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 I am delighted to have the support of a man like Michael Moore ... We're going to hold the president accountable for what he did in office and failed to do, and we're going to compare who's got the best vision for America.

JENNINGS: Let me ask you something you mentioned, then, because since this question and answer in which you and Mr. Moore was involved in, you've had a chance to look at the facts.

Do you still feel comfortable with the fact that someone should be standing up in your presence and calling the president of the United States a deserter?

CLARK: To be honest with you, I did not look at the facts, Peter. You know, that's Michael Moore's opinion. He's entitled to say that. I've seen -- he's not the only person who's said that. I've not followed up on those facts. And frankly, it's not relevant to me and why I'm in this campaign.

Three observations here. First, Jennings was quite correct to point out that the accusation of George W. Bush's presumed absences is "a reckless charge not supported by the facts."

Second, Clark, a retired four-star general, admits he is entirely unconcerned that an ideologue celebrity has made this most serious, unfounded charge against the commander in chief. In fact, he strongly implies that he is not bothered at all that the charge was made. He admits he is not interested in the facts. He admits he is "delighted" to have the support of the man who made the accusation. I find that just incredible and utterly repugnant.

Desertion means trying to leave the army. Time is not a direct element of this, or location, but intent is important. Mr. Sensing gives a good real example: a soldier who said he was fed up and was leaving, took off his uniform, and headed out. Before he got out of the base, or was gone for even an hour, he was stopped. He was charged with desertion, found guilty, served "hard time", and was discharged. Mark Kleiman seems to have totally botched the law in his accusations against Bush.

The libel laws do protect public figures. It is illegal to intentionally say false and harmful things about President Bush. The law quite properly allows critics a lot of leeway. You can say he is a bad president, or accuse him of lying about 9-11. Perhaps you can even get away with saying he murdered John Doe on October 12, 2002, so long as we can't find evidence that you know your charge is false, even if you have no evidence that it is true. But has Michael Moore gone beyond the bounds of legality? If someone has told him that his charges are baseless, which is a matter of clear fact, and definitely not opinion, and he keeps on repeating them without a shred of evidence, then I would think he could be sued successfully. But perhaps when pressed he says that he does not mean "desertion" in the technical military sense, and is just calling Bush a deserter metaphorically, in the same way I might call Moore himself a deserter to Al Quaeda if I were being floridly rhetorical.

[ http://php.indiana.edu/~erasmuse/w/04.01.26c.htm .     Erasmusen@yahoo.com. ]

To return to Eric Rasmusen's weblog, click http://php.indiana.edu/~erasmuse/w/0.rasmusen.htm.