Max Cleland revisited

[TexasTiger 14,283]

For those who think an Honorable Discharge is so impressive, it is surprising you find a Silver Star awarded by the President so meaningless. Per Joe Conason:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2004/...d/index_np.html

Like many other conservatives, Coulter has watched with increasing fury as Cleland and other Democrats discussed the president's spotty service record in the National Guard. By last week, she had become so enraged that she wrote a column -- posted on patriotic Web sites such as the Heritage Foundation's Townhall.com and David Horowitz's FrontPageMagazine.com -- composed largely of insults to Cleland's integrity and record of service in Vietnam.

While such sneering at a decorated war veteran is certainly grotesque, any expectations of decency from Coulter have diminished precipitously over the years. More dismaying are the echoes of her more "respectable" right-wing admirers. Mark Steyn not only endorsed her slurs against Cleland but added his own. According to him, the former Georgia senator was "no hero" but instead "a beneficiary of the medal inflation that tends to accompany unpopular wars." As a Canadian "humorist" and former disc jockey, Steyn obviously possesses the expertise needed to form such harsh judgments. He scolds Cleland for being "happy to be passed off as a hero wounded in battle because that makes him a more valuable mascot to the [John Kerry] campaign."

Ugly, eh? It's hard to understand why the Chicago Sun-Times would import such vicious nonsense about an American hero.

Neither of Cleland's critics told the truth about him.

According to U.S. Army General Order 4361, dated June 9, 1968, Cleland's conduct during that siege was extraordinarily courageous. Let Coulter or Steyn find a witness who will contradict this Army citation, most recently quoted on the Senate floor last December by that new conservative idol, Sen. Zell Miller himself.

The full text, which cannot be reproduced widely enough, reads as follows:

"Awarded: Silver Star; Date Action: 4 April 1968; Theater: Republic of Vietnam

"Action: For gallantry in action while engaged in military operations involving conflict with an armed hostile force in the Republic of Vietnam. Captain Cleland distinguished himself by exceptionally valorous action on 4 April 1968, while serving as communications officer of the 2nd Battalion, 12th Calvary during an enemy attack near Khe Sanh, Republic of Vietnam.

"When the battalion command post came under a heavy enemy rocket and mortar attack, Capt. Cleland, disregarding his own safety, exposed himself to the rocket barrage as he left his covered position to administer first aid to his wounded comrades. He then assisted in moving the injured personnel to covered positions. Continuing to expose himself, Capt. Cleland organized his men into a work party to repair the battalion communications equipment which had been damaged by enemy fire. His gallant action is in keeping with the highest traditions of the military service, and reflects great credit upon himself, his unit, and the United States Army.

"Authority: By direction of the President, under the provisions of the Act of Congress, approved 9 July 1968."

What Coulter and Steyn did to Cleland by obscuring the truth about his war record is truly despicable. Neither of them would be worthy to shine his shoes -- if only he still needed them.

[Tigermike 3,715]

"Awarded: Silver Star; Date Action: 4 April 1968; Theater: Republic of Vietnam

"Action: For gallantry in action while engaged in military operations involving conflict with an armed hostile force in the Republic of Vietnam. Captain Cleland distinguished himself by exceptionally valorous action on 4 April 1968, while serving as communications officer of the 2nd Battalion, 12th Calvary during an enemy attack near Khe Sanh, Republic of Vietnam.

"When the battalion command post came under a heavy enemy rocket and mortar attack, Capt. Cleland, disregarding his own safety, exposed himself to the rocket barrage as he left his covered position to administer first aid to his wounded comrades. He then assisted in moving the injured personnel to covered positions. Continuing to expose himself, Capt. Cleland organized his men into a work party to repair the battalion communications equipment which had been damaged by enemy fire. His gallant action is in keeping with the highest traditions of the military service, and reflects great credit upon himself, his unit, and the United States Army.

"Authority: By direction of the President, under the provisions of the Act of Congress, approved 9 July 1968."

Is this when he lost his arms & legs? Not a slam, merely asking.

[Donutboy 0]

"Awarded: Silver Star; Date Action: 4 April 1968; Theater: Republic of Vietnam

"Action: For gallantry in action while engaged in military operations involving conflict with an armed hostile force in the Republic of Vietnam. Captain Cleland distinguished himself by exceptionally valorous action on 4 April 1968, while serving as communications officer of the 2nd Battalion, 12th Calvary during an enemy attack near Khe Sanh, Republic of Vietnam.

"When the battalion command post came under a heavy enemy rocket and mortar attack, Capt. Cleland, disregarding his own safety, exposed himself to the rocket barrage as he left his covered position to administer first aid to his wounded comrades. He then assisted in moving the injured personnel to covered positions. Continuing to expose himself, Capt. Cleland organized his men into a work party to repair the battalion communications equipment which had been damaged by enemy fire. His gallant action is in keeping with the highest traditions of the military service, and reflects great credit upon himself, his unit, and the United States Army.

