Democratic Chief Says 'AWOL' Bush Will Be an Issue After a Nominee Emerges

[NNN0LHI]

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/02/politics/campaign/02CAMP.html?ex=107...

ROSEVILLE, Mich., Feb. 1 — With the Democratic presidential candidates campaigning across the country on Sunday, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee accused President Bush of being AWOL during his Air National Guard service, a signal of the ferocious campaign ahead once the Democrats finish with one another.

Revisiting an issue that arose briefly at the end of the last presidential election, the chairman, Terry McAuliffe, said he expected Mr. Bush's record of military service in the 1970's to become an issue this fall, particularly if the Democrats nominate the front-runner, Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts.

Mr. McAuliffe said he was staying neutral in the fight for his party's nomination. But, he said, if Mr. Kerry is the nominee, Mr. McAuliffe will relish comparing him with Mr. Bush.

"I look forward to that debate, when John Kerry, a war hero with a chest full of medals, is standing next to George Bush, a man who was AWOL" in the National Guard, Mr. McAuliffe said on the ABC program "This Week."

more

[Maddy McCall]

1. That's what I have been saying ever since DUers began ripping Clark apart

for not calling Bush AWOL in the Iowa debate.

Wrong time, wrong place--but in debates during the General Election run-up, it will be the perfect time, because either he or Kerry can tear Bush up on just this one issue.

What's the point in dissing Bush's AWOL status if Bush isn't even on the stage.

The cressendo shall build to a climax shortly before November 2.

[NNN0LHI]

3. Not all "DUers began ripping Clark apart"

I thought he handled it perfectly when I seen it and said so at the time.

Don

[Seldona]

10. Agreed.

People were actualy saying his answer at the 'debate' did him in.

I thought then, and do now, that it was brilliant.

This has legs man. We are going to get so many miles out of this.

[KissMyAsscroft]

2. They are trying to spin this already...

The fact is, the guy was AWOL. If he wasn't, he would have run on his military service.

The fact that he dodges the question at all times means he was AWOL.

So nobody here should believe that they are withholding some bog bombshell about him not really being AWOL. I think they are trying to find a way to get a "witness" to say they served with him. Gillespie will try to spin it, but I don't think Kerry will let them get away with it.

[NNN0LHI]

4. I am starting to think the Dems may have some witnesses in the bag n/t

[kentuck]

18. The fact that he was AWOL gives it legs...

Otherwise, it would be a negative for the Democrats.

[Democat]

5. If Bush wants to make the election about defense, let's expose him!

This is not the Democrats attacking so much as it is the Democrats responding to Bush's attempt to exploit 9/11 for political gain.

If he wants to make this entire campaign about the military and scaring people, then every Democratic Candidate should slam him on his own personal military background.

Bush started this and we need to make him regret it.

[Adjoran]

6. Oh yeah, let's listen to McAuliffe

The guy who "guaranteed" we would beat Jebbie in '02.

Sorry, folks, a "Bush sucks" campaign won't win. We have to run on our own issues, and a positive message of change and progress for America. That's how Democrats win elections, not by showing how bad the repubs are.

This story was out there for the last election. It may be true, but the paperwork that could prove it is missing. I'll raise my eyebrows on that, but the excuse that the military is better at losing paperwork than blowing stuff up is plausible enough for deniability. If we don't have the proof, the issue is just a distraction.

When the campaign comes down to "who's worse" the repub smear machine always wins. Democrats win by offering something better.

I'll support the nominee, whoever it is. But I'm beginning to lean strongly towards John Edwards' positive and optimistic message of change. America wants inspirational leadership that looks to the future.

[RainDog]

7. repuke spin

I heard some guy try to spin this by saying that dems were attacking The National Guard because Bush served here (and thus the asshole on tv totally avoided the truth and the real issue.)

the person who was doing the interview did nothing to correct this lying sack of shit.

[IndianaGreen]

8. This is a sickening appeal to nationalism and militarism.

"I look forward to that debate when John Kerry, a war hero with a chest full of medals, is standing next to George Bush, a man who was AWOL in the Alabama National Guard," Mr. McAuliffe said in an interview on the ABC News program "This Week."

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/01/politics/campaign/01CND-CAMP.html?hp

As fellow DUer Voltaire reminded us yesterday, DNC Chair Terry McAuliffe could not sink lower with this sickening appeal to nationalism and militarism. At a time when we need desperately to scale back our military empire, McAuliffe is out beating the drums of endless war with this pathetic appeal of Kerry's "chest full of medals."

The Democratic Party's answer to Bush strutting around on aircraft carriers is to resurrect the vile memory of American mass murder in Southeast Asia and deem it "heroic."

The Democratic Party is as guilty as the GOP when it comes to PATRIOT and the war in Iraq. The Democrats are another wing of the same bird of prey, as Pat Buchanan used to say.

The message I am getting is that the Democratic establishment will pursue Bush's war of imperialist expansion, the PNAC-agenda for short, just as vigorously as Bush has. The only different is that the Democrats will sugar coat the imperialist medicine so that it doesn't taste as bitter as it did under Bush.

I am particularly disturbed about the consequences of electing a Democrat like John Kerry President. Kerry represents the same elites that Bush does, without the religious mumbo-jumbo.

I have no faith that any of our bourgeois parties can extricate this nation from the quandary in which we find myself, the Greens included.

