File under: 'Omission Accomplished' (Ann Coulter exposes truth about Sen. Cleland, answers critics)

WND.com ^ | February 18, 2004 | Ann Coulter

[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.

[T'wit]

>> Finally, the battle at Khe Sanh was over.

If that is the factual inaccuracy you object to, I have no argument. I have no idea how that battle went.

According to one account here at least, Cleland was 15 miles away when he was injured, certainly he was not in battle, and that is the key point Ann made. We all agree to that, and Cleland has said as much many times.

It's not always easy to fix when a battle is "over" (unless one side is annihilated). I actually lived once on a part of the Manassas battlefield -- though I was nine miles away! The battle continued as the armies disengaged and there were many skirmishes after 2nd Manassas was "over" in the eyes of historians. The battleground I lived on got named the battle of Chantilly, but it was definitely part of 2nd Manassas.

[T'wit]

>> and he was not in the battle of Khe Sanh

>> I consider this to be false, factually incorrect and unambiguously so. You may disagree, in that the Khe Sanh Combat Base that had been under siege was relieved at 0800 on the day Cleland was injured.

That is where we differ. In context what she said, with the italic portion understood from context, was: "...he was not in the battle of Khe Sanh" when he received his injury. Her wording was very much akin to that in the Baltimore Sun. She was not denying he took part in the battle. To do so would have required a very different statement.

[T'wit]

>> That's where he was "at" when he was decorated and injured.

It's where he earned his decoration, but his injury was 15 miles away. Did the battleground covered all of that terrain?

[suzyq5558]

Liberals simply can't grasp the problem Lexis-Nexis poses to their incessant lying. They ought to stick to their specialty – hysterical overreaction.

I love this line best! you tell like it is Ann!

[T'wit]

>> I am not wrong on this.

I believe you, and I don't think we take very good care of our veterans. I've been through some of the VA Mickey Mouse and think it's shameful. I don't know what Cleland did, but I don't think a moment of complete stupidity in the war zone is much of a qualification for being head of an agency.

[T'wit]

>> She's a lot better looking, but her spikes are just as sharp and her lifetime batting average is higher.

:-) :-)

Cobb was meaner, though.

[optimistically_conservative]

This is because, apparently in Cleland's own words (paraphrasing), he dropped his own grenade on himself.

Cleland believed it was he grenade for 32 years. He was told otherwise in 2000. Either way, it would have been considered an accident, and not "friendly fire" in the "heat of battle".

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.

The 507th did not "end up on the front line accidentally". They were ambushed in the COMMZ that was largely insecure. The "front line", which is anachronistic today, does not suddenly move to include combat that occurs in the COMMZ.

Cleland was not engaged in combat when he accidentally fragged himself.

Cleland did not "frag" himself if Lloyd is to be believed. Also, "fragging" has a connotation that does not apply here. If you intend to use loaded terms like "fragging" reread about the 101st at Camp Pennsylvania in Kuwait. As far as I know, no one killed or injured in that attack was eligible for, and no one has received, the Purple Heart.

I'm thinking logic is escaping you....Leave the illogic to the libs.

One of the things I dispise about libs is thier emotional argumentation, distortion, and ad hominen rhetoric. Cleland flying out with his team to establish a radio relay tower during Operation Pegasus (and in case you haven't figured it out, combat was still going on in Vietnam and specifically at Khe Sanh when he did) was as much a routine noncombat mission as the 507th's or the 101st's. Cleland's was interrupted when, apparently, a soldier negligently rigged his grenade, Cleland saw it and tried to retrieve it. The 507th got lost, negligently retraced their route, and were ambushed. The 101st was fragged in Kuwait.

Now if you can explain the logic involved in why some of the individuals involved in these three incidents are heros and some are not. Please do.

[optimistically_conservative]

Now, before you get all righteous about it, ...

LOL, G-d forbid. Like I said previously, I only took exception to one attack vector.

