A couple more, just for 'grins' ...
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.
If anyone else remembers, it was Max Cleland that began to gut the VA.
I read the pecksnif column. I don't think he ever refutes Ann's point about where Max lost his limbs.
I remember very well the joy around VA hospitals when Max was appointed head of the VA under Carter, one of their own so to speak.
Then the total anger by the very same vets when Max took a BIG hatchet to the VA hospitals, the benefits, etc.
To me, that part off the "Max Cleland Story" needs to be investigated by Ann as well.
He's not the most honest person...as if that comes as a surprise to anyone here. One day, I'm going to have to dig up my old email exchanges with him -- starting with the time I called him to task for writing nonsense about Jewish mourning traditions w.r.t. to the Wellstone Funerally.
Is that you, Orrin? :-)
"Conasons, and the Conning Conasons Who Con Some For Their Latest Book Deal"
;-)
Thanks ! Annie setting the record straight with the hysterical, LYING 'RATS !
A couple more, just for 'grins' ...
I figure that's she our modern conservative incarnation of Ty Cobb, The Georgia Peach. She's a lot better looking, but her spikes are just as sharp and her lifetime batting average is higher.
I can vouch for the truth of what has been said here. Everybody in GA (at least everybody who was old enough to be paying attention) knew the story of how Cleland was injured - he acknowledged it himself. It was only during his last Senate race that the "alternative" stories about Khe Sanh and the supposed Viet Cong (or friendly) grenade began circulating (by Dem operatives, not by Cleland himself), and it didn't wash here because most voters knew the truth. Also, the alternative stories were mutually exclusive - several supposed eyewitnesses who had never said anything before (despite numerous magazine articles, a national photo-essay and a book) suddenly saying (1) it was a VC grenade (2) it was another soldier's grenade (3) it was during a fire fight (4) it was not in a "hot" zone etc. etc.
That said, Cleland was given a pass for years because of his grievous injuries. He was a horrible VA director under Carter, he led what amounted to destruction of the department and it really has never recovered. He was a dreadful senator, very disconnected from his work and simply voted the hard-left Dem party line and was awful as far as constituent response goes (I'm familiar with this personally - his office was notorious for sending out not only mere form letters but the wrong form letters in response to constituent questions and complaints.) I read in Atlanta magazine a number of years ago that he suffered for years from undiagnosed sleep apnea and essentially slept through a lot of his time in office.
That said, everybody was willing to give him a pass until he went on the aggressive attack for the first time during the last Senate campaign and started screaming that his opponent was attacking his patriotism by criticizing his record. As long as he did NOT play the "vote for me - I'm a wounded war veteran" card but let the voters simply infer it, it was a very successful strategy for getting elected. But all free rides come to an end some day, and he depended on that strategy as his one and all. Apparently he never considered that he couldn't mess up constituent services and vote like Ted Kennedy forever . . .
By attacking President Bush, he's just continuing the hard-line attack strategy that lost him the election. Maybe he or Kerry's campaign strategists figure it will play with people who don't know his record, maybe he's just desperate, maybe he just doesn't care any more. I don't know. My personal feeling is that he's still angry and bitter from his loss and doesn't care who gets hurt so long as he can vent.
She can hit homers, alrighty ! Brains and looks !
Who could ask for more !? ...
Authors generally don't get to write their own headlines. I suspect her previous column showed up in about ten different places with ten different headlines.
and he was not in the battle of Khe Sanh
I took this to mean that he was "not in the battle of Khe Sanh" when the grenade went off. A bit of sloppy writing.
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.