"Authority: By direction of the President, under the provisions of the Act of Congress, approved 9 July 1968."

Is this when he lost his arms & legs? Not a slam, merely asking.

He lost his limbs in what he himself describes as "a freak accident of war". He supposedly picked up the grenade not knowing it was live. He was awarded many medals for bravery in combat, including the heroic actions described in this article, but he did not receive a Purple Heart for his wartime injuries because they were not during battle.

In trying to say Max Cleland is no hero, Ann Coulter's butcher job focuses solely on Cleland's accident and doesn't mention his other heroics. That's the travesty in her slanderous article.

[Tigermike 3,715]

He lost his limbs in what he himself describes as "a freak accident of war". He supposedly picked up the grenade not knowing it was live. He was awarded many medals for bravery in combat, including the heroic actions described in this article, but he did not receive a Purple Heart for his wartime injuries because they were not during battle.

In trying to say Max Cleland is no hero, Ann Coulter's butcher job focuses solely on Cleland's accident and doesn't mention his other heroics. That's the travesty in her slanderous article.

So Max did not receive his medals because of the wounds he received. Did you even read her article?

That's the travesty in her slanderous article.

I might also add that any democrat using the sentence above is truly hypocritical.

[Tiger Al 0]

She doesn't like that he's seen as a war hero because he earned a Bronze Star and a Silver Star for bravery in combat, but lost 3/4 of his appendages en route to combat. She thinks that for him to be considered a legitimate hero he should've lost his limbs while doing the heroic acts that earned him his awards for heroism.

Actually, the reason she wants to denigrate his service is because he's a Democrat and he badmouthed the monkeyboy in chief.

Do you think she's written a scathing article like this about Jessica Lynch, who's own government made her out to be a "fighter to the end" despite her first-hand account to the contrary? If Lynch ever runs for office as a Democrat then Coulter will.

Criteria: The Silver Star is awarded to a person who, while serving in any capacity with the U.S. Army, is cited for gallantry in action against an enemy of the United States while engaged in military operations involving conflict with an opposing foreign force, or while serving with friendly foreign forces engaged in armed conflict against an opposing armed force in which the United States is not a belligerent party. The required gallantry, while of a lesser degree than that required for award of the Distinguished Service Cross, must nevertheless have been performed with marked distinction.

Criteria: a. The Bronze Star Medal is awarded to any person who, while serving in any capacity in or with the military of the United States after 6 December 1941, distinguished himself or herself by heroic or meritorious achievement or service, not involving participation in aerial flight, while engaged in an action against an enemy of the United States; while engaged in military operations involving conflict with an opposing foreign force; or while serving with friendly foreign forces engaged in an armed conflict against an opposing armed force in which the United States is not a belligerent party.

        b. Awards may be made for acts of heroism, performed under circumstances described above, which are of lesser degree than required for the award of the Silver Star.

        c. Awards may be made to recognize single acts of merit or meritorious service. The required achievement or service while of lesser degree than that required for the award of the Legion of Merit must nevertheless have been meritorious and accomplished with distinction.

[Tigermike 3,715]

No Al she doesn't like the fact that the democrats are spinning his injuries in untruthful ways. Her article was not knocking him for receiving the medals but knocking democrats for LYING about it. Since it appears that is the tract you want to take I will post her article to rebut your spin and democrat lies.

File Under: 'Omission Accomplished'

By Ann Coulter

FrontPageMagazine.com | February 19, 2004

Liberals are hopping mad about last week's column. Amid angry insinuations that I "lied" about Sen. Max Cleland, I was attacked on the Senate floor by Sen. Jack Reed, Molly Ivins called my column "error-ridden," and Al Hunt called it a "lie." Joe Klein said I was the reason liberals were being hysterical about George Bush's National Guard service.

I would have left it at one column, but apparently Democrats want to go another round. With their Clintonesque formulations, my detractors make it a little difficult to know what "lie" I'm supposed to be contesting, but they are clearly implying – without stating – that Cleland lost his limbs in combat.

It is simply a fact that Max Cleland was not injured by enemy fire in Vietnam. He was not in combat, he was not – as Al Hunt claimed – on a reconnaissance mission, and he was not in the battle of Khe Sanh, as many others have implied. He picked up an American grenade on a routine noncombat mission and the grenade exploded.

In Cleland's own words: "I didn't see any heroism in all that. It wasn't an act of heroism. I didn't know the grenade was live. It was an act of fate." That is why Cleland didn't win a Purple Heart, which is given to those wounded in combat. Liberals are not angry because I "lied"; they're angry because I told the truth.