Cleland deserves much derision for exactly the reasons you state. We don't need to paint him a coward or negligent in Vietnam if he wasn't. He was dismissed by Georgians for being a dumb Senator. The extent of his Vietnam service was recognized, appreciated, then put in perspective as the lever was pulled (actually the screen was touched) for Chambliss.

And I agree that FR is exceptional because fellow FReepers actually care to research and ferret out the facts.

[optimistically_conservative]

Now, before you get all righteous about it, ...

LOL, G-d forbid. Like I said previously, I only took exception to one attack vector.

Cleland deserves much derision for exactly the reasons you state. We don't need to paint him a coward or negligent in Vietnam if he wasn't. He was dismissed by Georgians for being a dumb Senator. The extent of his Vietnam service was recognized, appreciated, then put in perspective as the lever was pulled (actually the screen was touched) for Chambliss.

And I agree that FR is exceptional because fellow FReepers actually care to research and ferret out the facts.

[Endeavor]

Is that you, "Jethro?" Where's "Jed & Granny?"

[hosepipe]

[ 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. ]

If true..PS. THEN:
The only thing I have against Cleland is him being a member of a group deeply involved in seditious activitys for at least the last 40 years... the democrat party.. ALL democrats are either traitors or enablers of traitors..
Joseph McCarthy is a HERO, Cleland, Kerry, Clarke, Clinton are anti-hero(s).... as layed out beautifully by Ann Coulter her brief look at "TREASON", resently... any that say that book was/is hyperbole are just telling a hyperbolic lie.. and are probably cowards to face a proper reponse to in your face treason... the girl is a mean lean RINO exposeing machine... to boot...

[optimistically_conservative]

I think the jabs at the "Viet Cong" grenade types are great and well deserved.

Making them sputter over whether Cleland would have gotten a beer while there is amusing.

Making a a$$ out of Franken is always a job well done, it's just difficult to stay ahead of him - he does such a good job proving it himself.

[Ghengis]

Have you ever noticed how many people, who are constantly wailing about the financial inequalities of this nation, are the same ones who have mansions, boats, expensive cars, and multi-million dollar bank accounts? Yet, they never seem to care enough about those poor, downtrodden souls enough to live a modest life and give away the bulk of their largesse.

Worse than that, most became wealthy by trust funds. Their trusts are sheltered of taxes and civil law suits. They live fat and happy. Poor minorites are hired as care takers of their estates.

Oh yeah...they also want more taxes taken from me to care for the poor.

[PeoplesRepublicOfWashington]

Now if you can explain the logic involved in why some of the individuals involved in these three incidents are heros and some are not. Please do.

Let's stick with your original three incidents: (1) Cleland accidentally fragging himself (or, as you allege, another American accidentally fragging him)--doesn't make a difference. (By the way, "to frag" = to use a grenade; if you chose to assign another meaning to the verb do so understanding that this is the meaning I'm using.) (2) The 507th in Iraq. (3) Those in Iraq killed or wounded by IEDs.

Whether Cleland fragged himself or was fragged by a buddy, it didn't occur in combat--it was an accident. Thus, no Purple Heart. The 507th was ambushed by the enemy on the front line (i.e., where the lead was flying at the time); those killed or wounded in this combat action were awarded the Purple Heart. Those killed or wounded by enemy IEDs are also combat casualties, and they, thus, receive Purple Hearts. What is it you don't understand about combat and non-combat accidents? While I and I'm sure others appreciate those who accidentally sacrifice in service to our country, those who sacrifice in combat with the enemy have long been held up as having done so with valor. Cleland, in the matter of his fragging, was being falsely held up by his fellow 'Rats as one of the latter. He, through his silence, was tacitly endorsing this subterfuge. And, this ploy was being used to discredit a president who apparently served with honor and who continues serving by commanding with honor. Ann's two pieces on this subject have been great, and she's done a service to her countrymen by revealing the truth. I doubt the 'Rats will shut up about this, and I'm eagerly awaiting her third installment.

