Wesley Clark, in the New Hampshire debate, refused to renounce Michael Moore's characterization, at a rally where Moore endorsed Clark, of President Bush as a "deserter." This was the exchange:
Jennings: General Clark, a lot of people say they don't know you well, so this is really a simple question about knowing a man by his friends. The other day you had a rally here, and one of the men who stood up to endorse you is the controversial filmmaker Michael Moore. You said you were delighted with him.
At one point, Mr. Moore said, in front of you, that President Bush--he's saying he'd like to see you, the general, debate President Bush, who he called a "deserter."
Now, that's a reckless charge not supported by the facts.
And I was curious to know why you didn't contradict him, and whether or not you think it would've been a better example of ethical behavior to have done so.
Clark: Well, I think Michael Moore has the right to say whatever he feels about this. I don't know whether this is supported by the facts or not. I've never looked at it. I've seen this charge bandied about a lot. But to me it wasn't material. This election is going to be about the future, Peter. And what we have to do is pull this country together. And I am delighted to have the support of a man like Michael Moore. . . .
Yesterday on "Meet the Press," host Tim Russert gave Clark several more opportunities to do so, and he once again declined:
Russert: Is it appropriate to call the president of the United States a deserter?
Clark: Well, you know, Tim, I wouldn't have used that term and I don't see the issues that way. This is an election about the future, and what's at stake in this election is the future [blah blah blah] . . .
Russert: But words are important, and as you well know under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, if you're a deserter, the punishment is death during war. Do you disassociate yourself from Michael Moore's comments about the president?
Clark: Well, I can't use those words and I don't see the issues in that way. But I will tell you this: that Michael Moore has the right to speak freely. I don't screen what people say when they're going to come up and say something like that. That's his form of dissent, and I support freedom of speech in this country, and I would not have characterized the issues in that way. I think this is an election where we have to look at the future, not at the past. And so what we're doing is we're taking the campaign to the American people [yadda yadda yadda] . . .
Russert: The right of dissent is one thing, but is there any evidence that you know of that President Bush is a deserter from the United States armed forces?
Clark: Well, I've never looked into those, Tim. I've heard those allegations. But I think this election has to turn on holding the president accountable for what he's done in office and comparing who has the better vision to take the country forward.
<a href='http://www.msnbc.msn.com/ID/4028066/' target='_blank'>Full transcript from "Meet the Press"</a>
One might have given Clark the benefit of the doubt on Thursday; perhaps he just wasn't prepared for the question. But by Sunday morning he had had 2 1/2 days to think about it, and he gave exactly the same answer. Why would Clark act as if it's perfectly acceptable to slander the president by falsely accusing him of a crime? Probably because he's afraid that if he did the decent thing, he would lose some Angry Left votes.
In September, Gen. Hugh Shelton, a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that Clark had been relieved of his European assignment because of "integrity and character issues." Having watched Clark campaign, we begin to get an idea why.
<span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%'>Thanks to WSJ OpinionJournal</span>
/
Clark again refuses to renounce slander of Bush
