Who's Swiftboating Whom?

Direct object.

I am the swiftboater of you, Dan Brown! You were a coward when you wrote The Da Vinci Code.

In February, 1970, Capt. Wesley Clark's unit was ambushed by Viet Cong. Clark was hit four times by AK-47 fire--shoulder, hand, hip, and leg. As his Silver Star citation says,

As the friendly force maneuvered through the treacherous region, it was suddenly subjected to an intense small arms fire from a well-concealed insurgent element. Although painfully wounded in the initial volley, Captain Clark immediately directed his men on a counter-assault of the enemy positions. With complete disregard for his personal safety, Captain Clark remained with his unit until the reactionary force arrived and the situation was well in hand. His courageous initiative and exemplary professionalism significantly contributed to the successful outcome of the engagement. Captain Clark's unquestionable valor in close combat against a hostile force is in keeping with the finest traditions of the military service and reflects great credit upon himself, the 1st Infantry Division, and the United States Army.

Here's a picture of him in recovery. Note the casts. They don't put you in those for soft-tissue injuries. They put you in casts when bullets break bones.

I'm not particularly a fan of Wes Clark, but the trash being spewed about him by the fat-assed chickenhawk wingnuts of the 101st Fightin Keyboardists is so vile, and so utterly hypocritical (like this ignorant ass-munch who calls himself Megimoo spewing invective against Clark for his "anti-American stab in the back" against "bona fide Silver Star awarded American war hero John McCain") that I just thought we should have some perspective on who's earned the right to talk smack about Silver Star winners, and who hasn't.

No point doing it on their site. It's "moderated" to remove "objectionable material."

I'm no

Maureen Dowd's column yesterday pointed to Wesley Clark's (and other guys who were on the ground) hidden feelings about "flyboys" who were safely in the air while they were getting shot at and blown up on the ground in Vietnam.

Really, looking at McCain's military track record, he's in a league with George W. Bush. He was careless and was living off of his family name. He crashed several jets (not shot down just stupidity) wasting millions of tax dollars.

This is gonna make him blow as it nearly did when the reporter visibly annoyed him when asking him point blank if he thought his military service entitled him to the Presidency. It doesn't but he truly thinks it does. And as many others have said in response to the Wesley Clark "kerfuffle," it goes right to the heart of his campaign: it's all he has and everything he's running on, and it's a sham as Karl Rove and George W. Bush showed Republicans during their primary fight in 2000. (They did it to John Kerry too and Max Cleland.)

No matter what what Wes Clark did was spoke the honest truth and showed true character and guts when he stood behind his words in follow up interview by vicious McCain-apologists in the MSM. Obama should have been more supportive that first day.

Rove and Bush and the Republicans had no shame and set such a low bar against attacking American war heroes like Tammy Duckworth, Max Cleland and John Kerry, that they can cry foul all they want-the Karmic world is coming back to to bite them in the behind. Plus, they already did such a job on McCain in the past. McCain is going to lose his cool and reveal that famous temper sooner or later just like he did on the verge of tears against George Bush in their South Carolina debate.

It's Democrats' job to help make his blood boil.

Joe Conason from the New York Observer wrote a brilliant piece for Truthdig.com about the Wesley Clark "fake outrage." Here are some out takes and the link:

"...Gen. Clark stated a very simple fact. McCain’s service in Vietnam doesn’t prove his aptitude or competence to serve in the nation’s highest office.,,,Supporters of McCain insist that his military service should be exempt from discussion, except when they feel like bringing it up to prove some point about national security, terrorism or the presidency that it really doesn’t prove at all.

"There was once another former POW whose candidacy for high office vindicates the Clark argument.

"Or has everyone forgotten Adm. Stockdale?

"The late James Bond Stockdale epitomized the bravery and idealism of the Americans imprisoned and tormented, both physically and mentally, by their captors in Hanoi. Captured and beaten after his Navy jet was shot down, he lived in leg irons for two years and in solitary confinement for four years between September 1965 and February 1973, when he was finally released. His many honors and citations included the Medal of Honor, and he rose to vice admiral. He was a man of indisputable intelligence who taught philosophy at Stanford University and wrote several books before he died of Alzheimer’s disease three years ago...

"So a headline in The Washington Times called Stockdale a loser, and conservative columnists denigrated him as “geezerish,” “lame” and “the big loser.” Rush Limbaugh, who evaded the Vietnam draft thanks to an inflamed boil on his behind, devoted nearly an entire broadcast to mocking Stockdale. After playing a clip of the admiral defending abortion rights, the radio host described him as “intellectually vacant” and “pandering” and suggested that his pro-choice views were insincere.

Incidentally, the Limbaugh show’s producer back in October of 1992 was none other than Roger Ailes, who now heads Fox News Channel, where the faked anger over the Clark comments has swiftly reached a seething boil. He’s a phony, and so is this latest eruption of right-wing indignation."

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20080703_fake_outrage_over_clark_comments/

My feeling is this: Whether or not Clark was correct, and whether or not he has the right to say whatever the hell he wants, and whether or not it is right that democrats get into more trouble for commenting on others military service... shouldn't he have known this? Given the media and other people's tendency to get all sensitive about any percieved minimization of the importance of military anything... Is this conversation really good for Obama? And if it isn't good for him, then should Clark have said it?