Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: Rowdy Roddy Reporter In “They Lie” Previous entry: When choice creates options, options become valid for evaluating

Reporting For Duty

imageIt’s a Newsbusters twofer today!

First, we have solemn concern over Wesley Clark attacking McCain’s war record, at least according to the braintrust at MSNBC.

I admit that I, too, am deeply and gravely concerned over this thing that Wesley Clark did not do.  When he honored and verified McCain’s service, and then declared that it wasn’t a qualification for office, I felt for the thousands of POWs who were likewise told by the former Supreme Commander of NATO that they served their country with honor and distinction, yet were not automatically more qualified than those who were not held captive to become president.  It reminds me of when I graduated from college, and was told by someone I once respected and trusted that I’d achieved something great and wonderful, but I wasn’t qualified to be a fighter pilot. 

A crashed F-22 later, they’re still wrong.
Next up, we have the Busties talking about the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and the term “swift boating”.  Now, given their wholehearted aversion to slandering the service of troops you might think…

You might think…

Oh, fuck it, you know there’s no consistency.

The New York Times published an article Monday about the anger some Vietnam veterans feel over the vessel they used to serve on, Swift Boat, now being synonymous with “the nastiest of campaign smears.”

In dredging up this issue, Times’ writer Kate Zernike not only misrepresented many of the facts surrounding the claims made by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, but also completely ignored the mainstream media’s role in turning the name of this patrol craft into a political pejorative.

In fact, something the Times conveniently chose not to share with its readers was how one of its own columnists, Frank Rich, wrote one of the earliest and most prominent pieces recharacterizing this nautical term as a smear tactic in his August 21, 2005, article “The Swift Boating of Cindy Sheehan.”

Luckily, Frank Rich’s September 19, 2006 article, “I Totally Gunwaled Your Sister Last Night”, was hidden behind the TimesSelect subscriber wall.

The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth openly and directly assailed a veteran’s honorable service for political gain.  They did so in a way that was fundamentally about swift boat service, and their reclamation of it as offended veterans who may or may not have been on boats with Kerry, boats near Kerry, boats that Kerry was once on, or waterslides.  They also did so in a way that was fundamentally dishonest, contradictory, and laughably transparent…but also effective.  It was their own success at lying that made “swift boating” what it is, much to the detriment of veterans who understand where the blame lays:

This month, a group of veterans who served with Mr. Kerry took up the challenge by Boone Pickens, the billionaire Texas oilman who helped finance the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth in 2004, that he would give $1 million to anyone who could disprove anything in the group’s campaign against Mr. Kerry.

“One of the prime reasons we’ve done this is the way it’s taken on the connotation of political sport versus honoring those that sacrificed everything,” said Fred Short, who was in the gun tub of a Swift boat during one of the firefights that the veterans group said Mr. Kerry had exaggerated.

[...]

Regardless of what they thought of Mr. Kerry, many Swift boat veterans objected to the attacks.

“It was unconscionable,” said Stan Collier, who served as an officer in charge on a boat based in Qui Nhon. “I thought those boys struck a new low.”

Mr. Collier considers himself a conservative and did not agree with Mr. Kerry’s politics, but he voted for him to protest the Swift boat campaign. “We’ve all been attributed to the sleaziness that those guys assigned to Kerry,” he said. “I think we’ve all been demeaned.”

These veterans are oddly concerned with the political group that made swift boating a political hot-button issue, and not columnists who referred to them months and even years past the end of the 2004 campaign.  I think their service jackets need another look, myself.  Is Swift Boat Veterans Against Swift Boat Veterans registered yet…?

And, from the Busties:

As such, Ms. Zernike, if you really are angered by the pejorative use of Swift Boat, and want to help the veterans referred to in your article return the term to one “[connoting] service with honor,” why don’t you call on your fellow liberal journalists to cease and desist from using it this despicable way?

I completely agree with this, and offer the following compromise: instead of calling them the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, I will agree to call them the Self-Identified Pedophiles Against Parents On Playgrounds.  Whatever shorthand follows should honor actual swift boat veterans and allow them to reclaim their proper honor. 

