« The Rocket’s Red Glare May Be Chinese (Guest Voice)
Jesse Helms Has Died »



Is General Wesley Clark a “Swiftboater”?

July 4th, 2008
By DORIAN DE WIND

Print Print

Happy Fourth of July.

I actually got a head-start on the holiday because I read the July 4 issue of that great military newspaper, the Stars and Stripes, on July 3. You see, because of the time difference, the Middle East edition of the Stars and Stripes is published around 2 PM Central Standard Time, in effect “the day before.“

In the July 4 issue there is an opinion piece, “In foot-in-mouth contest, Clark is swiftest,” by Jay Ambrose, in which Ambrose takes retired Gen. Wesley Clark to task for remarks he made about John McCain. Ambrose quotes Clark saying, “riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down” is no qualification to be president. Ambrose continues, “ and the immediate accusation was that he was guilty of “swift boating.”

First, let’s put Clark’s remarks in context.

In a question-and answer session with Bob Schieffer on CBS’ “Face the Nation,” Clark praised McCain‘s service and sacrifice as a prisoner of war: “I certainly honor [McCain’s] service as a prisoner of war. He was a hero to me and to hundreds of thousands and millions of others in the armed forces, as a prisoner of war,” and on his service in the Senate: “He has been a voice on the Senate Armed Services Committee and he has traveled all over the world,” but, Clark continued, “he hasn’t held executive responsibility” “That large squadron in the Navy that he commanded — that wasn’t a wartime squadron.”

Actually, back in March, in a conference call with reporters, Clark did a much better job of articulating his criticism of McCain and of putting his views in context. He then said: “Everybody admires John McCain’s service as a fighter pilot, his courage as a prisoner of war. There’s no issue there. He’s a great man and an honorable man. But having served as a fighter pilot — and I know my experience as a company commander in Vietnam — that doesn’t prepare you to be commander in chief in terms of dealing with the national strategic issues that are involved. It may give you a feeling for what the troops are going through in the process, but it doesn’t give you the experience first hand of the national strategic issues.”

Second, as to the accusation that Clark “was guilty of ‘swift boating.’ I say “hogwash,“ because that is patently ridiculous and because I am not aware of any “immediate accusation that [Clark] was guilty of ‘swift boating’” in any serious media.

I say it is a patently ridiculous accusation–and I will add disingenuous and manufactured–for the following reasons:

1. General Clark’s remarks by no stretch of the (objective) imagination rise to the level of the despicable tactics used by those who conducted the defamatory media blitz against John Kerry four years ago and, as a result, gave the term “swift boating” such an odious connotation.

2. Democrats would not use such a term to characterize the remarks of a fellow Democrat, especially those of a distiguished retired General.

3. Republicans and Conservatives are trying to put that heinous episode behind them, and–as Ambrose himself would agree–attempting to reclaim the good name “Swift Boat,“ and would not themselves continue to perpetuate its odious connotation by using it to characterize Clark’s remarks.

Finally, a reason for Ambrose to use such a term to describe Clark’s remarks, might have been to be able to launch into a discourse against what he calls “Disgrace Number Two” which, according to him is “the use of the word ‘swift boating‘ to describe mendacious slurs on a political candidate.”

After first–pardon the expression–swift boating General Clark’s military record, Ambrose quotes from a June 30 New York Times article (“Veterans Long to Reclaim the Name ‘Swift Boat’”): “’Swift boat’ has become the synonym for the nastiest of campaign smears.” He then says, “But the real smear is against the honorable Vietnam veterans of swift boat service who raised serious, responsible allegations against Democratic nominee John Kerry in the 2004 presidential election.”

Ambrose then goes on to rehash, and to try to justify, many of the same accusations that made “Swift Boat “ “the “synonym for the nastiest of campaign smears“ to begin with.

Glaringly absent from Ambrose‘s primer on “Swift boating” is the following, still from the same New York Times article:

By the association’s count, about 3,600 men served aboard Swift boats in Vietnam, 600 officers and 3,000 enlisted. About 200 signed the letter that became the basis of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth campaign in 2004. In advertisements, a best-selling book and extensive news media appearances, they accused Mr. Kerry of fabricating exploits to win his military decorations and a discharge just four months into a yearlong tour.

And,

Navy documents contradicted many of their accusations, but the claims undermined what Democrats had hoped would be Mr. Kerry’s strength. 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.”

And, continuing with Stan Collier:

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.”

I do agree with Ambrose on one thing. It is a shame that a name associated with so many brave veterans–especially the ones who had nothing to do with the attack on Senator Kerry–has become a political pejorative, and that these heroes should get their good name back. Especially, as the Times says, “the good names of the men not lucky enough to come home alive.”

As I wrote in “Ex-Swift Boaters’ Donations and the ‘Swiftboating’ Connotation”:

It is hoped that more and more of these heroes will come forward to disassociate themselves from the group that has brought them so much grief. Harlan Ullman, a Swift boat driver in Vietnam and a Pentagon consultant has written: “It is time to ban a word that is at once offensive, demeaning and obscene both to and for anyone serving in the naval profession. That word is ‘Swiftboating.’”

And,

…as Americans get to know more and more about those 3,400 brave people who did not participate in the besmirching of good men and women for purely political reasons, the quicker the original shine will be returned to the name Swift boaters.

Note: The Stars and Stripes Ambrose Opinion piece was not available on the web. The same article, titled “Jay Ambrose: ‘Swiftboating’ term unjustly used to single out campaign smears” appears in the Naples Daily News.



