Kerry avoiding the AWOL issue is really bothering me.

[spotbird]

Kerry looked good for my vote on 2/3 and I have waivered a lot, but he has big mo and that alone could carry him in November.

He had a golden opportunity to simply say something like, "The President has never explained his absence from the Gaurd. There are credible questions about that service which America deserves to have answered." He needn't use the "D" word or even AWOL but if he is going to let the Republicans define this issue also how can he be counted on in the fall? He will not alienate a soul by saying that there are unanswered questions, the only people who will be provoked by that wouldn't vote for him anyway.

We will only win if we define the issues and use them to our advantage.

[evil_orange_cat]

1. perhaps it's Kerry's "ace in the hole"

and he is saving it for if/when he is the nominee... you don't want to blow your load too soon. ;)

[blm]

2. You don't get it. AWOL is part of his ground game.

Cleland and other vets talk about it on the campaign trail and have done so for months. They did it in SC last September. They are spreading the word.

That's not Kerry's ball to carry. Not yet. Too soon. Wait till the country is focused on TWO men, Kerry and Bush.

Let this brew.

[For PaisAn]

10. but

by making the following remarks how does he later backtrack on them?

"NOVAK: In the absence of any -- any allegations to that effect, what do you think of calling the president of the United States a deserter? Or do you have some information that that is accurate?

KERRY: No, obviously, I don't. I think it's over-the-top language, Bob. And I think that's not what my campaign is about."

If it's "over the top language" in Kerry's opinion now won't he sound hypocritical to later make those claims about Bush?

Why is it over the top when Michael Moore says it and Clark doesn't denounce it but when Kerry says it it will be acceptable. How does that play out? Don't you think the repugs will trot out his remarks to Novack and totally deflate the issue.

Kerry easily could have just said that he didn't know if it was true or not. Clark had integrity in his response. Kerry's response leaves much to be desired.

[emulatorloo]

13. But isn't the word "deserter" over the top when the charges are AWOL n/t

And wasn't "deserter" Jennings word? -- that is, not Michael Moore's word?

[For PaisAn]

17. No

Michael Moore's word was deserter, not AWOL.

[LZ1234]

18. Michael Moore did followup with a message to Peter Jennings

on his website, michaelmoore.com. His did actually say that Bush was a deserter and referenced several articles supporting that. My question is what is the difference between AWOL and deserter?

[emulatorloo]

21. Don't know. . .anybody military who can tell us? n/t

[diamondsoul]

23. Technically Bush isn't a "deserter".

He was most assuredly AWOL for an extended period of time and I doubt he'd get away with it as easily today.

Desertion is leaving your duty station never to return until you're dragged back. Bush eventually returned. Dont quote me as an expert, but if he was AWOL for more than 6 months he could and should have been declared a deserter. Most RNG units nowdays will let you get away with not showing maybe twice before you're slapped with at least an Article 15, or at least threatened with it to make sure you show up for the next drill.

Bush should have lost rank, pay and eventually been officially charged with desertion if his period of time being AWOL was more than 6 months.

[blm]

14. For right now it is.

If you're the candidate you have to have the real documents IN YOUR HAND before you, yourself, use them.

It's being talked about now and has been for months. Geez...have some faith in what Kerry's team is doing and how they are performing effectively while staying under the radar.

[For PaisAn]

24. You misread me.

I did not expect Kerry to use the words himself. Kerry should have said that he didn't know if it was true or not. That would not have taken away his future ace in the hole. It would have left it up in the air which is where it belongs until if and when someone wants to use it. What he did was set himself up for a future matchup of the conflicting comments to Novack vs any accusations he may want to make in the future. That is how they will spin it and it will work. They will paint him as hypocritical.

I'm starting to believe that his comments to Novack were intended to hurt Clark. It wouldn't be the first time that Kerry directed his arrow at Clark, in flyers, on his website, etc. So much for claiming to run a positive campaign. Clark gave the right response. I no longer have faith in Kerry regardless of how well he is doing in the polls.

[The Zanti Regent]

3. This is why I will stick with Clark

Clark wasn't afraid to confront Jennings about it.

Why is Kerry silent?

[mitchtv]

7. I like Clark, as I do Kerry, but

I wouldn't exactly call Clark's answer a confrontation.It was More like an uncomfortable squirm. The others should have backed him up.

[blm]

20. Really? I thought Clark was just as noncomittal as Kerry.

I thought they both handled it the way they SHOULD have. It's too early for this charge.

[For PaisAn]

25. Sorry

There's no comparison between Clark's and Kerry's responses. Clark was noncomittal with hints of validity to the deserter claim. Kerry said it was "over the top" which will be interpreted as negating any validity.

[name not needed]

4. He might be waiting

Because people will forget between now and November. If he waits a few months it will be fresh in the public's minds.

[George_Bonanza]

5. I am sure he will use it when he becomes the nominee

My opinion is that he doesn't want to use it too early so that he will sound repetitive in the general election. The AWOL issue is a huge embarrassment to Bush, and it should be used in prime time.

[oasis]

6. Kerry can win by remaining positive. The AWOL issue can be kicked

around by subordinates. In other words, he doesn't have to get his hands dirty.

[Justice]

9. Kerry's Hands Are Plenty Dirty

He is going negative on Dean and Clark.

[oasis]

12. How so?

[emulatorloo]

15. How is it negative to differentiate yourself?

Has Kerry or his campaign said anything about other candidates that is not true.

Is he not supposed to respond when another candidate claims he lacks judgement?

ON Edit subject line

[kclown]

26. Exactly right n/t

[MoonRiver]

8. Me too.

AWOL has to be confronted on his lies. Why can't these congressional Dems figure that out??? By laying down and whining, voting for Patriot Act, voting for IWR, etc. etc. all they accomplished was losing the Senate and giving more power to the Pukes.

It is my sincerest hope that Gen. Clark wins the nomination. I believe he is the candidate most likely to take down the house of *, and lead our country back to peace and prosperity.

[spotbird]

11. OK the consensus seems to be that he wants to save the issue for the

general election. That is a good strategy but, he need not be dismissive of it now. It is one of the issues that makes the rank and file crazy. If Kerry looks like he is going to avoid it some folks will jump ship for a candidate who seems willing to confront the issue. He can say it concerns him and pound it later.

That this issue could peak too soon explains perfectly why Drudge is leading with it today. It was hard to figure why he would want to remind the base about Chimps cowardice, but getting it out of the way early has to be why.

[emulatorloo]

19. Drudge et al wants story to be "X calls Bush Deserter" not

"Bush is a Deserter." What is operative here is trying to set up a Kill The Messenger scenario. The candidates are right to tread lightly on this -- it isn't for them to lead the charge on it.

And I have to say in another way, there is plenty more recent stuff to focus on GWB -- if it didn't have legs in 2000, maybe it isnt worth pursuing.

[blm]

22. BINGO.

While the people aren't focused on just two men.

[bluestateguy]

16. Let them go negative first

Once they start attacking his patriotism he should bring out the national guard episode.