I wouldn't press the point except that Democrats have deliberately "sexed up" the circumstances of Cleland's accident in the service of slandering the people of Georgia, the National Guard and George Bush. Cleland has questioned Bush's fitness for office because he served in the National Guard but did not go to Vietnam.

And yet the poignant truth of Cleland's own accident demonstrates the commitment and bravery of all members of the military who come into contact with ordnance. Cleland's injury was of the routine variety that occurs whenever young men and weapons are put in close proximity – including in the National Guard.

But it is a vastly more glorious story to claim that Cleland was injured by enemy fire rather than in a freak accident. So after Saxby Chambliss beat Cleland in the 2002 Georgia Senate race, liberals set to work developing a carefully crafted myth about Cleland's accident. Among many other examples, last November, Eric Boehlert wrote in Salon: "[D]uring the siege of Khe Sanh, Cleland lost both his legs and his right hand to a Viet Cong grenade."

Sadly for them, dozens and dozens of newspapers have already printed the truth. Liberals simply can't grasp the problem Lexis-Nexis poses to their incessant lying. They ought to stick to their specialty – hysterical overreaction. The truth is not their forte.

One of the most detailed accounts of Cleland's life was written by Jill Zuckman in a lengthy piece for the Boston Globe Sunday magazine on Aug. 3, 1997:

Finally, the battle at Khe Sanh was over. Cleland, 25 years old, and two members of his team were now ordered to set up a radio relay station at the division assembly area, 15 miles away. The three gathered antennas, radios and a generator and made the 15-minute helicopter trip east. After unloading the equipment, Cleland climbed back into the helicopter for the ride back. But at the last minute, he decided to stay and have a beer with some friends. As the helicopter was lifting off, he shouted to the pilot that he was staying behind and jumped several feet to the ground.

Cleland hunched over to avoid the whirring blades and ran. Turning to face the helicopter, he caught sight of a grenade on the ground where the chopper had perched. It must be mine, he thought, moving toward it. He reached for it with his right arm just as it exploded, slamming him back and irreparably altering his plans for a bright, shining future.

Interestingly, all news accounts told the exact same story for 30 years – including that Cleland had stopped to have beer with friends when the accident occurred (a fact that particularly irked Al Hunt).

"He told the pilot he was going to stay awhile. Maybe have a few beers with friends. ... Then Cleland looked down and saw a grenade. Where'd that come from? He walked toward it, bent down, and crossed the line between before and after." (Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Dec. 5, 1999)

"[Cleland] didn't step on a land mine. He wasn't wounded in a firefight. He couldn't blame the Viet Cong or friendly fire. The Silver Star and Bronze Star medals he received only embarrassed him. He was no hero. He blew himself up." (Baltimore Sun, Oct. 24, 1999)

"Cleland was no war hero, but his sacrifice was great. ... Democratic Senate candidate Max Cleland is a victim of war, not a casualty of combat. He lost three limbs on a long-forgotten hill near Khe Sanh because of some American's mistake ..." (Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Sept. 29, 1996)

The story started to change only last year when the Democrats began citing Cleland's lost Senate seat as proof that Republicans hate war heroes. Indeed, until the myth of Republicans attacking Cleland for his lack of "patriotism" became central to the Democrats' narrative against George Bush, Cleland spoke only honorably and humbly about his accident. "How did I become a war hero?" he said to the Boston Globe reporter in 1997. "Simple. The grenade went off."

Cleland even admitted that, but for his accident, he would have "probably been some frustrated history teacher, teaching American government at some junior college." (OK, I got that wrong: I said he'd probably be a pharmacist.)

Cleland's true heroism came after the war, when he went on to build a productive life for himself. That is a story of inspiration and courage. He shouldn't let the Democrats tarnish an admirable life by "sexing up" his record in order to better attack George Bush.

http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/...le.asp?ID=12261

[Tiger Al 0]

So, to make sure I understand you and yours correctly, you're saying that Cleland never received his medals for "exceptionally valorous action on 4 April 1968, while serving as communications officer of the 2nd Battalion, 12th Calvary during an enemy attack near Khe Sanh, Republic of Vietnam", but for the grenade accident four days later?

[Jenny AU-92 0]

You guys are totally missing the point - the Dems were LYING about how he became such a hero, and were slamming the Repubs for attacking his POLITICAL RECORD during the campaign! His POLITICAL RECORD, as CCTAU, a Cleland constituent, has tried repeatedly to tell you, is why he lost his campaign - he was a terrible Senator!!! Just like Dems scream racism or sexism when the Repubs attack a black or a woman, now they are screaming that the Repubs were attacking a veteran - okay, fine, the guy was a decorated hero - HE STILL SUCKED AS A SENATOR!!! And he lost his job because of it! He should not be elected Senator JUST BECAUSE he was a veteran with some medals, and if he makes his voters mad, he should be voted out, just like anyone else.

