With this answer Clark won the debate FOR US

<snip>

General Clark sharply criticized Mr. Bush, saying he had failed to take adequate measures to protect the nation from the attacks on the the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. "Before 9/11, he did not do everything he could have done to keep this country safe," General Clark said. "After 9/11, he took us to a war we didn't have to fight, and Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda is still going strong. We were at terrorist condition orange."

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/23/politics/campaign/23DEBA.html?pagewanted=2&hp

Who else is saying * is RESPONSIBLE for 9-11??

This is no repuke, that's why Bill Bennet was frothing tonight over Clark not saying AWOL is a deserter.

The American people need to hear this more.

I have not heard Edwards or Kerry say anything close to this. Dean tried to, but it became something embarrassing. However, watch how the media hasn't yet dared to contradict Clark on this subject. They don't even want to bring it up with him.

like you said they don't even want to bring it up but he found a way to MAKE them give him the chance to say this when he said he would prevent another attack.

Now they try to corner him on that statement and he hits them with the stuff about not preventing 9-11.

He knows what he's doing.

Also the AWOL non denial.

...he hasn't looked into it.

He did NOT support the statement. He sidestepped (as I said, probably honestly).

He left it open as an issue.

list of priorities.

I have no problem with him saying what he did, but it was hardly a gesture of support, much less "taking a bullet" for the cause, as has been claimed on another thread here.

It postpones the issue, which is the best course at this time. Quite likely he has been briefed on the matter, and the professionals questioning him will know that. But if he says he has been, he must then make a definitive answer on the spot, and that is not the right course. The right course is to get journalists chattering about it themselves for a while....

billed as here tonight.

Frankly, if he HAS looked into it and he DOES feel there's a case, he could have been more encouraging. Something along the lines of "I've heard some interesting claims about that, but I haven't done enough research to form a conclusion myself. Maybe that's something to look at."

If he wanted to make a point of this, that would have been SO easy.

It is the proper move, made by a very good strategist; no more, and no less.

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

somebody who honest'y doesn't think it's worth looking into.

To each his own, I suppose...

This would be a damned boring place....

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

911 is Bush's Fault, there is no excuse he can make for that massive, historic, unforgivable failure.

Good for Clark! It's about time someone had the guts to say it.

he proved that tonight

You do not start with hay-makers; you set things up with jabs. The thing must enter the general conversation, as it will if such questions are asked him, till people are prepared to nod assent at the flat statement....

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

I mean, Moore himself put up on his own website the proof Clark needed to say "yes, Bush is a deserter"


Sooooo......

:shrug:

The truth needs to wait for political opportunity?

Certainly needs to wait for political opportunity that will give it maximum effect. A blow struck too early is as bad as one struck too late.

Mr. Moore is part of the softening up process. This may well become an issue, if journalists continue to ask about it. The citations on which Mr. Moore bases the charge will be brought to the fore, the respectable ones, anyway. Waving sheafs of old photo-copies and newspaper articles is no work for a candidate himself; it is best done by operatives at lower levels, or independent but supporting organizations. The candidate then comments on things already out there, and in this question, in tones "more of sorrow than of anger", for his hand was forced to the deed, and he had not wanted to think it might be true....

The business is an art, Sir....

I mean, Moore himself put up on his own website the proof Clark needed to say "yes, Bush is a deserter"

What moore put up on his website is his opinion as to why he believes Bush is a deserter, and not proof as you claim, but evidence that he believes to have justified his opinion. I agree with him, but as i said in another thread, no mainstream candidate can express that opinion in an overt manner because it's the equivilant of Republicans calling Clinton a rapist, a serious charge predicated on information not validated within a court of law. If he were to do so, he would be leveled by the media, which would doom his chance at becoming president.

No, Moore shouldnt retract what he said because he is who he is, and people expect him to make charges like this. Clark, on the other hand, isnt afforded that luxury.

"I've never looked at it . . . Peter."


(Obviously the news hound Peter has not googled very far for support for his "not supported by the facts" characterization of the "reckless charge". I'd love to hear what Pete says the 'facts' are. More cycles, please, more cycles.)


http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/index.php

We're all witnesses now. The media will deconstruct any Democratic candidate who bears his teeth too soon.

.

is to publish a book in March, making exactly the same arguments that Clark has advanced all along about *'s lack of preparation prior to 9/11. This will be big news in our community, at least (I expect the media to give it the O'Neill treatment), and it will make Clark look prescient.

Here's some background on the author:

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/bush_advisors_clarke.html