The Real AWOL Mystery - Slate (why is it becoming a hot issue NOW?)

By Mickey Kaus
Updated Monday, Feb. 9, 2004, at 7:11 PM PT

Why are Democrats bringing up the Bush/National Guard/AWOL issue now? Sure, the press is playing along and it's having an impact--but by November, when the Dems need it, it will seem like very old news. If you want to win the election, the time to start a media AWOL frenzy is in August or September, no? Yet commentators continue to look for the anti-Bush logic in the Democratic strategy. Tim Russert was just on Hardball saying the AWOL issue is a "warning shot" from the Kerry camp telling Bush he shouldn't accuse Kerry of being weak on defense.

Huh? Maybe I don't understand the Bonesman's Code in which Kerry communicates with Bush--and there have been other ominous Kerry camp warnings about putting "everything ... on the table", etc.--but is there any chance Bush won't accuse Kerry of being weak on defense? No. And how would Bush be dissuaded by a "warning" that Kerry might raise the AWOL issue when Kerry's already raising the AWOL issue--and by doing so is diminishing, not enhancing its November effectiveness? It doesn't make sense ...

That is, it doesn't make sense unless you view the AWOL issue as a primary election strategy, not a general election strategy. Its purpose is not to boost the Democrats (in November), but to boost Kerry (now). By getting the press talking about the chest-full-of-medals vs. slothful Guardsman issue, Kerry has helped convince Democratic primary voters that Bush is beatable--reinforcing the blindered Democratic focus on winning--and conferred on himself the Aura of Electability that is his only real selling point. Equally important, he's taking up valuable media time that might otherwise be spent scrutinizing him and inducing buyer's remorse--and which his rivals, especially Edwards, might otherwise use to get their messages out.

It's quite brilliant, really--until you realize that it sacrifices Democratic interests in the fall for Kerry's interests today. ... P.S.: Sure there are plenty of Democrats not necessarily affiliated with Kerry who are eager to raise questions about Bush's National Guard service. But Kerry has clearly been stoking the story. ... P.P.S.: Clark, who also has a chest full of medals, would benefit from the same strategy were he the frontrunner. But he's not. ... 6:30 P.M.

more...
http://slate.msn.com/id/2095238/

that this is the first of many attacks that didn't stick in 2000. I'm sure we'll hear a lot about the DWI. That never really got a full hearing because it came out so close to the election in 2000. I'm sure we'll also hear more about insider trading.

Personally, I want to bring up about why Bush was doing community service in Houston's 5th ward. Was it because of the purged records from his cocaine possession conviction? There's so many more issues.

One issue at a time, like Chinese water torture.

Michael Moore raised it, Clark disavowwed it, and then Terry McfrigginAuliffe blew it up on the radar screen.

So what is he talking about?

Criticize only Democrats to reaffirm that he's an "independent-minded liberal", it has no bearing on reality. If AWOL hadn't blown up, he'd be riding the Dems for being too soft and stupid to use such an obviously ripe issue.

it was Kerry who disavowed it.

Get your facts straight.

Of course Edwards wouldn't touch it & can't touch it...he was too busy becoming a millionaire to serve in the military.

Not just the predictable "weak on defense" schtick, but it's about poking holes in the "Democrats as Cultural Freaks" plank of the Republican Party platform.

We're freaks? What was YOUR guy doing when it was time to serve the country? Make the Pubs play some defense on character issues for once in their fucking lives. Get it, Kaus?

Exactly. Framing the debate for the election needs to start now. If Bush can be put on the defensive because of his AWOL, then his fall campaign is all screwed p.

making me have more second thoughts about this election.

He got Michael Moore to call Bush a deserter at a Wesley Clark rally, and then he tricked Peter Jennings into asking Clark about it. He must be a master of mind control!

It is very much to Kerry's benefit, though.

If Clark's bombthrower hadn't gotten it out there, who would have brought it up? Even after the press did pounce on it, Kerry refused to overtly glom on. Saying, 'Bush should clear it up' is a whole lot different than 'Bush was an AWOL deserter.' It's more *presidential.*

Two good men (Dean, Clark) are the advance troops in this little battle and they will be sacrificed. Clark at least has Moore to throw the bombs for him, Dean has to throw his own, which is probably why he's taking a similar tactic to Kerry's.

they are trying to make it seem like year 2000 "old" yawn news. That it has resurfaced at this point in time is perfect - totally relevant in the context of war time credibility and responsibilty, which with the WMD lie context is why it now has legs. Sowing more seeds of doubt to germinate in the eyes of his faithful. He won't be able to show that destroyed documentation to conclusively prove his case - no way to get rid of that nagging doubt that he is a misleader. There will be plenty more ammo to use later - he's such a screw up - take your pick.

The first question was about the AOWL issue, he brushed it aside, stating that was not his campaign platform, went on to other issues. Next question was about his war service, he brushed that off by saying that was not the most important part of his life, just one part.

start this whole thing in a Fox debate by trying to pin the issue on Clark for not separting himself from Michael Moore? Am I missing something? Kerry was asked later on, it grew legs but Kerry didn't start this.

If Wes Clark gets the nom then they will refocus their defenses on him.

Clark got battered with this issue the entire week before New Hampshire because of what Michael Moore said during a rally -- he was treated like a tinfoil hatter for not distancing himself from an obviously untrue smear.

Now that the media has changed their tune on how obviously untrue it may have been, you can hardly fault democrats for going piling on the bandwagon.

He once called Kerry loathsome because of his hair.

Hey Micky (that's a song reference),

Yer blog sux and so do you.

writing stuff like this??? i guess i should have stayed in journalism class because if he can write stupid crap like this ,i sure could have...

Kaus... Russert... media whores...all of the above etc have it all wrong and suffer from selective memory loss

AWOL issue was DEAD until Clark was asked by Jennings about Moore statements...Clark defended MM's right to free speech and basically said the issue was still out there but he hadn't looked into it...immediately after the debate the pundits and media jumped all over Clark for not disowning MM and Bush deserter/awol issue...

guess who joined in??? none other than "fightin' John Kerry who weighed in with the media whores dissing Clark for defending MM and calling the awol accusations "over the top"

but now that the wind has changed and the issue has legs and media approval...the Kerry campaign seems to have co-opted the issue as it's own....boldly leading the charge as only Kerry can do..."I'm still thinking about it" and other yes/no statements that exemplify his bold commitment to bodacious equivocation and fence jumping whenever possible....a true leader!!!

shrubs credibility.

Timing is everything.

Bush runs heavily on his "I'm one you regular people" shtick. The way to undercut the default support that a lot of presidents get when the country goes into crisis. This is why in the midst of a marital scandal Clinton got even more popular--people saw it as a manufactured scandal, but they also liked to see their president doing his job.

If we can show that there is a pattern of priviledge and cronyism among the Bushies--show that their interest is not in the interests of the nation--then we'll do better in swinging more swing votes our way. But this sort of political awareness and education takes time to cultivate. We need to start now.

Kaus's idea that we should hit him on this for maximum damage in September is the strategy of a weakling. He thinks the AWOL story is about hitting Bush with a cheap shot. He thinks it's a one-shot deal. But it's not a character attack; it's a character illumination.

Kaus's position assumes there's not more trash to follow in the months ahead. But of course Bush has generated a lot of trash that we can highlight in the coming months. We should start now. The timing is great. He's spent 3 years building up his lies and we need the next 6 months to tear them down.

Peter Jennings. As much as Clark supporters despised the man for blindsiding Clark in the debate, it was Jennings' question in the NH debate that got the ball rolling.