Or is this too rational an explanation for any of you all to understand?

[TexasTiger 14,283]

You guys are totally missing the point - the Dems were LYING about how he became such a hero, and were slamming the Repubs for attacking his POLITICAL RECORD during the campaign!  His POLITICAL RECORD, as CCTAU, a Cleland constituent, has tried repeatedly to tell you, is why he lost his campaign - he was a terrible Senator!!!  Just like Dems scream racism or sexism when the Repubs attack a black or a woman, now they are screaming that the Repubs were attacking a veteran - okay, fine, the guy was a decorated hero - HE STILL SUCKED AS A SENATOR!!!  And he lost his job because of it!  He should not be elected Senator JUST BECAUSE he was a veteran with some medals, and if he makes his voters mad, he should be voted out, just like anyone else.

Or is this too rational an explanation for any of you all to understand?

Hey Jenny:

How about a quote from Dubya from 1970 in your signature line? What you reckon that would be about?

Here's my favorite thing you say:

"...as CCTAU, a Cleland constituent, has tried repeatedly to tell you, is why he lost his campaign - he was a terrible Senator!!!"

Well that settles that, doesn't it!

Jenny I graduated AU before you did and maybe things have changed, but when I was there we were still encouraged to think for ourselves.

What Coulter said:

But he didn't "give his limbs for his country," or leave them "on the battlefield." There was no bravery involved in dropping a grenade on himself with no enemy troops in sight.

Four days after the battle for which he was cited for exceptional bravery, he was "ordered to set up a radio relay station at the division assembly area, 15 miles away." After completing that task he lost his limbs due to an accident with a hand grenade. Given the nature of warfare in Viet Nam, I would suggest that one's life was always at risk. He was where he was because he was assigned a task.

Today in Iraq a signficant portion of our casualties have been as a result of "accidents." Coulter, and those of you who cheer her on and rely on her "objective" analysis, apparenlty believe that there was no bravery involved in these men and women's deaths and that they did not die for their country.

Question a Senator's votes all you want. But to superimpose pictures of Osama Bin Laden in ads attacking Cleland's votes against a particular Homeland Security Bill, when he didn't oppose the the actual development of such an agency, and particularly when Dubya had originally opposed the concept all together, is actually the point. It is demagougery at its worst.

[tiger88 934]

I know very little about why cleland wasn't reelected. I do have a little common sense though. It tells me that if the guy was a veteran who lost limbs in the war and was quickly voted out after one term, he must not have done anywhere near an acceptable job of representing and pleasing his constituents. I mean if he was worth half a poop as a senator he would have won on sympathy votes alone.

texastiger, it's kinda funny how you berate Jenny for not allowing others to think for themselves when she was just stating her opinion(very strongly as is usually the case in the political forum), then you immediately start putting words in peoples mouths with the Iraqi accident victims stuff. I guess you're smart enough to think and talk for other people.

[TexasTiger 14,283]

I know very little about why cleland wasn't reelected. I do have a little common sense though. It tells me that if the guy was a veteran who lost limbs in the war and was quickly voted out after one term, he must not have done anywhere near an acceptable job of representing and pleasing his constituents. I mean if he was worth half a poop as a senator he would have won on sympathy votes alone.

texastiger, it's kinda funny how you berate Jenny for not allowing others to think for themselves when she was just stating her opinion(very strongly as is usually the case in the political forum), then you immediately start putting words in peoples mouths with the Iraqi accident victims stuff. I guess you're smart enough to think and talk for other people.

Tiger88: Jenny's "opinion" that I was referring to was that those of us not accepting CCTAU's word as gospel were irrational.

You're right. You know very little about why Cleland wasn't elected.

Georgian's had been electing Cleland for years: GA Senate ('70-'75), GA Sec. Of State ('82-'96). His approval rating wasn't that bad and the polls had him ahead until the ads that have been referenced. He was a Democrat running in an increasingly Republican state, however, and was never a sure thing because of that.

Poll

Mason-Dixon Cleland (D) 47% Chambliss ® 41%

10/16-10/17

Access JC/WSB TV Cleland (D) 48% Chambliss ® 45%

10/25-10/28

Zogby Cleland (D) 50% Chambliss ® 48%

11/3-11/4

CCTAU has his strong opinion about Cleland and his "performance" which I'm sure is shared by many, probably including most of those CCTAU hangs around. But it is an opinion, not unquestioned fact. His loss was considered a major upset which suggests late breaking factors which went far beyond overwhelming dissatisfacton with his performance which would have likely been seen in the polls much earlier.

Putting words in people's mouths? Just pointing out the logical extension of accepting one of Ann Coulter's key premises that kicked this whole thing off. I invite you to actually question the logic of my point instead of merely dismissing it without argument. Do you really think military personnel who served in Viet Nam should be held to a different standard than those serving now? War zones are inherently dangerous. Dick Cheney and Newt Gingrich had little chance of encountering a live grenade while walking across campus during their student deferrments.