I seriously doubt that either Marx or Lenin would have advocated supporting one nationalist militarist party over another.

Electing John Kerry President will not end the war in Iraq, or lead to a repeal of PATRIOT, or even slow down globalism. The "Anyone But Bush" mantra ignores the fact that replacing Bush with Kerry is a mere change in personnel, not a change in policy!

[DrFunkenstein]

9. Don't Confuse The Warrior And The War

'The Democratic Party's answer to Bush strutting around on aircraft carriers is to resurrect the vile memory of American mass murder in Southeast Asia and deem it "heroic."'

Kerry protested against civilian casualties while he was in Vietnam.

'Electing John Kerry President will not end the war in Iraq, or lead to a repeal of PATRIOT, or even slow down globalism.'

Actually, Kerry said he would repeal the Patriot Act.

'The "Anyone But Bush" mantra ignores the fact that replacing Bush with Kerry is a mere change in personnel, not a change in policy!'

This is not the most, you know, responsible of statements. Kerry's policy proposals are RADICALLY different than Bush's. It is absurd to suggest otherwise. You may have disagreed with his IWR vote, but suggesting it would be a "personnel" change is plain silly.

[union_maid]

11. That's the first place they want to kill us

I don't Bush's service, or lack thereof, is a truly compelling campaign issue, but if either Kerry or Clark is the nominee it's a wonderful antidote to the crap the Repubs like to spew.

Three men who were of age to serve in an era when we were fighting a bad war and the young men of our country were subject to be drafted into it and three different ways of handling that situation:

1. Kerry went there, came back decorated and then threw himself into the domestic fight to end the war. Understands that war is hell and should be a last resort.

2. Clark went there after graduating first in his class at West Point, was decorated for his service, stayed in the military and had a brilliant career, acheived the status of 4 star general and Supreme Commander of NATO and at the very end, clashed with higher ups on the conduct of a war because he cared very much about conducting it right. Understands that war is a devasting and drastic event and that it should be a last resort to be fought only for truly humanitarian reasons or for defense in the case of a REAL threat to national security and only as a last resort.

3. Bush used his family's influence to get a much coveted spot in the National Guard and then didn't seem to show up much. Thinks war is cool.

I don't necessarily think that we should bring it up, but if they start with Kerry being unpatriotic because of his anti-war activities or Clark's "being fired", then I say smear it all over Bush. It's not the nationalism, it's the hypocrisy and the fact that he's the least qualified of the three to be running anything to do with sending people to fight, kill and die.

[blm]

20. Kerry submitted legislation to repeal parts of Patriot Act a few months

ago, IG. You know that, so why pretend that nothing will change?

You also know Kerry will cut out Star Wars and mini-nuke programs.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

21. Marx or Lenin

"I seriously doubt that either Marx or Lenin would have advocated supporting one nationalist militarist party over another."

No, they would have advocated supporting the Communist party right? lol

[NNN0LHI]

12. I thought there would be wingnuts all over cable today defending Chimpy

Wonder why they haven't been out in force?

Don

[ChiefJoseph]

13. I don't see how this helps us.

All this information was out in 2000 and it wasn't enough to sink Bush. Why does anyone think it will hurt him now?

[NNN0LHI]

14. I don't think we were at war in 2000?

This was not an issue back then. It is now. Remember Chimpy landing on an aircraft carrier like a returning hero? There you go.

Don

[ChiefJoseph]

16. Oh, I agree that he looked like a idiot on the carrier.

And that it was a shameless photo op.

You mentioned us being at war... If anything, Bush's national security credentials are more robust than they were in 2000. Many people look at him and see a strong leader (for reasons passing understanding). All I'm saying is that if this information was known in 2000, I can't imagine the public all the sudden waking up to it and being outraged after 4 years, during which he has managed to cultivate this unbelievable image as the strong wartime leader.

I think the risk of this backfiring is too great and the benefit is not obvious to my mind.

[NNN0LHI]

19. "Bush's national security credentials are more robust..." Robust?

Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.

Don

[CWebster]

15. So, the entire campaign comes down to dick strutting

while our young die everyday in unneccessary bloodshed that the cowardly dick-strutters would like to pass off the blame on.

[kentuck]

17. That keeps the Bush gang on the defensive because...

they will want to bring up his leadership in the war on terrorism and landing on the aircraft carrier etc, but will hesitate if they think the Dems will bring up his AWOL issue...

[Doctor_J]

22. If we had a media presence

McAuliffe wouldn't have to do this. IOW, if the situation were reversed, hate radio would be blasting this 24/7, and the GOP big shots could stay on the "high road". We don't have the infrastructure, so Big T has to bring up the truth, and take hits from NYT and so forth.

[stickdog]

23. How about the Iraq War?

The stonewalling on the 9/11 investigation?

The record Bush deficits?

The insanely irresponsible Bush tax cuts?

The ridiculously bloated and counterproductive Medicare drug and insurance pork grab?

Bush's unfunded and counterproductive "No School Board District Left Solvent" program?

Ferderal funding of Fraud-o-matic voting machines?

*****

Yes, Kerry can attack Bush on being AWOL. But so can anyone who didn't go AWOL himself.

Meanwhile, this happened over 30 years ago now, and it didn't stop people from voting for Bush 3 years ago. Isn't it more important to nominate the candidate who can most effectively address Bush's three fatal flaws -- jobs, deficits and Iraq?