Fox's Henneberg did not challenge Swift Boat member Bud Day's false claim that Clark served in Vietnam for only one month
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
SUMMARY: Fox News' Molly Henneberg uncritically reported the assertion by Bud Day, a member of the then-named Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, that Wesley Clark "spent a month in Vietnam, got badly wounded, evacuated, and that was his Vietnam experience." In fact, according to documents posted on the website for Clark's 2004 presidential campaign, Clark served at least six months in Vietnam -- first as a 1st Infantry Division staff officer, then as an infantry company commander -- before he was wounded.
On the June 30 edition of Fox News' Special Report, news correspondent Molly Henneberg uncritically reported retired Air Force Col. George E. "Bud" Day's assertion that retired Gen. Wesley Clark "spent a month in Vietnam, got badly wounded, evacuated, and that was his Vietnam experience." Day, a member of what Sen. John McCain has dubbed his "Truth Squad," was responding to Clark's June 29 comments on CBS' Face the Nation. According to Henneberg, Day was "incensed" by Clark's comments and, on a McCain campaign conference call, said, "General Clark spent a month in Vietnam, got badly wounded, evacuated, and that was his Vietnam experience. I'd say let's hold the two of them up and see who's most qualified to talk about their experience as a combat officer." In fact, Clark served at least six months in Vietnam, first as a 1st Infantry Division staff officer (assistant G-3) from July 1969 until January 1970, and then as an infantry company commander from January 1970 until he was wounded in combat on February 19, 1970.
Military documents posted on the website of Clark's 2004 presidential campaign document his service in Vietnam, beginning with his September 10, 1969 Officer Efficiency Report identifies him as "an Assistant G-3 of the 1st Infantry Division," and his superior states in that report that he has used Clark as "a Special Projects Officer." His October 21, 1969, Army Officer Efficiency Report states that he was the G-3 "Research and Evaluation Officer" "[e]ngaged in counterinsurgency operations in Vietnam," and his January 4, 1970, Army Officer Efficiency Report states that Clark was "the chief of the research and evaluation division of the G-3 section." Clark's Officer Evaluation Report for January 5 to February 22, 1970 identifies his position as "[c]ommanding [o]fficer" and states that he "has commanded a mechanized rifle infantry company in combat in a truly outstanding manner." Clark was wounded in combat on February 19, 1970, and a week later, was awarded the Silver Star for his actions on that day.
Clark described his arrival in Vietnam in his 2007 autobiography, A Time to Lead: For Duty, Honor and Country (Palgrave Macmillan):
Gert was four months pregnant when I left for Vietnam in July 1969, and we were able to set her up to live with another waiting wife. I would leave behind Gert as well as my mother and stepfather, and I could imagine what they felt. But I tried not to think about that too much, I just kissed Gert goodbye at JFK airport and walked away. I wrote, and we talked, and I loved her, but Vietnam was what I felt called to do. It was time for me to go.
In July 1969, I stepped off the chartered Boeing 707 and into the bright sunshine of Vietnam, carrying the mixed baggage of homesickness, hard determination and a lot of suppressed excitement. This was it. I had arrived, one of more than 500,000 American soldiers and Marines inside Vietnam that day, one of the more than two million who would serve on the ground in that war. [Page 85]
[...]
After a couple of days I got word that I would be assigned to the 1st Infantry Division. The Big Red One, whose main base camp was at Di An, a few miles north of Saigon. It took less than an hour to get there and as soon as I had disposed of my duffel bags, I reported in to the headquarters.
I was hoping, of course, to be given command of a company in combat, though I didn't know what my chances of getting such an assignment were. But they had long known I was coming, and my duties had already been decided for me. [Page 86]
[...]
Early the next morning, I got the summons: "Captain Clark, get your gear. You're leaving early."
But instead of heading into combat to lead an infantry company, I was being sent to the division headquarters, another thirty miles north in Lai Khe. I was going to be placed on the division staff, as one of several hundred officers associated with the headquarters. I was rear-area duty. No patrols. No air assaults. No leadership. [Page 86]
[...]