[optimistically_conservative]

It's where he earned his decoration, but his injury was 15 miles away. Did the battleground covered all of that terrain?

That's a good question. I reviewed maps of the area. One showing scale here, another of Khe Sanh here and the neighboring map section to the East here.

I'm guessing he came under fire at Hill 471 as part of the 2/12 Cav. I'm not sure how to square Lloyd's account of the accident at a hilltop where the Marines were clearing Route 9 and the Globe magazine's account of a hilltop 15 miles to the East. They can't both be true geographically. There are only two ridgelines East of Ca Lu and neither make much sense to me as a relay site, but I don't have enough information about the destination microwave shots to know.

[NYC GOP Chick]

I'd like to see that.

This is our first exchange, which was (I think) the weekend before the '02 elections:

Dear Mr. Conason,

I occasionally read your articles and never before felt compelled to visit your email box. However, there are a couple of things you wrote to which I want to respond.

First: "And perhaps more pertinently: "What's being lost here is the Republicans' lack of understanding of Judaism. They're decrying the behavior at 'Paul Wellstone's funeral' on Tuesday. The fact is, the funeral was Monday. Tuesday was the post-funeral celebration of his life -- a long-standing Jewish tradition ... This is how his survivors chose to celebrate his life. If the Republicans don't like it, it's none of their damned business." (The Norwegians and Swedes may be too reticent to send in their interpretations.)"

That's just not true. There is no such "long-standing Jewish tradition" of raucous celebration so soon after a death. In fact, the only Jewish traditions regarding death involve grieving, mourning, solemnity, comforting mourners, etc.

You might find this link informative and interesting, regarding how death and mourning are treated in the Jewish religion: http://www.myjewishlearning.com/lifecycle/Death.htm -- with particular attention to the section on "The Mourning Period."

If people want to have a raucous, political rally days after the tragic death of a man, his wife and their daughter, so be it -- but please don't let anyone con you into believing that it's part of Jewish tradition.

Oh, and as for why Mrs. Clinton was just about booed off the stage of Madison Square Garden last year, I don't know exactly why the fire fighters did so (although I have some good hunches), but I'm sure that the cops' vigorous response to seeing her up there at their event brought back memories from her campaign the previous year. Especially when she very publicly called four NYC cops "murderers" when they were about to go on trial re: the Diallo shooting. I mean, she did this right when jury selection began -- didn't she (or someone on her staff) realize that such harsh words from her about the 4 cops would make big news here?! (FYI: they were acquitted after a very brief deliberation period)

I just thought I'd share those two bits of info with you.

Best wishes,
(NYC GOP Chick)

---

From: Jconason1@aol.com
Message-ID: <1ba.8d46f7c.2af5edc6@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2002 22:11:02 EST
Subject: Re: On the Wellstone FuneRally

It's always interesting to see how people rationalize their double standards.
Thanks for writing.

I was kinda let down that such a glib and facile writer couldn't do better. But we did a little better last summer, when we had an actual dialogue, most of which isn't very interesting -- but here's how it started:

Dear Mr. Conason,

By any chance, did you happen to read even the first half of Ann Coulter's book?

I'm sure it's just unintentional humor on your part when you accuse Coulter of writing a book which is "replete ... with falsehoods and distortions" when you write an article about her book which is also replete with falsehoods and distortions.

For one thing, if you had read only as far as page 82 in her latest book, you'd know that she does indeed write about the VOA investigation, albeit not in dreary detail. Why do you accuse her of not doing so at all? Even a quick look at the index of her book shows that. You may be a lot of things, but sloppy has never been one of them.

I could do a blow-by-blow list of more falsehoods and distortions in your piece, but since you'll probably just reply with a snippy two-line snit -- if that much -- I won't bother typing it all out here.

