Jennings/Faux campaign cheap shot fails

[Doctor_J]

Jeez. They really tried to buttonhole Wes last night. Can you imagine anyone in the media having the nerve to ask Smirk a question like that? If they ever DO get around to asking * about his desertion, it will come out like this:

"Your highness, we know that you are proud to have served in the TANG and that the missing time was probably devoted to deep cover ops during which you were in grave danger. Will you hold any grudge against your opponents for trying to make something out of nothing?"

Prepare, folks, whoever is our nominee is going to have to battle Big Media every step of the way.

[krkaufman]

1. To be determined....

The final result of Peter Jennings' "deserter" question last night is yet to be determined.

The best case scenario is that the question reopens the issue, the media magically picks it up, and the doubts regarding his record help to weaken his reelection campaign.

The likely scenario, however, is that the media will simply use Moore's quote as a hammer against General Clark, creating enough of a hassle that he doesn't get an opportunity to communicate his vision. So far, this is all that's happened. Clark had almost no opportunity during Thursday night's debate to answer any substantive questions; they were all "gotchas."

If you need further evidence of the direction this is going, witness Bob Novak's performance today on Crossfire during his "interview" of Mary Steenburgen and Ted Danson. Novak, complicit in the outing of a CIA WMD expert, was so bold as to attribute the "deserter" quote directly to General Clark. (I'd like to see him try that with Clark, personally.)

[ewagner]

3. did you see Wolfie today

with Clark's representative?

Wolfie asked if the General had indeed "looked into" the allegations against Bush*, The General's representative said, "No, have you?"

Wolfie turned red and said, "I'm the one asking the questions here! ...all the while looking down at his notes.

In poker, that's what they call a tell

[spooky3]

4. well, then General, DO TELL!! That was brilliant.

[TacticalPeek]

6. The spokesman was James Rubin; hope Wolfie gets tons of email.

(A dynamite spokesman, by the way.)

[HootieMcBoob]

7. Beautiful

Was that the end of it? Why do I even both to ask...of course it was.

[Cocoa]

9. that's the perfect answer

I'm so glad to read that.

Clark could have been even better last night by doing the same to Jennings. When Jennings said the facts were against Moore, Clark could have asked Jennings to explain. Say, "tell me about it, Peter."

[Kahuna]

14. Actually, no. The way Jennings posed the question, he had..

already vouched that the story was unfounded. Was Clark to open a debate with Jennings about his assertion? I think not.

[Cocoa]

16. why accept Jennings's assertion?

In a way, Clark did not, he said "No, Peter, I don't think the facts are clear."

The Daily Howler reports today that ABC News has never reported on the story at all. Jennings would have been totally incapable of backing up the assertion he'd just made. He would have come off looking less credible than Michael Moore.

But no way am I questioning how Clark handled it. I'm just fantasizing. :-)

[spooky3]

17. Yep. And add, "You're the journalist, Peter, I presume you have

checked all your facts carefully?"

[funky_bug]

11. Whoo hoo!

That was the answer Clark SHOULD have given last night. For once, I'm glad it came out in the debate... gave the writers time to pen an appropriately smackdown response!

[TacticalPeek]

5. And Mary put it right back in his face,

like 'get your facts straight, Nofacts'.

This is bound to get bandied at the WH gaggle. One of these days.

[Cocoa]

2. Clark's answer presents them with two problems

the whores will have to explain:

1. What did Jennings mean when he said the facts show Moore is wrong?

2. How is Clark wrong in saying Moore has a right to express his views?

They haven't even begun to answer either of these.

[KC21304]

8. I think we should emphasize that even with thousands of dollars

put up ( I don't remember by whom, It's in Hatfield's book) not one person could come forward to say they served with Bush during the period in question. Now I think that is remarkable.

I do think Moore shouldn't have called it desertion. He definitely was AW0L, but I was made to understand that desertion involves deserting a war duty situation. As we know he never got close to active duty in wartime.

[Beaker]

10. a deserter, by definition-

is someone who purposely goes AWOL, usually with no intention of returning to service...
I think that the term definitely fits the lil'dictator.

[TacticalPeek]

13. Few things could please me more

than watching endless talking heads discussing whether aWol was a deserter, or just absent without leave for months.

And whether he should have been charged under the UCMJ or should have been activated to a line outfit in the Big Muddy.

[Doctor_J]

12. One of my big reasons for backing Wes

I think he can beat back the media better than Edwards, Kerry, or Dean. Peter The WHore's question last night was REALLY obnoxious - something they would never ask Smirk - and he handled it effortlessly. He will handle them like he's handled every other obsticle in his life - "Bring it on!"

[DoYouEverWonder]

15. Why is Jennings even asking Clark this question

He should be asking Bu$h, not Clark or any other candidate.

We need to demand that Bu$h release his military records and settle this important issue once and for all. He is the CIC, for crying out loud.