Why is McAuliffe talking about KERRY and 'AWOLBush' when it was Clark ?

[Hoppin_Mad]

and Michael Moore who brought this issue to the forefront ?

Another CLEAR example of the DNC blatently shoving their 'insider' candidate down America's throats at the expense of a candidate with real 'grassroots' support - Not to mention failing to give credit to Clark and Moore on 'AWOLBush' !

He's already 'declared' Kerry the nominee !

The DNC makes me sick.



"I look forward to that debate when John Kerry, a war hero with a chest full of medals, is standing next to George Bush, a man who was AWOL in the Alabama National Guard," Mr. McAuliffe said in an interview on the ABC News program "This Week." "George Bush never served in our military in our country. He didn't show up when he should have showed up. And there's John Kerry on the stage with a chest full of medals that he earned by saving the lives of American soldiers. So, as John Kerry says, `Bring it on!' "


http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/01/politics/campaign/01CND-CAMP.html?hp

---

We've just BEGUN to fight !

[bicentennial_baby]

1. Clark took a bullet for the Dem party

by standing up for Michael Moore's right to free speech. Fuck Kerry and fuck McAuliffe, imho.

[cal04]

18. McAuliffe and Establishment Democrats

I just wrote a letter to the DNC and told them this is not neutral and they should let the americans vote, they should not choose our nominee.

McAuliffe:
I don't know if John Kerry will be the nominee. I have to be neutral towards all of them
Hours before the polls closed, John Kerry was standing in the street outside his primary night headquarters, all but certain of another victory. Democratic Party chairman Terry McAuliffe leaned out his car window in a vain attempt to get Kerry's attention and yelled, "Go get 'em, John!

STEPHANOPOULOS
Establishment Democrats in Washington breathed a huge sigh of relief when John Kerry won again in New Hampshire.

[pocoloco]

25. Took the words right outta my mouth!!

n/t

[Carolina]

38. that ticks me off so much

I'm sending money to Clark AND Dean.

All that DNC crap that still comes to me in the mail (despite my numerous requests to be removed from the mailing list) is being marked:

Clark for President
McAuliffe for Trash Collector

and returned on their dime.

With Dems like the DNC/DLC cabal, who needs Rove. How dare they ignore Clark, demonize Dean and annoint Kerry.

[MODemocrat]

47. Carolina, McAuliffe wouldn't even make a good Trash collector

In my opinion, the DLC has given Gen. Clark and Howard Dean the shaft, and it really irks me. If the Democratic party misses out on two good people like Wes Clark and Howard Dean, then we are the losers. Those two could do so much for this country, and it would be something new instead of the same ole same ole.
Just watching television here in the Kansas City area, it's as if the nomination is over and Kerry is the next president. I get so sick of the news media picking my president for me. They should have to court us to get our vote, but they just figure it's automatic and a shoe in.
:shrug: :spank:

[slinkerwink]

2. I noticed that!

[sandnsea]

3. Gotta' do things right

Moore called Bush a deserter. That was the wrong word. Put Clark in a tough spot. Clark chose to simply say Moore could have his opinion.

Kerry said deserter is over the top, and it is. Nullified Moore and Clark. But when Bush went after his record, he fired right back.

That is and has been the difference for over a year now. That's why when Kerry is in the lead, Bush's poll numbers go down. The way he attacks Bush is more effective.

[JI7]

12. didn't clark later say he disagreed with moore also?

[sandnsea]

14. I have no idea

I only know that Moore used the wrong word and that's the problem. And it's the problem with alot of things left-leaning Democrats say against Bush. Facts and correct language are critical to beating Bush. Howard Dean never did get that and still doesn't.

[Donna Zen]

27. No

Clark took a bullet for freedom of speech and Kerry gets the medal.

[maxr4clark]

44. No, Clark said it wasn't his issue.

Moore brought up the issue, and Clark defended his right to do so. Clark said he is more interested in what is going on now, on what Bush has done as President. And Clark is right: what Bush has done as President disturbs me much more than what he may or may not have done to get out of the Vietnam War. Issues that are what, 25 years old, and haven't made a substantial difference in that time, are not going to decide this election. There's plenty to complain about that comes from Bush's time in office, and that is much more appropriate to choosing a President this year.

[Strelnikov_]

15. Actually, It Was The Right Word

“Danielsen, provost marshal at Fort Bragg, wants possible deserters to imagine being on the run for the rest of their lives.
"They should turn themselves in because eventually they'll be caught," Danielsen said. "That federal warrant remains valid for 40 years."
"That federal warrant" is issued the moment a soldier crosses the line between absent without leave and desertion. A soldier who does not show up for duty is classified as AWOL for 30 days. After that, he or she becomes an official deserter. During a time of war, the 30-day grace period disappears, she said.
At that point, the soldier is on the run. The federal warrant shows up when a police officer scans the person's record, or when a potential employer does a credit check, Danielsen said. And the pressure doesn't let up for the next four decades. If the soldier is caught, the nearest military authorities show up to cart him or her back to the parent unit.”

http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/printer_3714.shtml

[sandnsea]

20. intending to not return

That's desertion. Intending not to return. If you can find one case of a person convicted of desertion when they were AWOL, stateside, during Vietnam, I'd be surprised.