I like compromising.

 

------

Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.

Posted by Jesse Taylor on 01:54 PM • (11) Comments

One of the amazing things about the interview was when Clark said, “I don’t think being shot down in a fighter jet is a qualification for the Presidency.”  Schieffer’s astonished “You don’t?!” was soooooo precious.

Comment #1: MAJeff, the God of Biscuits  on  06/30  at  01:57 PM

So when are those veterans who are upset about the term “swiftboating” going to get upset with McCain’s recent acceptance of the Rethug POV that military people in recent decades have all been volunteers, therefore providing them with adequate pay, adequate healthcare, opportunities to get educated, and adequate compensation for their often ruined lives is too expensive (or some such bullshit).

I remember when the VFW and similar organizations looked at Vietnam vets like dogshit scraped off their shoes.  Now the Vietnam vets are the majority in these groups and now they look at Gulf War and Iraq War vets the same shitty way.

But in McCain’s case, I guess once you’ve earned your “Veterans Lifetime Achievement” award for being a POW, you are considered always supportive of military people, regardless of whether your actions match your words or not…

Comment #2: MikeEss  on  06/30  at  02:17 PM

Clark has it exactly right. McCain is running for the presidency of the United States, not the American Legion.

Does anyone remember Jeremiah Denton? He was a former POW who got elected U.S. senator from (I think) Alabama, and turned out to be an utter disaster. He would regularly say stuff that made even his supporters cringe. My favoriate Dentonism was when he voted against a bill to criminalize rape within marriage with the comment, “I think when you get married you expect you’re going to get a little sex.”

Comment #3: Bitter Scribe  on  06/30  at  02:29 PM

I can’t believe that the professional-victim Republicans are going to get away with this again.

Is anyone going to ask them, “So you’re saying that being shot down IS a qualification for president? Having been a POW DOES mean you’ll be a better president?”

They constantly get away with using squishy terms like “insulted” and “called into question” and “outrage” and never have to use actual nouns and verbs to say what they really mean. Never ever ever.

Comment #4: Rick Massimo  on  06/30  at  02:57 PM

It’s kind of interesting that Clark would say that considering that his military record were his only qualifications when running for president.

Comment #5: keshmeshi  on  06/30  at  03:08 PM

keshmeshi,

look up the differences in their positions and the leadership roles they played in those positions. Let’s see if you can miss the point even more than that.

Comment #6: MAJeff, the God of Biscuits  on  06/30  at  03:12 PM

Thank you, General Clark, for finally stating the obvious. 

Of course the Washington press corps is aghast. McCain’s whole career is based on the respect due an ex-POW. Take that away and he’s just a clueless old fart with a rich wife and a horrific war story.

I don’t question that McCain deserves compensation for what he went through. But not the White House. How about a whacking huge raise on his Navy pension (seriously, this is a man who can be bought off at this point), and a VA therapist who knows how to treat a 40+-year-old case of PTSD?

Comment #7: Molly, NYC  on  06/30  at  03:21 PM

keshmeshi,

McCain is known to be a terrible pilot who crashed several aircraft.  Clark is actually a well-respected career military man, and you’re going to want a few of those in government.

The more you know…

Comment #8: Petey Wheatstraw  on  06/30  at  04:06 PM

Petey, I must insert a snarky Internetism - “...and knowing is half the battle.”

Ah, childhood in the 80s…

Comment #9: tannenburg  on  06/30  at  10:12 PM

And they say those F-22s fly themselves.

Liars.

Comment #10: ice weaasel  on  07/01  at  02:52 AM

“Of course the Washington press corps is aghast. McCain’s whole career is based on the respect due an ex-POW. Take that away and he’s just a clueless old fart with a rich wife and a horrific war story.” Molly NYC

Ding ding ding ding.

And take that away and most of the beltway press is standing out in the middle of the street, suddenly caught in the bright daylight in the act of masturbating to an ideal: the traffic is still, the people are staring, children’s eyes hastily covered…  They will do ANYTHING rather than have that moment.

Comment #11: seeker6079  on  07/01  at  12:05 PM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.