Reply #2
12. Overloading them (i.e.911) is what made them Bush's sheep to begin with...
..maybe a shock will take them out of it? :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kstewart33 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-04 10:44 PM
Response to Original message
3. Clark did a great job with that question
He rose above it. But it's there, and it's fat for others to chew on. A perfect answer from Clark.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
digno dave Donating Member (992 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-04 10:44 PM
Response to Original message
4. Jenning sleight of hand?
Edited on Thu Jan-22-04 11:10 PM by digno dave
you think Jennings was doing that on purpose...bringing up the issue itself, i mean, not the repudiation.

you gotta admit, ABC News is the most liberal of all the News networks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WhoCountsTheVotes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-04 10:45 PM
Response to Original message
5. Kudos to the Scriptwriter for Peter Jennigs!
Jennigs did a really good job reading the question. He prounced all the words correctly, and did a nice job with intonation and all. I'm sure he got A's in acting class.

Glad the issue is out there! Kudos to the uncredited writer who wrote Jennigs' script!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
frank frankly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-04 10:45 PM
Response to Original message
6. yep, the whores were on full display
they are terrified

get ready for SEVERAL October surprises
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gulliver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-04 10:45 PM
Response to Original message
7. Absolutely. It was fantastic.
If that's all people talk about after this debate, Clark will get a nice bump and the AWOL issue will be back on its legs hunting for Bush hiney.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ElsewheresDaughter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-04 10:47 PM
Response to Original message
10. i agree!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KFC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-04 10:48 PM
Response to Original message
11. Agreed - Clark showed a lot of political savvy with his response
Had Clark called Bush a deserter, the media would have gone apeshit against him.

This is obviously not a bullet for the primaries. But Clark deftly saved it for the general election.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TexasPatriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-04 10:52 PM
Response to Reply #11
20. There have been a lot of those lately
and he's proving to be a very good POLITICIAN in choosing how to answer them. It's remarkable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HFishbine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-04 10:48 PM
Response to Original message
13. Moore's Great!
Edited on Thu Jan-22-04 10:48 PM by HFishbine
ATTENTION PETER JENNINGS: George W. Bush is a Deserter!!!

In tonight's presidential debate, Peter Jennings said that I made a reckless charge about Bush being a deserter. The facts are the facts. The Boston Globe, The Washington Post, The New Republic and numerous other publications have all called into question Bush's whereabouts when he was supposed to be serving our country. The only thing reckless is how people like Peter Jennings refuse to report the truth.


http://www.michaelmoore.com/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HuckleB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-04 10:49 PM
Response to Original message
14. I think you might be right.
I sure hope so. Moore's response was beautiful. How does this not get picked up big time?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MIMStigator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-04 10:49 PM
Response to Original message
15. kick
.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
West Coast Democrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-04 10:49 PM
Response to Original message
16. And Clark answered by saying nothing untrue
Yes, not just Michael Moore has brought the AWOL story to the surface...many journalists have delved into it.

It's time for America to find out exactly where Bush* was, and what he was doing, back in 1972. Make BUSH try to defend himself!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
annagull Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-04 10:49 PM
Response to Original message
17. Yep, AWOL is officially a ball in play now
And it looks like the repukes will buy it hook, line and sinker.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Valjean Donating Member (325 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-04 10:50 PM
Response to Original message
18. INADVERTENTLY
Edited on Thu Jan-22-04 10:52 PM by Valjean
They were trying to get him to call Bush a deserter. If he did, they would have turned around and started dancing on their pin like they did with "imminent".

In other words, Bush returned and was given an honorable discharge. So Bush could come out forcefully and say that he was NOT a deserter and still not be lying (in the "I did not have sex with that woman .... Monica Lewinsky fashion). Then they would repeat this tripe against EVERY accusation.

So Peter Jennings TRIED to deep six Clark, but he was outsmarted (no wonder). Peter Jennings did the OPPOSITE of what he wanted. Pre-empting the Bush AWOL because of drug use story.

So I'd say that Michael Moore needs to back up to the AWOL category. Because they can't argue with that. He should certainly publicize the indisputable fact that Bush NEVER took his physical as ordered and was suspended from flying duty. He previously claimed that he "decided" to stop flying because his base in Alabama didn't have F-102s (which it DID).

Beyond this is the absolutely moronic concept that Bush couldn't just fly (or drive) back to Texas once a month to do his duty. After all HE WAS A "QUALIFIED" PILOT RIGHT??? Can't afford a plane??? No problem, Bush's daddy was filthy rich.

