Posted on 02/18/2004 4:21:18 PM PST by perfect stranger
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.
Well, I disagree there. In his account, he says he thought it was his grenade. If he honestly thought it was his and had just fallen out of his grenade pouch just then, it wasn't that stupid. It was a terribly unfortunate thing- yes. It didn't have to happen- yes. But if he thought it was his equipment laying there, he would've been within 'reasonable mistake' zone to have secured it.
I don't think he saw a grenade that had been activated lying there on the ground and thought 'hmmm, live grenade, I'll just pick that up and put it in my pocket'
I don't think Cleland should be misrepresenting what happened- if that's what he's been doing- but I don't think we should either. It was an accident. It could've happened to anyone.
No, it was accidently dropped by another fellow. He was injured by the blast as well and he felt really badly about what happened to Cleland- as would you. The other fellow had 'flattened the cotter pin to make it easier to pull the pin out'. That was not a very clever thing to have done. When Cleland picked the grenade up, the pin had either already fallen out or fell out as Cleland picked it up.
Huh? The battle of Khe Sanh included the area of operations around the village of Khe Sanh and the Khe Sanh Combat Base. That's where he was "at" when he was decorated and injured.
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.
I'm thinking logic is escaping you. If Cleland would have been wounded by a grenade explosion in the heat of combat, or from a booby-trapped grenade, he would hold a Purple Heart. According to Ann, he has no Purple Heart. This is because, apparently in Cleland's own words (paraphrasing), he dropped his own grenade on himself.
As far as Iraq goes, a casualty caused by an enemy IED merits a Purple Heart, for it is a combat-related casualty. An accident is not a combat casualty; thus, no Purple Heart. In case you haven't figured it out, combat is still going on in Iraq. The 507th, although not a front-line unit, did end up on the front line accidentally and engaged in combat. Cleland was not engaged in combat when he accidentally fragged himself. Leave the illogic to the libs.
I did warn you that she was up to something.
As for your example of contrasts between the two columns, it was inevitable, given that she was probably luring the vermin into the kill zone. Now, before you get all righteous about it, remember that the vermin had just gotten done urinating all over the service records of American "weekend warriors" in order to get at their real target, George Bush.
All in all, I think The Connecticut Peach went easy on them, when I consider that Google search for "Cleland" "viet cong grenade" put up by RonDog. The more I think about it, the more that it appears as though the "Viet Cong" buildup was a deliberate and long-planned strategy*, aided and abetted by Cleland himself to be used in just this way - an attack on George Bush. After all, the retired Ann Richards used it and the retired Al Gore used it.
BTW - thanks for posting the extensive historical information relating to the area and time period in question. I think that the strength of Free Republic is in just such postings, whereas political organs like DU, Salon & LATWP suffer from "the party line" approach to news and historical items.
*Witness Boehlert's column - uncorrected as far as we know - from November of 2003.
Including, of course, George W. Bush. He was not shot at with bullets, but from what I have heard of the F102, he did something almost as dangerous day after day.
Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them was published in August of 2003, well after Cleland's correction to the historical record. So, basically, who's the lying liar now, Al?*
ROTFLOL! The Connecticut Peach gets a two-fer! She bags Al "Lying" Franken with a line drive to the epigalottis!
And if you think the Demoscum are going to cease lying about this episode, check The Nation from late on February 17, 2004. Matt "Bivits" Bivens continues the barrage with Little Miss Treason, failing to see that the peanut butter on the beer can is a trap before splashing into the five gallon bucket. Bivens repeats the impotent spluttering over The Peach's beer spike. I won't hold my breath waiting for him to retract his uninformed diatribe & rant.
*There is evidence that Franken was contacted in September 2003 regarding the misrepresentation of the Cleland incident in his book. I'll have to check and see if there was more than one print run of the book.
That's odd, Esquire magazine reported in 1999 that he lost his limbs when a grenade accidentally went off as he jumped from a helicopter into a combat zone. And of course, Ann fails to mention that Cleland was awarded the Silver Star for an incident that happened a mere four days earlier.
==========================
Can't you just smell the cordite, hear the arty blasts, and see the human waves of attacking Viet Cong as Cleland fights them off with his last clip?
I just love it when she exposes liberals for what they are: Liars.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.