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.
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.
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.
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.