I went in [to the briefing] with shined boots and freshly pressed jungle fatigues, and I was lucky if I came out in one piece, since the division's senior officers had been out flying around all day, visiting units, checking activities, and getting a sense for what was happening, knowing that at every moment their men's lives were on the line. Occasionally an enemy rocket would land in the headquarters area, which meant we weren't exactly safe. And I habitually slept with a loaded M-16 in my bunk on the base's perimeter. Still, it was definitely rear-area duty. [Page 88]
As Media Matters for America has noted, Day was a member of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, an organization that promoted false and baseless smears about Sen. John Kerry's (D-MA) military service during the 2004 presidential campaign.
From the June 30 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume:
[begin video clip]
HENNEBERG: McCain's plane was shot down over North Vietnam in October 1967. He was then held and tortured as a prisoner of war for five-and-a-half years. Today, Obama's campaign says Obama rejects General Clark's comments. The candidate also tried to separate himself from his surrogate when talking about sacrificing for one's country.
OBAMA: For those like John McCain, who have endured physical torment in service to our country, no further proof of such sacrifice is necessary. Let me also add that no one should ever devalue that service, especially for the sake of a political campaign.
HENNEBERG: Not enough for McCain's military surrogates, including two of his fellow POWs, who, on a conference call, were incensed by Clark's remarks.
DAY: General Clark spent a month in Vietnam, got badly wounded, evacuated, and that was his Vietnam experience. I'd say let's hold the two of them up and see who's most qualified to talk about their experience as a combat officer.
LT. COL. ORSON SWINDLE, USMC (RET.): I just recall very vividly that Senator Obama said he was running -- he was going to run a civil campaign. This is not a civil campaign.
HENNEBERG: McCain suggested this type of attack may be a coordinated effort by the Obama campaign.
McCAIN: I know that many -- that General Clark is not an isolated incident, but I have no way of knowing how much involvement Senator Obama has in that issue.
[end video clip]
HENNEBERG: The McCain people point to earlier comments by two Democratic senators -- Jay Rockefeller and Tom Harkin. Rockefeller, who endorsed Obama in February, criticized McCain in April for not knowing what happened on the ground after his plane dropped bombs in Vietnam. Harkin said in May, a couple of weeks before he endorsed Obama, that McCain is, quote, "trapped in a world view shaped by the military," and that, Harkin said, quote, "can be pretty dangerous" -- Brit.
BRIT HUME (host): Molly, thank you.
From the June 30 conference call with the McCain "Truth Squad":
REPORTER: Greetings, thanks for having us. What do you expect there Senator [Barack] Obama to do? Are you asking him to criticize General Clark's remarks, and I just -- also I want to ask if you would comment on Senator Obama today is giving a big speech on what patriot, you know -- patriotism today. In light of what you folks are complaining about, can you comment on that as well?
[...]
DAY: This is Colonel Bud Day. Let me just add one remark here. As I said, John McCain served some 65 months in a Vietnamese POW camp, plus some additional time that he served on the previous ship. Things were very difficult. He was horribly wounded in all of his extremities, questionable if he would ever live through that experience. He set a high standard for himself because the Vietnamese tried to release him, wanted him to go home early. He showed the character that every military officer would hope that he had by refusing anything like that to come about. We had the opportunity also to watch a president in office -- a Democrat -- who was extremely ineffective during those years. He learned a huge amount from that. So, I'm saying that some five-and-a-half years of experience in Vietnam was extremely important -- he learned an awful lot of lessons.
Now, General Clark spent a month in Vietnam, got badly wounded, evacuated -- and that was his Vietnam experience. I'd say let's hold the two of them up and see who's most qualified to talk about their experience as a combat officer.
















Damned official military records....... always getting in the way of the (Fox Noise) truth.....