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and take a wild guess, if I may: You take just about everything Sidney Blumenthal says and writes at face value, doncha? I've been reading parts of his gushing Clinton hagiography (in the brand new Borders in lower Manhattan) and I have to say that I haven't laughed this hard since...I don't know when! :-)

Just for fun (and because you're so cute when you get hysterical), I may actually buy one of your books. Which one do you recommend?

Well, I hope you enjoyed the holiday weekend!

Best wishes,
(NYC GOP Chick)

---

Received: from Jconason1@aol.com
Message-ID: <141.150a05f0.2c3b88fd@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 22:39:57 EDT
Subject: Re: I Have A Question

Thanks (NYC GOP Chick). I recommend my new book, Big Lies. I can tell you'll just love it.

Received: from Jconason1@aol.com
Message-ID: <94.3a4148ac.2c3b8969@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 22:41:45 EDT
Subject: Re: I Have A Question

It's true that she mentions one tiny aspect of the VOA "investigation." It's also true that she leaves out 99 per cent of it, because it was so embarrassing to the United States.

And then we just had some chitchat back and forth.

[GraceCoolidge]

If someone had foolishly, say, her brother, blown his limbs off, would that be laughable to you all?

Of course it wouldn't be laughable, it would be tragic. It would be worthy of comment and correction, though, if that "someone" then claimed that "foolishly... blow[ing] his limbs off" made him heroic, deserving of a lifetime elected post, and above any criticism. A "tragic hero" isn't a hero just because he is tragic. Ann Coulter's piece was not just "pick on the disabled guy." It addressed an issue created by Max Cleland when he deliberately paints himself as a war hero unjustly smeared as unpatriotic by conservatives, and when he takes it upon himself to use his injuries as some kind of expertise to comment on President Bush's military service. In fact, it appears that Mr. Cleland is someone who sustained injuries in a tragic accident during military service and who was voted out of office because of his misguided policies. The article was about contradicting Max Cleland's misrepresentations, not about mocking the disabled. The fact that his misrepresentations are directly tied to his disabilities may be sad, but it does not entitle him to a free pass.

[an amused spectator]

While you have brought up some good counterpoints to The Connecticut Peach's two articles on Cleland (in the grand tradition of Free Republic), I think it's safe to say that she vinny viddy viccyed the Democrats to a fare-thee-well* on this one. ;-)

*a line borrowed from a favorite short story

[snooker]

Liberals should know by now ... don't mess with Ann.

[optimistically_conservative]

Cleland accidentally fragging himself (or, as you allege, another American accidentally fragging him)--doesn't make a difference.

Whether it was Cleland's grenade or someone else's does not make a difference in eligibility for the Purple Heart given the circumstances. It makes a big difference in determining negligence. It also makes a big difference concerning the burden of guilt on a person's conscience. I'll also restate the point I made earlier that Cleland is not a war hero because an American grenade blew off his arm and legs. He is a war hero for his actions in Vietnam, and distinction in combat, and arguing otherwise is ludicrous.

(By the way, "to frag" = to use a grenade; if you chose to assign another meaning to the verb do so understanding that this is the meaning I'm using.)

frag

TRANSITIVE VERB:
Inflected forms: fragged, frag·ging, frags
To wound or kill (a fellow soldier) by throwing a grenade or similar explosive at the victim: “He got fragged. Blown away” (Bobbie Ann Mason).

What you are demonstrating by using this term, and using it incorrectly is either ignorance or willful callousness.

Don't ask me to "understand" that.

The 507th was ambushed by the enemy on the front line (i.e., where the lead was flying at the time);

More ignorant use of military terminology.

What is it you don't understand about combat and non-combat accidents?

Having had friends and acquaintances killed or seriously injured in normal motorpool ops, helicopter training accidents, the Green Ramp tragedy, traffic accidents on TAPLINE road and witnessed my share of misfires and suicides I think I can distinguish between non-combat "accidents" and combat injuries, thanks.

I think I'm done with this topic.