During last week's Democratic presidential debate, Peter Jennings scolded Wesley Clark for not scolding Michael Moore after Moore called President Bush a "deserter." Here's Jennings:
“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.”
Here's ABC anchor Peter Jennings, flatly declaring that allegations that Bush didn't show up for guard duty are "reckless" and "not supported by the facts." On the one hand, it isn't surprising -- ABC News, in the four years the facts have been known, hasn't bothered to air a single story on the topic.* On the other hand, it's shocking, given that the overwhelming evidence is that Bush didn't show up for duty when he was supposed to (see Watching the Detectives and this Boston Globe article and this Dallas Morning News story for details.)
But Jennings doesn't even have to do any research to find the "facts" about this issue, if he cares. He can just ask the head of ABC's Political Unit, the esteemed Mark Halperin. Halperin and his staff write a daily web publication called "The Note." Here's what they've said about Bush & the Guard:
“…there doesn't seem to be much of a record that the president actually served his time in Alabama during his National Guard days…”
I've said this before, and I'll say it again: I don't know where George Bush was in 1972/73. But the evidence suggests -- as ABC's Political Director, the Boston Globe, and the Dallas Morning News seem to understand -- that Bush didn't show up for duty at least some of the times he was supposed to. Calling him a "deserter" may be an overly-aggressive choice of words, but it sure isn't "reckless," and it damn sure isn't "not supported by the facts."
For Jennings to suggest that it is -- and to suggest that Clark was being unethical by not criticizing Moore -- is shocking, reckless, and not supported by the facts.
And it looks like Mark Halperin would agree, if he dares take on the Great Peter Jennings.
UPDATE: Mark Kleiman addresses this issue far more sucinctly than I, and makes some good points.
UPDATE II: Donald Sensing makes a pretty good case that the military definition of "desertion" doesn't apply to Bush. As I've said all along, that word may be too strong -- but missing the forest for the trees. The important point is, Bush apparently didn't show up for duty when he was supposed to. Was he convicted of "desertion"? No. Was Bill Clinton convicted of perjury? No. How many people hesitate to say he perjured himself? Somewhere in the neighborhood of "zero." How many people call it a "reckless charge" when someone says Clinton is a perjurer? Again, a very small number.
You're a braver woman than I it was weeks before I could even begin to think about looking at the incisions from my lap. Even now I don't like to touch them.
They're...squishy.
Posted by: christian louboutin | October 29, 2010 at 02:29 AM