The sad part is about this is that there is going to be a certain percentage of Fox watchers that will actually believe the Fox version and not the 'here's your documented proof' version.
One more reason why if a Swift Boat Scumbag tells you the sun came up, you should look out the window.
Read Ted Sampley's take on Bud Day...
http://www.usvetdsp.com/may08/day_bud_moh.htm
ted sampley -- now there's a real piece of work.
He attacked Day because he's close to McCain. sampley has had a thing for Kerry and McCain for over 10 years. Among those who know him, he (sampley) is widely despised in the veteran community.
Doug Reese
...he (sampley) is widely despised in the veteran community.
I do not doubt that at all... just as he is also regarded as a guardian of truth by many others. So what is the truth about John McCain and his POW episode? Honestly, I don't know...but what Sampley says about McCain (and Day) seems plausible. Once it was established that attacking a Presidential candidate's war record is a fair area of commentary, as was the case of John Kerry, then the toothpaste is out of the tube, so to speak. The Swiftboat Liars were within their rights to question John Kerry's war record...but they didn't have the right to lie about it. Same with McCain...if someone raises a plausible question about his war record let's air it out and get to the truth. Hopefully, the media would do a better job, however, in vettting the accusations.
I'd rather concentrate on what McSame has done as a legislator and would he would do to further the neo-con agenda.
Agreed (don't faint, Clams).
...an actual example of someone attacking someone else's military record.
Great point...!
Wesley Clark "spent a month in Vietnam, got badly wounded, evacuated, and that was his Vietnam experience."
Yup. There's no debate here. The McCain campaign devalues military service outside its own political party.
And to think that one of our resident cons attacked me yesterday for suggesting that Bud Day was a lying scumball who no longer deserves any respect or honorable treatment. I'll wait for all the Clark haters to bring their vitriol against this piece of trash.
I would also like to hear what Jack Cafferty has to say about this.
I would like to see John McCain asked about this.
Ha...! Yea, that's gonna happen...the same day McCain talks about how his wife avoided prosecution. ;>)
I would like to see John McCain asked about this.
Ha...! Yea, that's gonna happen...the same day McCain talks about how his wife avoided prosecution. ;>)
I'd say let's hold the two of them up and see who's most qualified to talk about their experience as a combat officer.
Yeah, let's see... one was Supreme Allied Commander Europe of NATO during war in the Balkans. The other was shot down in Vietnam, kept as POW, commanded a training squadron in Florida and later retired from the Navy with the rank of captain.
Yeah... I wonder who has more experience as a combat officer. Hmmm.
John McCain is a straight-talkin' maverick
And the path behind him contains the same substance a maverick leaves behind, too.
"I'd say let's hold the two of them up and see who's most qualified to talk about their experience as a combat officer"
In the context of what it is we're actually talking about, i.e. our next Commander in Chief, and the qualifications to Command the U.S. Army and the U.S. Marine Corps in IRAQ (that's what General Wesley Clark was talking about, when he said what he said), in the true context of the discussion, what does "holding the two of them up to see who's most qualified to talk about their experience as a combat officer" have to do with the issue?
Nothing... absolutely nothing.
Think of it: You're a concerned American voter, paying close attention to the presidential campaign: you know what's important, and you find our extraordinary situation in IRAQ to be important (despite the television people finding that extraordinary situation to be invisible and non-existent): you're concerned about what happens next in that occupation of IRAQ, once we are relieved of George W. Bush: whether you want U.S. Troops drawn down and drawn out of IRAQ asap, or under conditions that ensure the stability of the democratically elected majority Shia government, or any other way you look at it, it's important.
A U.S. Army General, knowing something so obvious that it is known to you and I also, namely that the mission in IRAQ is a ground mission, a mission of the U.S. Army and the U.S. Marine Corps: they're doing all the work and taking all the risk and making all the sacrifices... knowing this, that U.S. Army General said:
CLARK: "Well, I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president."
