Replies

Yesterday on "Captial Gang", Al the Hitman Hunt used his program ending "outrage" to blast Coulter and again play the lie card that Cleland DID, in fact, lost his limbs "in battle".

But of course, "in battle" now is being parsed like Clinton's "is" or "well, technically we were never alone in the White House" (impossible since staff and security are always present).

I think some are arguing that "Ann lied" by claiming it wasn't Cleland's grenade, but someone elses (though I'm not really sure how much difference that makes).

In Cleland's own words:

On April 8, 1968, I volunteered for one last mission. The helicopter moved in low. The troops jumped out with M16 rifles in hand as we crouched low to the ground to avoid the helicopter blades. Then I saw the grenade. It was where the chopper had lifted off. It must be mine, I thought. Grenades had fallen off my web gear before. Shifting the M16 to my left hand and holding it behind me, I bent down to pick up the grenade.

A blinding explosion threw me backwards.

It is a tragic accident. I'm not sure what I think of Coulter's article. But the facts are sort of interesting and only because of Cleland's accusations of Bush being AWOL.

In 2002, the Democrats had no ideas and they ran on biography: In Missouri, Jean Carnahan was the brave widow of the late governor; in Georgia, Max Cleland was a Vietnam veteran and triple amputee; in Minnesota, Walter Mondale was the lion of the '84 campaign and a friend of Paul Wellstone. And in all three cases the public shrugged and voted Republican. These are serious times and they demand politicians rise to them.
Yet here we are two years later, and they're running on biography all over again. But this time their chosen biography is Vietnam, and for many Americans, and especially Boomer Democrats, that's far more psychologically complicated.
Look at John Kerry's stump speech: "We band of brothers," he says, indicating his fellow veterans. "We're a little older, we're a little greyer, but we still know how to fight for this country." Thirty years ago, he came back from Vietnam and denounced his "band of brothers" as a gang of drug-fueled torturers, rapists, and murderers.
These versions are not reconcilable. When he was palling around with Jane Fonda in the '70s, he hated the military. It wasn't just that he opposed the war but that he accused his "band of brothers" of a level of participation in war crimes and civilian atrocities unmatched by the Japanese, the Nazis and the Soviets.
So one John Kerry is a fake. Which is it? Running on biography is lame enough. Running on fake biography is pathetic.

Steyn must be one of the most brilliant men out there! I wonder how hard it would be to get him syndicated in more papers nationwide?