One can make the argument against Cleland's votes without even addressing how he lost three limbs. If that's the argument, then make it. Coulter and her ilk, however, are too mean spirited to avoid an opportunity to swipe at an opponent, merely because he's an opponent.

[Jenny AU-92 0]

I do think for myself - which is why it annoys me to no end when there always has to be a sinister reason behind why someone who is part of a "special group" - in this case, a disabled veteran - gets treated like anyone else would under the same circumstances. If he had lost those limbs in a car accident, this would not even be a discussion. He should get special consideration and be allowed to keep his Senate seat even tho he repeatedly voted against the will of his constituents just because he lost limbs in Vietnam?? If I was a Congresswoman and did not represent the will of the people of my state in my voting record, I would not count on my gender being enough to help me keep my job.

Cleland put the rights of unions ahead of national security. He voted against the Homeland Security Department bill, even after the Repubs had given him two amendments he wanted - and THAT is why he lost his election. That was the basis for the ads that were run. I don't care how he lost his limbs - he still was not the Senator the people of Georgia wanted, and they showed that at the polls. All Ann Coulter and others have done is point out the lies the Dems use to try and win the sympathy vote - "Don't look at his voting record - the man is a hero! He was injured on the field of battle! That right there makes him a perfect Senator..."

I have asked this before, but how are we going to define a "military hero" when the candidates are those too young to have fought in Vietnam? Desert Storm was a volunteer war. No more draft. No "shame" in staying home. That is why I think it is ridiculous to try and tie Cleland's or Kerry's military service into any of this - especially when they both have VOTING RECORDS that are better indicators to me of their fitness for office, or lack thereof - not what they did or where they did it or what the circumstances were.

[CCTAU 3,536]

Tiger88:  Jenny's "opinion" that I was referring to was that those of us not accepting CCTAU's word as gospel were irrational.

You're right.  You know very little about why Cleland wasn't elected.

Georgian's had been electing Cleland for years:  GA Senate ('70-'75), GA Sec. Of State ('82-'96).  His approval rating wasn't that bad and the polls had him ahead until the ads that have been referenced.  He was a Democrat running in an increasingly Republican state, however, and was never a sure thing because of that.

Poll

Mason-Dixon                Cleland (D)  47%              Chambliss ®  41%

10/16-10/17

Access JC/WSB TV      Cleland (D)  48%              Chambliss ®  45%

10/25-10/28

Zogby                        Cleland (D)  50%                Chambliss ®  48%

11/3-11/4

CCTAU has his strong opinion about Cleland and his "performance" which I'm sure is shared by many, probably including most of those CCTAU hangs around.  But it is an opinion, not unquestioned fact.  His loss was considered a major upset which suggests late breaking factors which went far beyond overwhelming dissatisfacton with his performance which would have likely been seen in the polls much earlier.

Do you live in Georgia?

HHHMMMM!

You can look at the numbers all you want, but another few months and Cleland wouldn't have even had half that. Every time there was a debate, all he could do was recite the demoncratic mantra and remind everyone he lost his arm and legs in Viet Nam.

And "GEORGIANS" as a whole had NOT been voting for him for years. Many irrelavent people get voted to state government each year. That, however, does not make them qualified to represent the whole state.

The whole attack on cleland was that he was USING his injuries as a basis for being a hero and good politician. The people of GA were fooled once but not twice.

Ang GA being a heavy repub state. Where the hell have you been for the last 20 years? We JUST elected a republican gov. for the first time in, hell, forever. And we were split on the senate. The people of GA weren't stuck either way. They voted for the person they felt could represent them best regardless of party.

But now, thank you demoncrats, the idiots that have come out of the woodwork for the deomoncratic party has finally shifted the state more republican. Thank you Max for being the idiot that broke it open.

OH! And thank you for listening to the gospel according to CCTAU. We will be sending the plate around during the next hymn.

[tiger88 934]

According to texastiger all you have to do is superimpose a picture of bin laden on a tv ad against a politician and bam, you'll defeat him. Why aren't more politicians trying this?

[tiger88 934]

Putting words in people's mouths?  Just pointing out the logical extension of accepting one of Ann Coulter's key premises that kicked this whole thing off.  I invite you to actually question the logic of my point instead of merely dismissing it without argument.  Do you really think military personnel who served in Viet Nam should be held to a different standard than those serving now?  War zones are inherently dangerous.  Dick Cheney and Newt Gingrich had little chance of encountering a live grenade while walking across campus during their student deferrments.

Did you even read the "ommission accomplished article ???????????????????

