Bush. Clark. AWOL. Deserter. Moore.

I imagine that many MO readers also read Donald Sensing’s One Hand Clapping and Bill Hobbs’ HobbsOnline. If you don’t? Start.

Here’s their coverage of the “President Bush was AWOL from the Air National Guard” story.

Bush, Clark, Michael Moore and the charge of desertion on One Hand Clapping

Bill Hobbs has an entire category dedicated to the issue.

Scrappleface weighs in, as well, with Clark Thought Moore Called Bush ‘Desserter’. (Is ‘Scott Ott’ really a group of 8 writers (whose names begin with the letters S, C, O, T, T, O, T, and T – pulling the old ABBA trick)? There’s no way that one human brain could come up with such consistently good material day in and day out.)

Here’s MO’s take on the issue: I have trouble buying the whole “Bush went AWOL” idea, but I’m open to the possibility. I challenge the eventual Democratic nominee to make an issue out of it during the campaign. If Bush stonewalls, it will appear to be an admission of guilt and voters will know. If the charge is proven false, the voters will know.

But if we just get a lot of the same old same old, I’m not buying it. Bush is strongest on his foreign policy and the War on Terror. This AWOL charge could undo a lot of support for his leadership on those issues if true. If the Democratic challenger doesn’t play that card, I’m writing it off completely and forever.

(I will note that perhaps Clark’s handling of the issue may be the groundwork for such a move if he wins the nomination.)

And as for Michael Moore? Why on earth does anyone care if Moore endorses anyone? The only people who will be swayed by Moore’s opinion were already going to vote Democrat. The Democrats seem to be running a campaign to beat each other, not Bush. Whoever wins the nomination is probably going to get blown away in November.


  1. How about a little closer look? http://www.awolbush.com/ is biased of course, but points at some good sources. Sources that at least invite some pretty good questions. No one at Hobbs seemed to actually respond to the real question. Blaming something on ‘paperwork’ was a tactic used with the Harken (sp?) Energy amazingly-prescient-but-not-insider-trading claims, too. http://www.cis.net/~coldfeet/document.htm http://www.awolbush.com/document99.asp

  2. MP, you missed the point of my post. I’m challenging a Democrat to bring this up openly. If someone thinks the case is strong enough to do so, I’ll challenge Bush to defend himself openly. Running around to pro-Bush and anti-Bush sites isn’t going to change anyone’s mind. Either get it out in the open on the national stage or SHUT UP about it.

  3. And yes, I have definitely checked out that site. I’ve checked out dozens of sites, most of them anti-Bush. I don’t have the answer. If it’s that important, someone legitimate should bring it up.

  4. Come on, it’s not an issue unless someone running for president brings it up? And risk the wrath of the ‘don’t challenge the president during war it’s unpatriotic’ press? Why is the 5th Estate giving him a pass on this? Perhaps it will come up later, but that doesn’t mean it’s not worth questioning now. Many people have been trying to get it out into the public debate. Should we have ignored the absent bullet-proof vests? The 767 tankers? Monica Lewinski? Newt’s mistress? Henry Hydes affairs? This is the commander-in-chief and the evidence suggests he very well might have been AWOL. Can’t we have Novak look into it? He’s not afraid to expose sensitive information.

  5. I didn’t say it wasn’t an issue. It might be. But for Clark to ‘let’ Michael Moore bring it up and then dodge around the issue afterwords looks a little cowardly. Not that he’s the only one that uses that tactic. But I’m sick of it. The 767 and the body armor DID make the mainstream press, albeit not as front-page news. I believe that the internet helped bring those issues to the forefront. A problem with the Bush AWOL issue is that no one is going to take http://www.bushcankissmyass.com seriously, and that’s what the majority of the AWOL sites are. And yes, I’m calling myself illegitimate. I mean, do you read my site? Do you see the stuff I write? I rest my case.

  6. Come on, do you think Clark really wants to have Moore speaking for him? He can’t say ‘Don’t support me’ to him either. Moore is a wacky bully who has some good insights occasionally. Who decides who speaks for whom in campaigns in particular? Does Cheney speak for Bush? Does Ann Coulter? Don’t make me review some of the things she has said as a Con pundit. I think we should stick to statements from a person or an authorized rep.

  7. MP said ‘I think we should stick to statements from a person or an authorized rep.’ The statement that sticks with me was: ‘I am delighted to have the support of a man like Michael Moore’ Unfortunately, that says a lot about a candidate. The context it was said in removed any real possibility that all he meant was ‘I’m delighted he’s chosen to vote for me.’ I’m not sure how he did it, but over the last few months, Clark has lost any good chance of getting the vote of this centrist who’s desperately looking to the Democratic party to give me a candidate I can vote for to get Bush out of there. And I was quite excited when he joined the race. Such a waste… Now, back to your regularly scheduled http://www.bushawol.com plugging…

  8. Why can’t Clark tell Moore ‘don’t support me’? Afraid he might lose the Michael Moore demographic? (I mean Moore’s fans, not the zip code that moves around with him wherever he goes.)