Dana Hunter 360: In Which I Unleash the Smack-o-Matic Upon the Deserving, and Explain Why General Wes Clark is Correct

I couldn't let Post #360 go by without a snarky reference to CNN, especially when it fits the theme of tonight's rant. Mind you, I stopped watching Anderson Cooper 360 when it became utterly clear he wasn't seeing all sides of the issues, but being a mealy-mouthed little pretend journalist. It's fine to express an opinion. It's not fine to pretend you're not doing so.

He's just another one of the babbling heads that make America's news shows such an inane circus of media freaks. And if you want a spectacular example of sideshows masquerading as big tent spectaculars, look no further than their histrionics over General Wesley Clark's statements on McCain:



I think what really kills them is the fact that General Clark is 100% correct. And I will tell you exactly why, and in the process, reveal one of my worst-kept secrets.

Let me preface this by saying: no sympathy, shock, outrage or horror on my behalf is needed. In a moment, you'll understand why.

The gist of General Clark's comments is that being shot down and bunged into the Hanoi Hilton for half a decade does not a President make. He goes out of his way to proclaim McCain a hero. No one disputes this. McCain indeed showed some heroism. He suffered a lot for his country. Many soldiers do, and the vast majority of us respect them for it.

But having served in the American military and having been a POW doesn't qualify a person for the presidency.

I will give you an analogy now. Please refer to the disclaimer above as often as is needed.

Having survived a rapist almost two decades ago does not make me qualified to run a rape crisis center.

Let's play with this analogy for a moment. Let's pretend that there is an important rape crisis center that elects its presidents. Let's say that there are two candidates for this position. One candidate is younger than I am, ready to take the center in a new direction after it's suffered setback after setback for nearly a decade. This person is well-versed in the law, is financially savvy, and has many good ideas that will give this center a chance to overcome its problems and thrive. We'll call this candidate Olive.

Now let's say that I'm running on a platform of "more of the same." I claim that despite the center's financial crisis, its plummenting standing in the community, its short-sighted policies that have failed far more often than succeeded, and its dreadful need for someone to sweep out the cronies, I'm saying the center is doing just fine. The "change" I offer is really "the same only worse" failed direction.

On top of this, I have a hard time distinguishing a pedophile from a power-reassurance rapist. And while Olive has voted down measures that would legitimize rape, I've done just the opposite: I've voted to allow certain forms of rape within the community, even though I was myself raped.

You'd have to be bloody fucking insane to think that I'm therefore qualified to run the place simply because I got raped and my opponent didn't. But this is exactly what McCain's media enablers and his campaign are telling the country. It doesn't matter that McCain is a bumbling fuckwit who voted to authorize the very tortures he himself suffered: they are saying that any statement pointing out the fact that someone with judgement that piss-poor is unqualified for the office of the President of the United States is somehow calling his entire service record into question.

It is not.

It is no more disrespectful and out-of-bounds than you would be if you said that while you respected my strength and courage in surviving an attack, and furthermore respected my long service to the center, those things alone did not qualify me to become its president. You would be absolutely right to tell me that running on a platform of "I've been around this place for dog's years, and I've endured what my opponent has not" is ridiculous. It's not enough. You can't just be a "hero," you have to have leadership qualities, or you're damned sure not suited to be a leader.

That's point one.

The second thing that has me reaching for the Smack-o-Matic with enough outrage to break bones is how a four-star general is being treated by our nation's raving lunatics, otherwise known as the network news lackeys.

McCain left the Navy as a captain. The highest rank he could have obtained was rear admiral. Wikipedia tells me this is "a one-star flag officer." The equivalent Army rank is brigadier general. How many stars is that? One. (Uno.) (1.)

You want to get into a military-service leadership pissing match, John? Do you, punk? I think Wesley Clark's four stars kick the ass of the one you didn't even obtain.

His Supreme Allied Commander Europe annihilates your fucking squadron.

And yet, your media lapdogs have the audacity to disparge this man's service and judgement because he had the balls and the honesty to state the truth: that just because some complete assclown lucked into getting shot down and becoming a POW decades ago doesn't mean he's ready to run a nation.

It's not what was done to you that matters. It's what you do. That's a fine distinction that the media can't seem to wrap its head around. It's so busy worshipping McCain that it can't see his feet of bullshit.

McCain lies like a two-dollar toupee, and he's a war hero. Wes Clark states the obvious, and he's treated like a heretic. This is our country: the right can do no wrong, and the left can do no right. Respecting our troops stops the instant it's revealed that the troop in question has thrown his lot in with the Democrats.

And it begs the question: who the fuck in America is stupid enough to listen to a single thing these histrionic fuctards spew? When the fuck did it become "mainstream" to be such raving dipshits? I remember a time when the news was the news, and media theater like this would have been considered the looniest of lunatic fringe. When the fuck did behavior like this become normal?

Wes Clark is an officer and a gentleman, so he won't disparge McCain's military service. I'm neither. So I'm going to speak to McCain as one survivor to another: get the fuck over yourself. What you suffered may entitle you to some respect and admiration, but it's not what was done to you that matters now: it's what you do and how you act.

You can't elevate your victimhood to martyrdom. And when you claim that it somehow makes you so fucking special, you spit on all of the victims who picked themselves up and made something of their lives without exploiting the unfortunate bits of their history.

And this goes triple for the media. A person is not a saint by virtue of what they endured long ago. Just because horrible things happened to them in service to their country doesn't mean they should get an absolute free pass on every question of policy, integrity, and wisdom. I don't care what's in a person's history: if I would have called them an ignorant dumbass who's likely to complete the destruction that Bush started if they hadn't been a POW, they don't magically become all-wise and beyond reproach when you add their former POW status to the mix.

But, my dear media fuckwits, if you're going to go there, if you're going to say that what a person has sacrificed for this country in the past matters, then you'd better take a nice dose of sanity and realize that if that's your criteria, General Wesley Clark trounces the shit out of little St. McCain just by virtue of his service alone. You little fuckwits want to have it both ways, but you can't.

Grow the fuck up. All of you.

And a very special note to Obama: I know it's become fashionable for Democratic contenders for office to sell out their staunch allies just because the Village is in a pearl-clutching tizzy, but doing so just makes you look like a two-faced son of a bitch who doesn't have the spine of a boneless chicken. You may still be a better choice than McCain, but so would a hyena. It's time you bucked up and bucked the Village. Comprende?