If you did then you would see that Ann Coulter acknowledges the bravery of any service member who even handles ordinances. Your "logical extension" is that:

"Coulter, and those of you who cheer her on and rely on her "objective" analysis, apparenlty believe that there was no bravery involved in these men and women's deaths and that they did not die for their country. "

Hmmmmm. She acknowledges bravery, you state that she did not and so apparently neither do her supporters. If that isn't a blatant attempt to cram some words down some peoples mouths what the heck is? All she was saying was that his wounds were not recieved in a heroic act of battle as many people have implied.

Can you please provide a direct quote, please, no "logical extensions", that would support the other part of your statement that adds that not only did she imply that soldiers who die in accidents in iraq do not exhibit bravery, but do not die for their country either?

[TexasTiger 14,283]

CCTAU

Ang GA being a heavy repub state. Where the hell have you been for the last 20 years? We JUST elected a republican gov. for the first time in, hell, forever.

You're a model Republican. I said an increasingly Republican state, not a heavy repub state. I see no real disagreement here unless you totally misrepresent what I said. Dubya's campaign is gearing up. Maybe he'll hire you. Those are just the kind he skills he's looking for.

Tiger88:

Did you even read the "ommission accomplished article ???????????????????

Yeah, I did, but I was quoting from the previous article with the loving title: "Cleland drops a political grenade," which prompted the original critique. http://www.townhall.com/columnists/anncoul...c20040212.shtml

Read it. She gives him no credit for bravery in Viet Nam. In fact, she denigrates his service:

There was no bravery involved in dropping a grenade on himself with no enemy troops in sight.

Omission Accomplished was only written after she took heat for the first article.

Okay, Tiger88-- logic is not your strong suit. I understand. Perhaps an analogy will help.

General Patton died in a jeep accident. I suppose one can say it takes even less bravery to drive a jeep than to pick up a grenade, but Patton was in a jeep because he was in a dangerous place exhibiting bravery every day. One can critique Patton for various things, but it is unncessary and mean spirited to add to that critique: "There was no bravey in riding in a jeep with no enemy troops in sight."

[tiger88 934]

texastiger,

apparently logic is your best friend, because you can make it say anything you want .

Now your just nitpicking. You made a dumb "logical extension", I showed the holes in it. Now you're going off on some tangent about pattons jeep accident. Let us not forget that your original statement was that coulter and her followers said there was no bravery involved in soldiers dieing in accidents in Iraq. You also said that both parties obviously agree that they did not die for their country.

I am still waiting for you to provide a quote that supports either one of these "logical extensions" . The truth is that you can't so you would rather attack my logic skills. The truth is that you were putting words in peoples mouths after criticizing jenny for thinking for others.

[TexasTiger 14,283]

texastiger,

apparently logic is your best friend, because you can make it say anything you want .

Now your just nitpicking. You made a dumb "logical extension", I showed the holes in it. Now you're going off on some tangent about pattons jeep accident. Let us not forget that your original statement was that coulter and her followers said there was no bravery involved in soldiers dieing in accidents in Iraq. You also said that both parties obviously agree that they did not die for their country.

I am still waiting for you to provide a quote that supports either one of these "logical extensions" . The truth is that you can't so you would rather attack my logic skills. The truth is that you were putting words in peoples mouths after criticizing jenny for thinking for others.

I have provided quotes that support the logical extensions I reference. What I can't do is improve your comprehension skills.

You said:

Let us not forget that your original statement was that coulter and her followers said there was no bravery involved in soldiers dieing in accidents in Iraq. You also said that both parties obviously agree that they did not die for their country.

Let us not forget that you have already forgotten what my original statement was.

Ann Coulter said:

But he didn't "give his limbs for his country," or leave them "on the battlefield." There was no bravery involved in dropping a grenade on himself with no enemy troops in sight.

I said:

Four days after the battle for which he was cited for exceptional bravery, he was "ordered to set up a radio relay station at the division assembly area, 15 miles away." After completing that task he lost his limbs due to an accident with a hand grenade. Given the nature of warfare in Viet Nam, I would suggest that one's life was always at risk. He was where he was because he was assigned a task.

Today in Iraq a signficant portion of our casualties have been as a result of "accidents." Coulter, and those of you who cheer her on and rely on her "objective" analysis, apparenlty believe that there was no bravery involved in these men and women's deaths and that they did not die for their country.

You've pointed holes in nothing. It is unfortunate you can't see the clear and simple parallels. If one doesn't agree that "there is no bravery involved in" dying by accident in Iraq, however, then I have difficulty understanding how one would agree with Coulter's quote about Cleland cited above. It's that simple. I seriously hope there aren't really folks on this board who demean the bravery of those serving in Iraq who die by accident, and by seeing it those present-day terms, hopefully decent and fair people can look at that mean-spirited swipe by Coulter for what it is. But when you recast my statements to fit into your argument you are really only arguing with yourself.

