Posted on 01/26/2004 8:27:34 AM PST by .cnI redruM
The Saturday before last, filmmaker Michael Moore, appearing at a rally with Wesley Clark, called President Bush a "deserter." Then, during last Thursday night's Democratic debate in New Hampshire, ABC's Peter Jennings took Clark to task for Moore's remark:
General Clark, a lot of people say they don't [know] you well, so this is really a simple question about knowing a man by his friends. The other day you had a rally here, and one of the men who stood up to endorse you is the controversial filmmaker Michael Moore. You said you were delighted with him.
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.
This has to be the most hostile and slanted debate question I've seen in a long time. Let's stipulate that Moore is a deranged demagogue with an allergy to the truth, and that the almost-inevitable grief Clark takes as a result of his unfathomable decision to appear beside him is, at some level, deserved. Nonetheless, Jennings's question symbolizes the unfair double-standard reporters have long applied to the question of presidents and military service.
The first thing to point out here is that claiming the charge that Bush is a deserter is "not supported by the facts" is, at the very least, an overprotective interpretation. Reporters have pretty clearly established that Bush did not show up for a year of his service in the Texas National Guard, in contradiction to Bush's account in his book A Charge to Keep. Documentation for that can be found, for instance, in this Boston Globe article. The fact that the mainstream media paid little attention to Bush's spotty military service during the 2000 campaign relegated it to the fringes of Internet discourse, and gave it a taint of nuttiness that Moore's embrace only enhanced. But it's not wacko to say that Bush failed to fulfill his duty merely because most of the people who say so happen to be wackos.
Is it fair to call Bush a "deserter"? Not precisely. Even if he went AWOL during his service for the National Guard, which seems highly likely, most people understand the term "deserter" to mean someone who flees his post during combat. Bush did serve during the Vietnam War, but he was safely ensconced in Texas. (If you reject the charge that Bush was a deserter, then you must also reject the spin that he was valiantly protecting the country during wartime.) Calling Bush a deserter, in other words, is hyperbolic. But it's not the outright fiction Jennings made it out to be.
The closest parallel is President Clinton and Vietnam. As a young man, Clinton attempted to pull family strings to avoid service in Vietnam, and was later able to abandon those efforts when he received a favorable draft lottery number. Republicans, including George Herbert Walker Bush, characterized this as draft-dodging. In fact, "draft-dodging" means avoiding the draft illegally, which Clinton did not do. But prominent members of the press did not flatly refute the charge, or demand that Bush renounce it. Republicans, it seems, have carte blanche to level irresponsible charges at Democrats when it comes to military service. But the media cuts Democrats--even one with as unimpeachable a record of service as Wesley Clark--no such slack.
Finally, there's Jennings editorial comment that the episode shows that you "know a man by his friends." As I said, Clark's appearance with Moore does not speak well of him. (As this week's Notebook points out, Moore has described the Kosovo intervention, which is Clark's crowning achievement, as an act of genocide.) But President Bush has plenty of nutty supporters, too. He has been endorsed by--to take just one example--Pat Roberston, who makes Moore look measured by comparison. If Moore's endorsement disqualifies Clark for the presidency, then the media should have disqualified Bush years ago.
"Cry baby, cry. Make your momma sigh. You're old enough to know better. Cry baby, cry."
But President Bush has plenty of nutty supporters, too. He has been endorsed by--to take just one example--Pat Roberston, who makes Moore look measured by comparison. If Moore's endorsement disqualifies Clark for the presidency, then the media should have disqualified Bush years ago.
Has Bush appeared on stage with Pat Robertson? Has he touted his endorsement on his website and in campaign rallies? Did Robertson say in front of Bush something equally rotten as what Moore said about Bush, and did Bush refuse to refute him? No!
And by the way, I love how libs talk about Robertson and Falwell as they were the real movers and shakers in the Republican Party. I hardly see either of them mentioned on this conservative site, and if they are, it's in a derogatory fashion (example -- when they said we caused 9/11 by our country's decadence.) The only people who take those two seriously anymore are liberals in the media!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.