Replies

I'm glad Ann wrote this column.

Max Cleland is not a war hero because of what happened on 8 April, he is a war hero for his actions leading up to that and his distinguished heroism on 4 April. He is heroic, as Ann says, for putting his life back together and accomplishing what he has. IMNSHO, his bitterness and loss of humility since losing the election has tarnished him. His willingness to belittle the service of another and let others conflate his service, is disreputable.

The libs that "sex up" or lie about what happened on 8 April are no better than the "conservatives" that belittle Cleland's service or lie about it.

Some interesting contrasts:

Then:
There was no bravery involved in dropping a grenade on himself with no enemy troops in sight.
Now:
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.

In the previous article, she restated the "dropped a grenade on himself" twice.

FWIW, I think she still has her facts twisted on Khe Sanh.

Then:
But he didn't "give his limbs for his country," or leave them "on the battlefield."
Now:
... and he was not in the battle of Khe Sanh ...
He picked up an American grenade on a routine noncombat mission and the grenade exploded.

Let's be clear about this. He was in the battle of Khe Sanh, Operation Pegasus, in which combat operations were on-going when Cleland earned his Silver Star, and later when he was injured. He was not injured in combat.

The Free World Counteroffensive
At 0800 on 8 April, the relief of the Khe Sanh Combat Base wasaccomplished as the 3d Brigade airlifted its command post into the base and assumed the mission of securing the position. The 2d Battalion, 7th Cavalry, cleared Route 9 to the base and linked up with the marines.
By this time it was apparent that the enemy had chosen to flee rather than face the highly mobile Americans. Vast amounts of new equipment were abandoned in place by the North Vietnamese as they hastily retreated.
Nevertheless, the enemy maintained some order in his withdrawal. At 0350 on 8 April, an element of the Vietnamese Army Airborne Task Force near the command post of the 3d Vietnamese Airborne Battalion was attacked. For over four hours the clash continued before the enemy withdrew leaving almost 75 dead behind. Later that afternoon, the 3d, 6th, and 8th Vietnamese Army Airborne Task Force closed in at Landing Zone SNAKE and began operations along Route 9 to the west.

The final battle of the operation took place on Easter Sunday, 14 April. The location was ironically between Hills 881 S and 881 N where the battle for Khe Sanh had started on 20 January. The 3d Battalion, 26th Marines, attacked from Hill 881 S to seize Hill 881 N and met heavy resistance. The marines prevailed, and the enemy withdrew leaving over 100 dead behind.

Using Ann's criteria, there have been 100s of soldiers that have died in Iraq the past year on routine non-combat missions since March 2002. They have been ambushed. Most famously the 507th Maintenance Company, not a unit we send on combat missions. They have been killed by IEDs. And they have been killed in all kinds of accidents.

There are obviously still some inconsistencies in the story on what happened on 8 April 1968. The story he got back on and then jumped off doesn't jive with the 2000 account from Lloyd here and here.

I think what you're looking at is slightly ambiguous wording, not a misstatement of facts.

Ann prefaced her Khe Sanh comment with this >>> It is simply a fact that Max Cleland was not injured by enemy fire in Vietnam.

Iow, she was talking about where and when he got his injury and she denies that it was in combat or on patrol or in that battle. In context, her comment is not to be read as a factual misstatement. She knows he was in the the fight at Khe Sanh four days earlier, but her point is, that's not where he was wounded. She is simply refuting the Democrat myth about him having combat wounds.

Using Ann's criteria, there have been 100s of soldiers that have died in Iraq the past year on routine non-combat missions since March 2002.

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'm glad Ann wrote this column.

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.