[Tigermike 3,715]

I have provided quotes that support the logical extensions I reference. What I can't do is improve your comprehension skills.

Obviously you need work on your comprehension skills, here is what Max Cleland said.

In Cleland's own words: "I didn't see any heroism in all that. It wasn't an act of heroism. I didn't know the grenade was live. It was an act of fate."

Spin it any way you wish, Max said it best. The democrats have used him and misrepresented what actually happened.

And to quote Ms. Coulter, "Cleland's true heroism came after the war, when he went on to build a productive life for himself. That is a story of inspiration and courage. He shouldn't let the Democrats tarnish an admirable life by "sexing up" his record in order to better attack George Bush."

Have a nice day.

[TexasTiger 14,283]

I have provided quotes that support the logical extensions I reference. What I can't do is improve your comprehension skills.

Obviously you need work on your comprehension skills, here is what Max Cleland said.

In Cleland's own words: "I didn't see any heroism in all that. It wasn't an act of heroism. I didn't know the grenade was live. It was an act of fate."

Spin it any way you wish, Max said it best. The democrats have used him and misrepresented what actually happened.

And to quote Ms. Coulter, "Cleland's true heroism came after the war, when he went on to build a productive life for himself. That is a story of inspiration and courage. He shouldn't let the Democrats tarnish an admirable life by "sexing up" his record in order to better attack George Bush."

Have a nice day.

First, work on your reading skills. I suggest practice, practice practice. Then work on your comprehension skills.

I never said Cleland's loss of limbs was heroic. I took issue with Coulter's statement that there was "no bravery involved" in their loss.

John McCain has said there was nothing heroic about being shot down over Viet Nam. Maybe not, but I think he displayed considerable bravery being there.

This applies you as well:

But when you recast my statements to fit into your argument you are really only arguing with yourself.

Larger, bolder font doesn't improve an argument or make it any more on point.

Your apparent point: The lines between Cleland's citations for heroism and his loss of limbs have been blurred, perhaps purposely by his defenders for political gain. (This appears to be Coulter's larger point, as well, but she overreaches because she seemingly can't help herself.)

I haven't disputed that.

My point: Ann Coulter makes no reference to Cleland's legitimate acts of heroism in either article. In the first article she states "Cleland wore the uniform, he was in Vietnam, and he has shown courage by going on to lead a productive life." In the second article, she only credits him with heroism after Viet Nam, as you have quoted.

If one relies on Coulter's "clarification of the truth" that person would have no inkling that Cleland had been awarded the Silver Star. According to Coulter, he was just a guy hanging around in Viet Nam drinking beer with buddies. Coulter unfairly dismisses Cleland's heroism on the battefield and dismisses that there was any bravery in his service the day he lost his limbs. Why can't you at least admit that simple fact? It doesn't diminish your larger point in the slightest. In fact, it give you greater credibility.

[tiger88 934]

texastiger,

coulters quote only partially and indirectly backs your effort to put words in peoples mouths. Talk about twisting peoples statements around to suit ones own argument. Your "logical extensions" are laughable. I'll be back when I have more time.

ok I see where you are coming from with the "didn't give his limbs for his country" statement. For the record, I don't really care for coulter either, and now that you draw my attention to this statement I agree that it is in bad taste and I see your logical extension afa someone dieing in an accident being equated to someone losing limbs in an accident.

However, you are still wrong imo on the bravery thing. She acknowledges that anyone who even handles ordinances in military duty exhibits bravery so for you to say that she and her followers deny the bravery of accident victims in Iraq is far from logical.

[channonc 466]

If one relies on Coulter's "clarification of the truth" that person would have no inkling that Cleland had been awarded the Silver Star.

This was my original problem with the article as well.

[Tigermike 3,715]

First, work on your reading skills. I suggest practice, practice practice. Then work on your comprehension skills.

You plan on doing that when?

last November, Eric Boehlert wrote in Salon: "[D]uring the siege of Khe Sanh, Cleland lost both his legs and his right hand to a Viet Cong grenade."

Terry McAuliffe has said, "Max Cleland, a triple amputee who left three limbs on the battlefield of Vietnam," was thrown out of office because Republicans "had the audacity to call Max Cleland unpatriotic."

What were they saying?

I never said Cleland's loss of limbs was heroic. I took issue with Coulter's statement that there was "no bravery involved" in their loss. 

If you were not saying that "Cleland's loss of limbs was heroic." Why post the info on his medals? Why try to spin his receiving the medals as if they were received for the injuries. No you did not come out and say that is what they were for, you only posted that the medals were received, not what for. But you wanted to make it appear as if they were.

Interestingly, all news accounts told the exact same story for 30 years – including that Cleland had stopped to have beer with friends when the accident occurred (a fact that particularly irked Al Hunt).

