To Continue the AWOL Thing . . . Josh Marshall quite a bit closer to the center than I am, which I like. He's smarter than I am, and knows a lot more American history, so I like to check my opinions against him. When his thoughts run with mine, I know I'm not in loony-liberal-land.
His post on the Bush Air National Guard story is good, and moderate, and close to what I was thinking yesterday
Now, as I say, [OE]deserter[base '] seems to be the wrong charge. And it[base ']s certainly provocative. But it[base ']s also pretty clear what Moore was referring to. And being AWOL is a pretty serious offense too. I[base ']ve already said that much in the debate struck me as laughably tilted toward criticism not so much of the particular candidates as criticism of simply being Democrats. But this question signaled a certain hypersensitivity about criticizing the president at all.
As a releated aside, David Brooks on the Newshour Friday night misrepresented the entire issue, and used his misrepresentation to denigrate Clark (a slander wrapped in a lie inside a deception). When discussing Clark's debate performance, Brooks said this:
He was presented with something Michael Moore, his supporter, had said in front of him that George W. Bush was a war deserter; why didn't he object to that, which is untrue. Why didn't he object now, and he didn't do it at the debate, he didn't do it then and he came off seeming to me like a hater.
Bush wasn't a deserter, that's true, but there are legitimate questions about gaps in his military service, and Brooks surely knows that. But instead, when Clark refuses to denounce the whole story, he's a "hater".
I'm reminded of something Eric Alterman once said. During a debate with Pat Buchanan on the show History Center on the question of bias in the media, Alterman, clearly irked when Buchanan refused to concede any of his points, snapped, "Pat, it's not that the media is liberal, it's that conservatives don't like the news".
10:29:25 AM 
|
|
