orcinus does the best job of dissecting the current hoopla the media is making over michael moore's assertion that a
wol is a deserter and that gen. clark has not disassociated his campaign from the film maker's support.
david also does a great service to us all by re-examining the facts that led us here in the first place...ie, awol is awol.
we, however, would like to take a turn at pointing out the other side's dissembling in their support of awol. and it all comes down to one thing: nobody has ever unequivocably said "george w. bush without question fulfilled all his obligations to the texas air national guard (and thus, to his country) during his tour of duty in the 1970's."
if somebody were to actually make that statement and back it up with facts and cites and sources (including paperwork from the pentagon and tang) then all this brouhaha would die a deserved death.
but nobody has ever said anything so clear. the other side makes all kinds of inimations, and equivocating quibblings, implications and prevarications [ed. note: anybody with microsoft word 2000 should use that program's thesaurus to look up the word "revaricate for a good laugh]. but never an on-the-nose statement of "bush did his duty. period."
take, for instance,
factcheck.org. they are happy to jump on "moore is a shrill jerk" bandwagon, taking him to task for the using the word "deserter." but as
orcinus points out, nobody got on anyone's case for calling clinton a "draft-dodger" which was technically as incorrect as moore's assertion.
factcheck also quotes other publications to bolster its case:
george magazine reported in october of 2000:
it's time to set the record straight . . . . bush may have received favorable treatment to get into the guard, served irregularly after the spring of 1972 and got an expedited discharge, but he did accumulate the days of service required of him for his ultimate honorable discharge.
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 bush?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.
the washington post also reviewed records and concluded:
it is safe to say that bush did very light duty in his last two years in the guard and that his superiors made it easy for him.
the nytimes article uses the term "concerns [about bush going awol]
may be unfounded" instead of "
are unfounded." not very decisive. the post quote doesn't even address the issue. and while george magazine article does say up front that george w. bush did accumulate his days of service required. but unfortunately, no cites or sources are quoted. too bad we can't call up george's publisher and ask him!
[ed. note: factcheck doesn't even provide links to those articles, the weasles!]
bill hobbs is even less specific. to him, and to most rightists, the fact that awol was given an honorable discharge means he fulfilled his obligations, and was never awol. of course! makes sense! the fact that he got into the tang over hundreds of people already on the list must mean he was way more qualified, too! and the fact that halliburton gets all those government contracts must mean they are the best ones to do the job! and the fact that richard mellon scaife is so rich must mean that his view of women being ostracized during menstruation is god's will!
in other words, to them, the end justifies the means. awol, the scion of a wealthy family, the son of an current ambassador who was a former congressman (soon to be the chairman of the rnc) must have achieved his accomplishments on his own, without anybody ever bending the rules for him.
they might be right. we are willing to concede they are. as soon as somebody in the national spotlight stops niggling gen. clark about somebody else's words, stops implying the charges are baseless and starts proving with paperwork that they are.
it's really that simple. show us the dd-214 that the democratic veteran talks about. show us the paperwork that records when awol made up his service. (we are not sure, but we believe that missing days have to be made up in the same quarter. anybody in the national guard out there to confirm/deny this?)
in other words, media, address the issue. prove your point. stop manipulating.
oh wait, who are we talking to? oh, right. that'll happen.