"He told the pilot he was going to stay awhile. Maybe have a few beers with friends. ... Then Cleland looked down and saw a grenade. Where'd that come from? He walked toward it, bent down, and crossed the line between before and after." (Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Dec. 5, 1999)

"[Cleland] didn't step on a land mine. He wasn't wounded in a firefight. He couldn't blame the Viet Cong or friendly fire. The Silver Star and Bronze Star medals he received only embarrassed him. He was no hero. He blew himself up." (Baltimore Sun, Oct. 24, 1999)

"Cleland was no war hero, but his sacrifice was great. ... Democratic Senate candidate Max Cleland is a victim of war, not a casualty of combat. He lost three limbs on a long-forgotten hill near Khe Sanh because of some American's mistake ..." (Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Sept. 29, 1996)

Larger, bolder font doesn't improve an argument or make it any more on point.

But it does make it easier to read does it not?

Your apparent point: The lines between Cleland's citations for heroism and his loss of limbs have been blurred, perhaps purposely by his defenders for political gain.

Finally you admit the truth.

If one relies on Coulter's "clarification of the truth" that person would have no inkling that Cleland had been awarded the Silver Star.

And if one relies on the democrats spin and lies of Mr. Cleland's injuries, they would have a completely dishonest opinion of what happened.

Terry McAuliffe has said, "Max Cleland, a triple amputee who left three limbs on the battlefield of Vietnam," was thrown out of office because Republicans "had the audacity to call Max Cleland unpatriotic." 

[TitanTiger 21,241]

I think we've officially come to this:

[TexasTiger 14,283]

First, work on your reading skills.  I suggest practice, practice practice.  Then work on your comprehension skills.

You plan on doing that when?

last November, Eric Boehlert wrote in Salon: "[D]uring the siege of Khe Sanh, Cleland lost both his legs and his right hand to a Viet Cong grenade."

Terry McAuliffe has said, "Max Cleland, a triple amputee who left three limbs on the battlefield of Vietnam," was thrown out of office because Republicans "had the audacity to call Max Cleland unpatriotic."

What were they saying?

I never said Cleland's loss of limbs was heroic. I took issue with Coulter's statement that there was "no bravery involved" in their loss. 

If you were not saying that "Cleland's loss of limbs was heroic." Why post the info on his medals? Why try to spin his receiving the medals as if they were received for the injuries. No you did not come out and say that is what they were for, you only posted that the medals were received, not what for. But you wanted to make it appear as if they were.

Interestingly, all news accounts told the exact same story for 30 years – including that Cleland had stopped to have beer with friends when the accident occurred (a fact that particularly irked Al Hunt).

"He told the pilot he was going to stay awhile. Maybe have a few beers with friends. ... Then Cleland looked down and saw a grenade. Where'd that come from? He walked toward it, bent down, and crossed the line between before and after." (Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Dec. 5, 1999)

"[Cleland] didn't step on a land mine. He wasn't wounded in a firefight. He couldn't blame the Viet Cong or friendly fire. The Silver Star and Bronze Star medals he received only embarrassed him. He was no hero. He blew himself up." (Baltimore Sun, Oct. 24, 1999)

"Cleland was no war hero, but his sacrifice was great. ... Democratic Senate candidate Max Cleland is a victim of war, not a casualty of combat. He lost three limbs on a long-forgotten hill near Khe Sanh because of some American's mistake ..." (Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Sept. 29, 1996)

Larger, bolder font doesn't improve an argument or make it any more on point.

But it does make it easier to read does it not?

Your apparent point: The lines between Cleland's citations for heroism and his loss of limbs have been blurred, perhaps purposely by his defenders for political gain.

Finally you admit the truth.

If one relies on Coulter's "clarification of the truth" that person would have no inkling that Cleland had been awarded the Silver Star.

And if one relies on the democrats spin and lies of Mr. Cleland's injuries, they would have a completely dishonest opinion of what happened.

Terry McAuliffe has said, "Max Cleland, a triple amputee who left three limbs on the battlefield of Vietnam," was thrown out of office because Republicans "had the audacity to call Max Cleland unpatriotic." 

If you were not saying that "Cleland's loss of limbs was heroic." Why post the info on his medals? Why try to spin his receiving the medals as if they were received for the injuries. No you did not come out and say that is what they were for, you only posted that the medals were received, not what for. But you wanted to make it appear as if they were.

I posted the Conason article for a little additional perspective in light of these threads that were not exactly "Fair and Balanced":

http://www.aunation.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=5239

http://www.aunation.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=5508

http://www.aunation.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=5477

Beyond that, I think I've made my arguments clear enough and well-reasoned enough that any fair-minded objective person who takes the time to read them will understand my point, whether they choose to agree with it or not.

Why are you such an angry guy, anyway? Your party controls all three branches of government and it's Mardi Gras. You have a nice day, too.