This entry was posted on Friday, July 4th, 2008 at 7:42 am and is filed under Newsweek Blogitics, Demonization, POW, CBS, Vietnam War, John Kerry, John McCain, The New York Times, 2008 Elections. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Viewing 27 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    Of course the intent of the swiftboat GOP surrogates was to create a fictional narrative of John Kerry that would be handed to a complicit media and disgorged to a not very savvy public who would then take that impression into the voting booth. Dorian, you are absolutely right when you say the charge of "swiftboating" as applied to General Clark is "patently ridiculous". All one need do is read his remarks in context to see how absurd the hooplah is. It's a shame present day Americans are such easy fodder for these tactics and characterizations, since this seems to have become one of the determining criteria for choosing our leaders anymore. Good grief...
    • ^
    • v
    Dorian said: "First, let’s put Clark’s remarks in context. "

    I agree. Put them in context . . . with the systematic effort by the Progressive Left to denigrate McCain's service in Vietnam.

    See, for example, Aravosis' mocking of McCain's disability as a result of his POW years, or his disgusting claim that McCain displayed treasonous "disloyalty" by his participation in North Vietnamese propaganda.

    Dorian...these smears are, by your definition, "Swiftboating"...and we have seen Democratic surrogates echo a range of these "fictional narratives" to quote JSpencer.

    Several months back there was Gloria Steinem's mocking McCain's losing aircraft to enemy fire -- to a laughing audience of Democrats -- as a qualification for president.

    Recently, there was Senator Rockefeller's claim that McCain knew nothing of the cost of war as he was a fighter pilot flying high above combat (of course, what does Rockefeller know of the cost of war, hmmm?)

    These attacks have been systematic and sustained, Dorian. They have all come from the Democratic Party and Obama surrogates. Their purpose is to politically undermine McCain's POW narrative and his recognized (with medals) strength of character during said imprisonment.

    You are picking and choosing your contexts, Dorian, to protect Clark and Obama.

    Clark's "acknowlegement" of McCain's "heroism" should be deconstructed. Shakespeare understood what Clark was doing better than you. Clark's use of "hero" is akin to Anthony's use of the word "honorable" in his "swiftboating" of Brutus and Cassius in "Julius Caesar" to turn his audience against Caesar's killers:

    "For Brutus is an "honorable" man...so are they all "honorable" men..."

    Situate Clark's remarks in their full context, Dorian, and you can see the sustaining "Swiftboating" of an honorable American serviceman by the Democratic Left.
    • ^
    • v
    Objectively, Clark is correct. There's nothing about getting shot down that qualifies anyone to be President.

    The way he made that point, however, was kind of dumb.

    As for the term "swiftboating", I remember all kinds of nonsense about Kerry shooting himself, about how his military decorations were invalid, a whole avalanche of BS about Kerry's distinguished wartime service in the US Navy.

    Which side is truly eager to denigrate honorable military service to achieve the goal of political power?
    • ^
    • v
    Sorry, Marlowecan, you're exaggerating for partisan political effect in your post. How many members of the general public are aware of the incidents you describe? Darn few. I follow the news more closely than most and have only heard second hand accounts from conservatives such as yourself. But the swiftboaters were an entirely different kettle of fish. They lied, they misrepresented, they twisted and they had big bucks behind them pushing their tales out to the public. The same is not true of any of the incidents you cite and there has been no effort to change that on the part of the DNC, Obama's campaign or anyone associated with them. Your claims of a sustained campaign of some kind similar to the Swift Boater's just doesn't fly.
    • ^
    • v
    GeorgeSorwell said: "As for the term "swiftboating", I remember all kinds of nonsense about Kerry...a whole avalanche of BS about Kerry's distinguished wartime service in the US Navy. Which side is truly eager to denigrate honorable military service to achieve the goal of political power?"

    GeorgeSorwell, was Kerry ever accused of "disloyalty" in supporting the North Vietnamese? Aravosis made exactly that smear of McCain in the past week.

    You may say "Who is Aravosis?" I also cited Sen. Rockefeller's smear of McCain...for which he apologized, having realized he smeared the entire US Air Force in the process.

    Yes, "which side is truly eager to denigrate honorable military service to achieve the goal of political power".

    You ask a good question. I ask you: Did the Swiftboaters accuse Kerry of treason? Progressive make that accusation of McCain!
    • ^
    • v
    Jim Satterfield said: "They lied, they misrepresented, they twisted and they had big bucks behind them pushing their tales out to the public. The same is not true of any of the incidents you cite..."

    So Aravosis is telling the truth when he accuses McCain of "disloyalty" to the United States as a POW?
    • ^
    • v
    Jim...just because the Swiftboaters were successful in getting their smears out to the public...while the Progressives smearing McCain have not "YET" been as successful...does not make the smears any different.

    The "Swiftboaters" were tangentially connected to the Bush campaign, in the same way as Rockefeller, Clark, and the Left Bloggers are tangentially connected to Obama.

    Cut-outs to preserve deniability.

    Look, Democrats know McCain's "hero" narrative must be undermined. This has been occurring across the board by Progressive and Democratic Pols. Much as the GOP knew Kerry's service had to be undermined to support Bush "lack of service"
    • ^
    • v
    I should say, I do respect you guys' views in this regard. I would shrug at most of this with you...except for the "smear" of "disloyalty" to the US levelled against McCain recently.

    I don't care much about most other smears (except those using Obama's kids to attack him, you may recall, which were out of bounds in my view).

    The implication of treason is, in political discourse, appalling. The Progressive Left has levelled this against McCain...just as against Petraeus ("Betray-us")...and Rover ("outting a CIA agent in a time of war is an act of treason").

    Senator Obama, to his credit, disassociated himself from anyone smearing the patriotism of a candidate. Alas, many on the Progressive Left seem not to have gotten the memo.
    • ^
    • v