(Which I rephrase into the more comprehensive: "I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to Command the U.S. Army and U.S. Marine Corps in IRAQ"... it's the same thing, made sharper for a clearer meaning)
And so in the context of all of that, and with you (and I) intensely interested in the Command of the U.S. Army in IRAQ, and the qualifications for that Command... and in the light of what General Clark said... what does "holding the two of them up to see who's most qualified to talk about their experience as a combat officer" have to do with anything?
It doesn't... it has absolutely nothing to do with anything.
That's one of the tell-tale signs that you're winning the debate, when you're opponent tries to change the subject, from the one they find they are hopelessly on the losing side of, to another, that has nothing to with the subject, and even distracts from it...
"I'd say let's hold the two of them up and see who's most qualified to talk about their experience as a combat officer"
And when your opponent does that, you never get drawn away from the subject, into something else, but keep coming back to the subject, and keep repeating the truth that had your opponent running scared in the first place...
Riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is not a qualification to Command the U.S. Army and U.S. Marine Corps in IRAQ
The mission in IRAQ is a ground mission, it's not a sortie over North Vietnam... the mission in IRAQ is a mission of the U.S. Army and the U.S. Marine Corps, on the ground.
Also, no doubt you've noticed, that among the several different responses the McCain campaign (and its surrogates and stooges like this "bud day" character)... among the responses they have made to the true observation that...
Riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is not a qualification to Command the U.S. Army and U.S. Marine Corps in IRAQ
Among the several responses you have not heard any reference to Mr. Obama's qualifications to do the same: why is that?
Wouldn't that be a reflexive response to that truth, to point out that it also doesn't qualify or recommend Mr. Obama either?
Because for the McCain campaign to have responded that way, would have been saying "well neither is Obama qualified to do the same"... which would have been both an admission of the truth of what General Clark said, and an agreement that Mr. McCain does not have the qualifications to Command the U.S. Army... to have responded to the General's true words, with a pointed finger at Sen. Obama, would have been the same as saying "yeah, maybe riding in an airplane doesn't qualify McCain to Command the U.S. Army in IRAQ, but Obama isn't qualified either!"
They obviously had the presence of mind not to say such a stupid thing: which is out of character for the McCain campaign, so stupid and stumbling and full of gaffes and goofs like they are...
But the question does remain: who can we find to Command the U.S. Army and the U.S. Marine Corps in IRAQ... who has the proper qualifications?
General Wesley Clark, for one. And he's on Team Obama. Maybe he can help us out with IRAQ... he has qualifications in the matter... he's U.S. Army his whole life... he knows enough about it, to have uttered the simple truth of:
Riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is not a qualification to Command the U.S. Army and U.S. Marine Corps in IRAQ
I just did a Google search on "swift boat veterans for truth" and fount the following notice at www.swiftvets.com:
Swift Vets and POWs for Truth has formally disbanded and ceased all operations as of May 31, 2008. SwiftVets.com will continue to be maintained, for historical purposes only, by New American Media Online Services (NAMOS).
So I guess all the liars are going underground.....
File them under the dead parrot society.
I guess they've all gone off pinin' for the fjords..... :-)
I see what they're doing here...By bringing out this "truth squad" and constantly pushing these issues, it's 2004 all over again, just this time they really DO have the military candidate.
By pushing this issue, for quite a few people it's going to come down to "I can't vote against the Vietnam hero."
And it has Karl Rove's prints all over it.
By golly, he's killed people out of love for our great country! ...that appeals to some voters.
Actually, he merely flew his plane and pushed buttons, then flew back home in time for evening drinks.
It's the grunts on the ground that do the killing.
He didn't misspeak, he lied.
If you didn't go to work on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday, and on Friday you told your boss that you didn't work one day that week, would he think you misspoke, or that you lied?
Day lied when he said that Clark spent one month in Vietnam. He didn't do his research and so smeared a military guy's career to forward the conservative agenda. Media Matters is guilty of nothing. You're guilty of shameless covering-up.