[Toucano]

30. Suprise!

"In considering desertion/AWOL offenses, Professor Gabriel wrongly infers that desertion/AWOL occurred in combat units. Nothing could be further from the fact. The "desertion per thousand" rate cited by Professor Gabriel was for the Marine Corps as a whole, not for the Marine Corps in Vietnam exclusively. Most cases (more than 99 percent) occurred in stateside units or among individuals assigned to Camp Pendleton, California, for transfer to Vietnam. These stateside desertions were of the administrative type (that is, absence in excess of thirty days) rather than desertion in the face of combat."

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1981/may-jun/parks.htm

[sandnsea]

32. The Marines were tougher

"The Marine Corps took even the slightest infraction to trial, whereas the Army very early in the war began referring most of its offenses to nonjudicial punishment.."

And, the article does differentiate:

"These stateside desertions were of the administrative type (that is, absence in excess of thirty days) rather than desertion in the face of combat."

And it doesn't address stateside "desertion" and what anybody was actually charged with.

[Toucano]

34. Excuse me. I thought you said it simply didn't happen.

"If you can find one case of a person convicted of desertion when they were AWOL, stateside, during Vietnam, I'd be surprised."

Clearly it did happen.

Non-judicial punishment may have included a dishonorable discharge, which is what Bush deserved (at least).

It doesn't matter to me that he was in the Guard instead of the marines. He jumped ahead of 500 people to get into the guard anyway, and didn't belong there.

[sandnsea]

35. Actually, you haven't

You've got an article that says someone prosecuted in-country deserters. You've got an article that says the Army dealt with "deserters" administratively. You've got an article that differentiates the two. And you've got nothing on what actually happened to people who were AWOl, stateside. Even in the Marines.

I agree with you that Bush did not deserve an honorable discharge, not remotely. But that's not the same as desertion in war time which is punishable by death.

[Toucano]

37. There were stateside soldiers tried and convicted of desertion.

"I tried several Marines at the Second Marine Division during 1968 who had returned voluntarily from lengthy desertions (one of more than four years) in order that they could serve in Vietnam and redeem themselves (each was convicted but given a suspended sentence)." From the same link earlier.

The fact that they weren't given the maximum punishment allowed isn't relevent.

Michael Moore never said Bush should be put to death. The pundits brought out the death penalty to make charges seem more outrageous.

This also speaks to your 'intent" argument. We know that several who deserters who voluntarily returned (just as Dubya did) were convicted of desertion.

I realize the Guard isn't the Marines, but it did happen to US Soldiers who were stateside during the Vietnam era.

[Toucano]

39. I just want to add

thank you sandnsea for convincing me that Michael Moore was right.

If you handn't challenged the issue, I wouldn't have learned what I know now.

[sandnsea]

43. They went to Vietnam

It doesn't say what they did with people who didn't voluntarily turn themselves in and agree to go to Vietnam. The people IN Vietnam were given sentences. This article does not say how they processed people who were AWOL, stateside.

[vision]

49. according to Greg Palast & Lt. Colonel Bill Burkett

If Bush went AWOL, this would have been desertion during wartime. "Punishment for Air National guardsmen who missed two days of work was to be sent to Vietnam," Burkett also said, according to Palast, interviewed in Santa Monica, California, before flying to London to broadcast the expose. http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=238&row=1

Either Lt. Col Burkett was lying or some soldiers were punished for being AWOL stateside.

[krkaufman]

56. To the root issue, though...

Bottom line is, according to the rules Bush should have been classified as a deserter after 30 days AWOL.

[krkaufman]

54. Bush *was* a deserter

Actually, AWOL is no more accurate than deserter, if you wanna get down to it, since no military authority charged him with either offense. And, IIRC, once you're Absent Without Leave for 30+ days, you're flagged as a deserter.

Bush was both, but the argument is muted somewhat by his ridiculous honorable discharge.

[MrBenchley]

4. Ummmm....

Isn't the IMPORTANT part of McAuliffe's message "George Bush, a man who was AWOL in the Alabama National Guard...George Bush never served in our military in our country. He didn't show up when he should have showed up."?

Sure seems that way to me. Let's see the unelected drunk start having to dispute that point NOW.

[JohnKleeb]

6. I like the way you think Benchley

Terry yep.

[The Magistrate]

46. Indeed, Mr. Benchley

It would seem to me a good thing if this matter is being spoken of by the professionals leading the Party. That means it is not going to go away, and may have real impact. Certainly, should Sen. Kerry become the nominee, and the enemy make some attempt to appeal to reactiobary veterans by smearing the Senator's opposition to the war in Viet Nam, after his decorated combat sevice in it, this item would be a most effective riposte.

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[MAlibdem]

5. I saw it too

To be fair, he repeatedly said "or whoever the democratic nominee will be"...and said that he had to remain impartial, that is fairly selective quoting.

But, it did appear McAuliffe liked Kerry, perhaps more than the other candidates.

[Devlzown]

7. It wasn't like that.

George Steph. was asking McAuliffe about the soft-on-defense charges against Kerry, and McAuliffe just went into a rant about Bush and the AWOL stuff. I'm not a Kerry or a Clark supporter, nor do I have anything against either, I just saw the show and that's the way it seemed to me.

[emulatorloo]

8. Yes, b'cuz McAuliffe was asked about RNC attacks on Kerry n/t

[Toucano]

9. It's no longer "over-the-top"

as Kerry once said it was.

It was only over the top when it could damage Clark. Now that the damage is done, it's acceptable to talk about it again.

Goodbye, grassroots! What were you thinking, anyway?

[sandnsea]

13. AWOL does not make a deserter

It's not the same thing in the military. Too bad Moore didn't know that.

[Toucano]

16. That's been argued here before.

It technically depends on how long he was gone. He very well could have been considered a deserter.

http://www.michaelmoore.com
The army defines a “deserter” -- also known as a DFR, for “dropped from rolls” – as one who is AWOL 31 days or more: http://www-ari.army.mil/pdf/s51.pdf.


Kerry's lack of leadership in this case troubles and angers me.

[sandnsea]

23. Intent

Intent is everything when deciding desertion.

“(a) Any member of the armed forces who—

(1) without authority goes or remains absent from his unit, organization, or place of duty with intent to remain away therefrom permanently;

(2) quits his unit, organization, or place of duty with intent to avoid hazardous duty or to shirk important service; or

(3) without being regularly separated from one of the armed forces enlists or accepts an appointment in the same or another one of the armed forces without fully disclosing the fact that he has not been regularly separated, or enters any foreign armed service except when authorized by the United States Note: This provision has been held not to state a separate offense by the United States Court of Military Appeals in United States v. Huff, 7 U.S.C.M.A. 247, 22 C.M.R. 37 (1956); is guilty of desertion.

(b) Any commissioned officer of the armed forces who, after tender of his resignation and before notice of its acceptance, quits his post or proper duties without leave and with intent to remain away therefrom permanently is guilty of desertion.

http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/mcm/bl85.htm?once=true&

[Toucano]

26. Intent is a factor.

Had the military chosen to bring charges against Bush after 30 days of being AWOL, they would have had to prove intent. I don't think they would have had trouble proving intent if they had charged him at the time. He was gone for two years!

In May of 1972 Bush's request to be transferred was denied. He didn't go back for a YEAR after that! I wonder what he intended to do? Certainly not what he was ordered to do!

It's smarmy opportunism for Kerry to pick up the issue now.

[sandnsea]

28. They didn't do that then

They didn't charge people who were AWOL, stateside, with desertion. They just didn't. You pretty much have to be in an actual war zone to get charged with desertion.

[Toucano]

33. Please see post #30 n/t

[cryofan]

THey made us memorize parts of military law in the Navy

And I can tell you this: once you are AWOL from your post for 30 days, you are a deserter. Period. End of story. Anyone who has ever been in the military boot camp or Officer Candidate School will tell you that, because they had to memorize the same thing. Except Bush, who never had to go to Officer Candidate School, because he got a "special commission" through his family connection. And then he was given a free pass when he went AWOL, and when he deserted after being AWOL for 30 days.

[cryofan]

41. dupe

And I can tell you this: once you are AWOL from your post for 30 days, you are a deserter. Period. End of story. Anyone who has ever been in the military boot camp or Officer Candidate School will tell you that, because they had to memorize the same thing. Except Bush, who never had to go to Officer Candidate School, because he got a "special commission" through his family connection. And then he was given a free pass when he went AWOL, and when he deserted after being AWOL for 30 days.

[Leilani]

21. Exactly

Clark took the punch..

Kerry gets the glory...

Kerry had his chance to back Clark..

Instead he stabbed him in the back...

And to Kerry people: don't give me any semantics crap about AWOL vs.
deserter!!!

[JI7]

10. wasn't he responding to questions about Kerry specifically

i believe he was asked about kerry specifically .

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hoppin_Mad]

29. Is it the NYT you're accusing of being Freepers, or me - 'Hav' ? -nt-

[girl gone mad]

11. As usual,

Kerry lets others fight the battles, and then when he sees there's popular support for whatever the message may be, he runs with a watered-down version of it.

He's done it over and over in the campaign. He wouldn't have gotten anywhere if he hadn't co-opted Dean's anti-special interest and anti-war message.

[Toucano]

17. Bingo!

That's leadership, the Kerry way!

[MoonRiver]

19. No matter who gets the nom, I won't contribute to the DNC, just candidates

They just sent me my DNC membership card and a solicitation for funds. Too bad, Terry should have given MY candidate the credit he deserved today. :mad:

[AbbeyRoad]

22. Wow and Double Wow

That's almost verbatim what Michael Moore said at that Clark Rally except for the substitution of Kerry for Clark and " was AWOL" for "deserter."

Will Kerry face the same number of questions about McAuliffe's characterization of Bush? I highly doubt it. How convenient for the Kerry campaign that Clark cleared the brush so they could follow in his path.

[Voltaire99]

31. McAuliffe's lowest hour

After a career of crawling after big money and bending his ear to every wish of his corporate patrons, Terry McAuliffe did not suggest a man who could sink lower, and yet here he has done with this sickening appeal to nationalism and militarism.

At a time when we need desperately to scale back our military empire, McAuliffe is out beating the drums of more war with this pathetic appeal of Kerry's "chest full of medals." Never mind that Kerry denounced the Vietnam war in which they were won. Never mind that this kind of Republican-style chest-thumping will cost the Democrats the progressive vote.

The answer, in short, to Bush strutting around on aircraft carriers is not to resurrect the vile memory of American mass murder in Southeast Asia and deem it "heroic."

This is far more irresponsible and damaging an outburst than anything out of Howard Dean. The party is going to alienate many with this sad, misguided lurch to the right for the NASCAR dads, and it just doesn't seem to give a damn. Pathetic!

[IndianaGreen]

45. Nothing like seeing the Democrats out-PNAC Bush barf!

Vietnam War is over!

Vietnam won the war!

The Vietnamese people are better off with us gone!

Vietnamese are now living in peace despite our best efforts to murder them 40 years ago!

The Vietnamese were fighting against a foreign oppressor. Anyone with a knowledge of Vietnamese history knows that America had replaced the French as a colonial power. No one should have gone to Vietnam anymore than they should have gone to Iraq. America was not made "safer" by the American and Vietnamese blood that was needlessly shed over there.

If nothing else, this is why Kerry is unfit for the Presidency. He has turned his back on who he was when he opposed the Vietnam War, and he has become an accomplice in a new war.

[TheDonkey]

36. Terry has stood up for all the canidates and is nuetral while bashing bush

You've taken his comments out of context (ie: what was the question he was answereing). And ignored everything he said during the convo. and his after breifing aired on CSPAN. He's doing a great job now and people still feel the need to bash him.

[KittyWampus]

40. For The Record: Kerry Only Has THREE Medals

which he did NOT throw over the fence in Washington back in the day...

And Clark is the one with a literal CHEST FULL including Knighthoods!

[windansea]

42. barffffffffffffff

:puke:

[Hippo_Tron]

48. Ahh screw the DNC.

After the 2002 election they've lost their credibility. I swear to god if you looked them up in the dictionary you would get the definition "Spineless organization of the democratic party" and a picture of Tom Daschle.

[Terwilliger]

50. Michael Moore

Clark brought NOTHING to this

[in_cog_ni_to]

51. That's it!

Now I have to write asshole McAuliffe ANOTHER email! :grr: It's QUITE obvious who HE has chosen to be the nominee. He's not going to like this email!

Go Wes!

[xrepub]

52. I cannot agree with you

I am a Clark supporter, and I saw the interview. From where I sat McAuliffe was fair to all candidates.

[John_H]

53. He's worried about money. He wants it over ASAP.

I'm afraid, Mr. Chairman, we're in for a long one.

[Forkboy]

55. Good to hear

would have been even better had he said it in 2000.

[bigfishsmallpond]

57. Dean for DNC Chair

if the preferred option doesn't work out (Pres)
as much as I would love him as President. opening up a can of whoop ass on the internal party machine would be an acceptable consolation prize.

I am inspired by Dean, but I am a pragmatist first and foremost so I would love some kind of Clark/Dean deal. Dean as DNC chair would also legitimately open up the party to the grass roots and have more of a long term impact than Dean as VP. don't misunderstand me I am not giving up on the President option. but DNC Chair Dean would be an incredible FU to McAuliffe.

But for this to happen Dean needs to dump the "Clark is a republican" crap. If Dean wins, he needs Clark in cabinet. If Dean loses, he needs Clark and the Clark grassroots support for any number of reasons. If Clark loses too, the combined grassroots machineries need to be brought into the DNC fold, or force their way in. who knows we may need to start planning for 2008.

Cheers