Or this one: http://www.donaldsensing.com/2004_01_01_archive.html#107495313186595111maccool said:Sure, Moore is about as fair and balanced as Fox News or Sean Hannity. But is it really OK just to show up for duty whenever you feel like it?
It's not a good precedent for a guy who is all about law, order, following through on committments, and oppressing the people. Come to think of it, neither is dodging the drug issue. Bush twists and turns like some sort of twisty, turny thing.
Doesn't matter. Just the fact that he will be backtracking on something, and currently appears to be nothing but fluff will drive him off the campaign trail. His "win"* in Oklahoma is meaningless.Damascus said:I'm also wondering what Clark needs to backtrack from
Yeah, I know; ellipses.from factcheck linky said:The New York Times reported Nov. 3, 2000:
But a review of records by The New York Times indicated that some of those concerns (about Bushâ€™s absence) may be unfounded . . . . A review by The Times showed that after a seven-month gap, he appeared for duty in late November 1972 at least through July 1973.
Rocks_Off said:LOL, Damascus, way to read my friend.
Facts which he then promptly refuses to give. Instead, he decides to define desertion later on.First, Jennings was quite correct to point out that the accusation of George W. Bush's presumed absences is "a reckless charge not supported by the facts."
We must have missed the "thought police" swearing in ceremony. Why Clark is supposed to give a rat's behind about what Moore said about Bush I'll never know.Second, Clark, a retired four-star general, admits he is entirely unconcerned that an ideologue celebrity has made this most serious, unfounded charge against the commander in chief.
Firstly, he is apparently like everyone else in this country and "is not bothered at all" with the charge. Secondly, he didn't say he wasn't interested in the facts, he said they weren't material. That's like me telling you I have ten toes, and when you ask me what it has to do with this conversation I tell you you're not interested in the facts.In fact, he strongly implies that he is not bothered at all that the charge was made. He admits he is not interested in the facts.
After which the author then goes to to explain that desertion is basically a conviction. "Desertion is a prosecutorial finding after the absent service member has been returned to military control."Third, practically no civilian actually knows what desertion really is, Mark A. Kleiman, for example.