Finally there is the issue of avoiding a potential drug test. I'll remind everyone that The Chimp just proposed a new spending program to test students for drugs. He himself was unwilling to be tested and NEVER took a required physical.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dumpster_baby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-04 10:51 PM
Response to Original message
19. I really doubt Bush was AWOL or Deserter
The UCMJ did not apply to him at that time. And those terms are UCMJ terms only. CLark may know that Bush was not under the UCMJ.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trumad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-04 10:55 PM
Response to Reply #19
22. Oh...So you can enlist, take hundreds of thousands of tax payer dollars
to learn how to fly a jet, and then say fuck it, I don't have to go anymore?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trumad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-04 10:57 PM
Response to Reply #19
23. Here ya go dumpster baby...
All you need to know about awol and desertion...

http://awolbush.com/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kentuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-04 11:00 PM
Response to Reply #19
24. If the UCMJ doesn't apply to the National Guard, then what rules do....
apply? I don't think you are allowed to just skip out anytime you wish because don't you also take an oath when you go into the Guard?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Old and In the Way Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-04 11:20 PM
Response to Reply #19
30. Actually, I believe if you are absent without authorization for 30
days, you are categorized as a deserter. Bush has to show no gaps in his record that were not covered under authorization to prove he was not a deserter.

It goes to the heart of the character issue. The fact is, Bush has none.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zech Marquis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-04 10:53 PM
Response to Original message
21. very surprised that Jennings brought it up
almost like this is being saved for a rainy day... :tinfoilhat:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNN0LHI Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-04 11:09 PM
Response to Reply #21
26. Its been bubbling for a few days
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/20018...

<snip>PEMBROKE, N.H. Wesley Clark suggested yesterday that questions remain about President Bush's Vietnam-era service in the Texas Air National Guard, but the retired general stopped short of endorsing a comment by actor-director Michael Moore that Bush was "a deserter." snip

Bush served as a pilot in the Texas Air National Guard from May 1968 to October 1973, mostly flying F-102 fighter interceptors. He did not go to Vietnam.

Bush spent most of his time in the Guard based near Houston, but in May 1972 he received a three-month assignment in Alabama with the 187th Tactical Recon Unit in Montgomery while he worked on a political campaign in the state.

Retired Gen. William Turnipseed, a commander at the Alabama base, said during the 2000 presidential campaign that he never saw Bush appear for duty. Bush maintains he was there, but records have never been produced to document that.

more

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gulliver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-04 11:05 PM
Response to Original message
25. Anyone else think Jennings was on our side on that one?
It's possible.

He called the charges unsubstantiated, but why did he even bring it up? Does anyone think the GOP wants it brought up at all?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWebHead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-04 11:12 PM
Response to Original message
27. so who in the WH press core
will have the guts to ask * to address this? and will * respond by asking if he wants to order some ribs to boost the economy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
David Zephyr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-04 11:13 PM
Response to Original message
28. Trumad, You Just May Be On to Something.
Hmmmmmmmmmmm.

I think you are right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Rinaldo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-04 11:17 PM
Response to Original message
29. Clark took a big risk for us too.
The set up was to embarrass Clark into disavowing Moore, because at this stage the percentage of the voting public who have heard anything about Bush being a deserter is tiny, and the charge sounds really really radical. Most people think the charge is blatantly false. Everyone KNOWS Bush served in the National Guard, how could he be a deserter? "He's run for Governor, he's run for President, you can't hide something like that, can you?" It SOUNDS like a wild conspiracy theory, like "the Jews" having advance knowledge about 9/11 or something of that order.

By pointedly NOT disavowing the statement, Clark left it dangling out there, forcing the media to "look into it" for him. This is risky for Clark. He called Michael Moore a great American leader during his answer. He said Moore had every right to express that opinion. Clark did not throw cold water on "Bush as deserter", rather he pointedly praised the man making the claim.

The point is Clark is on the ballot in 4 days. His chances to become President go up or down in a serious way sooner rather than later. It is one thing to be Ralph Nader, or someone like that, with absolutely no chance to get into the oval office where the levers of power are and someone can actually make an immediate HUGE difference. Nader can say whatever the fuck he wants, he has nothing to lose only to gain, by being direct and controversial. Even Howard Dean said, when he was raked over for bringing up a "conspiracy theory" against Bush, that "I don't believe it, it's just something I heard" or words to that effect. I don't fault Dean for that in the slightest, I am just pointing out the risk Clark has taken now.

Clark did not disavow it. He is being treated by the media as if he made the claim himself because he would not disavow it. The pressure on Clark for not caving during the debate, for not backing away from Moore, is going to be intense over the next few days. I hope we leftists don't go "holier than thou" on Clark now, and get hung up about Clark not taking an even more radical stance than he did. We have been given an opening to make this into a National issue. Clark stood his ground for us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNN0LHI Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-04 11:23 PM
Response to Reply #29
32. I think you just said a mouthful n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
quaker bill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-04 11:22 PM
Response to Original message
31. I don't know
Either he was trying to do Clark by association to Moore, or he was trying to bring up the deserter theme. The preface to the question being that you can "judge the character of a man by the company he keeps" leads me to think he was trolling for a soundbite.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Oct 20th 2017, 08:42 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC