Ann Coulter: Cleland drops a political grenade

Universal Press Syndicate ^ | February 12, 2004 | Ann Coulter

[alloysteel]

Former Sen. Max Cleland is the Democrats' designated hysteric about George Bush's National Guard service. A triple amputee and Vietnam veteran, Cleland is making the rounds on talk TV, basking in the affection of liberals who have suddenly become jock-sniffers for war veterans and working himself into a lather about President Bush's military service. Citing such renowned military experts as Molly Ivins, Cleland indignantly demands further investigation into Bush's service with the Texas Air National Guard.

Bush's National Guard service is the most thoroughly investigated event since the Kennedy assassination. But the Democrats will accept only two possible conclusions to their baseless accusations: (1) Bush was "AWOL," or (2) the matter needs further investigation.

Thirty years ago, Bush was granted an honorable discharge from the National Guard, which would seem to put the matter to rest. But liberals want proof that Bush actually deserved his honorable discharge. (Since when did the party of Bill Clinton, Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd get so obsessed with honor?)

On "Hardball" Monday night, Cleland demanded to see Bush's pay stubs for the disputed period of time, May 1972 to May 1973. "If he was getting paid for his weekend warrior work," Cleland said, "he should have some pay stubs to show it."

The next day, the White House produced the pay stubs. This confirmed what has been confirmed 1 million times before: After taking the summer off, Bush reported for duty nine times between Nov. 29, 1972, and May 24, 1973 – more than enough times to fulfill his Guard duties. (And nine times more than Bill Clinton, Barney Frank or Chuck Schumer did during the same period.)

All this has been reported – with documentation – many times by many news organizations. George magazine had Bush's National Guard records 3 1/2 years ago.

All available evidence keeps confirming Bush's honorable service with the Guard, which leads liberals to conclude ... further investigation is needed! No evidence will ever be enough evidence. That Bush skipped out on his National Guard service is one of liberals' many nondisprovable beliefs, like global warming.

Cleland also expressed outrage that Bush left the National Guard nine months early in 1973 to go to Harvard Business School. On "Hardball," Cleland testily remarked: "I just know a whole lot of veterans who would have loved to have worked things out with the military and adjusted their tour of duty." (Cleland already knows one – Al Gore!)

When Bush left the National Guard in 1973 to go to business school, the war was over. It might as well have been 1986. Presidents Kennedy and Johnson had already lost the war, and President Nixon had ended it with the Paris peace accords in January. If Bush had demanded active combat, there was no war to send him to.

To put this in perspective, by 1973, John Kerry had already accused American soldiers of committing war crimes in Vietnam, thrown someone else's medals to the ground in an anti-war demonstration, and married his first heiress. Bill Clinton had just finished three years of law school and was about to embark upon a political career – which would include campaign events with Max Cleland.

Moreover, if we're going to start delving into exactly who did what back then, maybe Max Cleland should stop allowing Democrats to portray him as a war hero who lost his limbs taking enemy fire on the battlefields of Vietnam.

Cleland lost three limbs in an accident during a routine noncombat mission where he was about to drink beer with friends. He saw a grenade on the ground and picked it up. He could have done that at Fort Dix. In fact, Cleland could have dropped a grenade on his foot as a National Guardsman – or what Cleland sneeringly calls "weekend warriors." Luckily for Cleland's political career and current pomposity about Bush, he happened to do it while in Vietnam.

There is more than a whiff of dishonesty in how Cleland is presented to the American people. Terry McAuliffe goes around saying, "Max Cleland, a triple amputee who left three limbs on the battlefield of Vietnam," was thrown out of office because Republicans "had the audacity to call Max Cleland unpatriotic." Mr. Cleland, a word of advice: When a slimy weasel like Terry McAuliffe is vouching for your combat record, it's time to sound "retreat" on that subject.

Needless to say, no one ever challenged Cleland's "patriotism." His performance in the Senate was the issue, which should not have come as a bolt out of the blue inasmuch as he was running for re-election to the Senate. Sen. Cleland had refused to vote for the Homeland Security bill unless it was chock-full of pro-union perks that would have jeopardized national security. ("OH, MY GOD! A HIJACKED PLANE IS HEADED FOR THE WHITE HOUSE!" "Sorry, I'm on my break. Please call back in two hours.")

The good people of Georgia – who do not need lectures on admiring military service – gave Cleland one pass for being a Vietnam veteran. He didn't get a lifetime pass.

Indeed, if Cleland had dropped a grenade on himself at Fort Dix rather than in Vietnam, he would never have been a U.S. senator in the first place. Maybe he'd be the best pharmacist in Atlanta, but not a U.S. senator. He got into office on the basis of serving in Vietnam and was thrown out for his performance as a senator.

Cleland wore the uniform, he was in Vietnam, and he has shown courage by going on to lead a productive life. But he didn't "give his limbs for his country," or leave them "on the battlefield." There was no bravery involved in dropping a grenade on himself with no enemy troops in sight. That could have happened in the Texas National Guard – which Cleland denigrates while demanding his own sanctification.

[88keys]

That link you posted to the U. Illinois student column (re: Michael Moore) is a great "find"...that young communications major really sums up the whole situation, besides the Michael Moore info....she seems very insightful and honest despite that I suspect she's "liberal-leaning" (LOL! if you're honest, I don't care if you're "liberal"...there's room for discussion at least, and we all benefit from straightforward discourse)...

There's a place for the "bomb-throwers" like Coulter, too, and any other passionate "movers and shakers", but there should be no place for liars, or for those whose "political opinions" are hugely publicized and taken as "informed and insightful" based solely on their popularity and influence in their non-political "day jobs"!! (and why are these "pop culture icons" always liberal Democrats?? IMHO, "Ah-nold" benefited from his "super star movie status", but that's not what got him elected...and not to start up a whole "politics in California" thread again!)

[oyez]

"If he was getting paid for his weekend warrior work," Cleland said, "he should have some pay stubs to show it."

Cleland should produce his pay stubs from thirty five years ago to prove that people really keep such meticulous records.

[Shethink13]

The smartest person on this planet dropped out of college in his first year.
I believe his name is Bill Gates.
He's worth something like 50 billion.

He's worth something like 50 billion, therefore that makes him the "smartest person on this planet"? I hardly think so.

[optimistically_conservative]

The smartest person on this planet dropped out of college in his first year.

I take it you're not a philosophy major.

First, I was responding to an earlier post that queried Coulter's and Moore's education level. You will also note that the lines below each URL are excerpts from those links. I was not trying to make a point.

If wealth is a measure of being "smart", here are a few more you might mention.

That's not to say Gates isn't smart, especially at what he does, but the smartest thing he did was recognize a business opportunity (and talent) and obsessively apply himself.

3 of the biggest Republicans didn't graduate college.
Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and Matt Drudge.

Are these really among the "biggest" Republicans? Do you consider them among the top conservative thinkers? I would say they are among the best conservative infotainers.

Again, not saying they aren't "smart".

[Dan from Michigan]

In fact, Cleland could have dropped a grenade on his foot as a National Guardsman – or what Cleland sneeringly calls "weekend warriors."

At least most guardsmen didn't blow themselves up, which you did because you were a dumbass.

Oh yeah, I live next door to a guard armory. They are now over in Iraq defending this country.

[My Dog Likes Me]

Woof!

My dog likes me. Poor thing is a little overweight.
I need to get her on the Atkins Diet. I mean the Arrf-kins diet! ha!

[Fledermaus]

I've since been corrected on that version of the story.

[an amused spectator]

OK, I'm really, nearly, almost absolutely, positively sure, that's a load of crap.

If you go back and re-read the excerpt by the Salon "reporter", Eric Boehlert, it sounds like Cleland got it during a Viet Cong assault at Khe Sanh - "The next year, during the siege of Khe Sahn, Cleland lost both his legs and his right hand to a Viet Cong grenade". The artistry of the media has always fascinated me.

What's Boehlert's newest project for Salon? Creative interpretation of Bush's National Guard service:

Bush's service records: The score card by Eric Boehlert
Did the president walk out on the Texas Air National Guard 30 years ago? A guide through the morass of new evidence.

Feb. 13, 2004 | Forty-five months after allegations first surfaced that President Bush failed to honor his obligation to the Texas Air National Guard, the story has returned with a vengeance. As aides release a trickle of selected documents in the White House's effort to persuade the public that Bush fulfilled his obligation, the story continues to fester and questions remain unanswered...

=============================

Wonder what fascinating new "facts" Eric will discover? ;-)

[Qwinn]

I've read most of this thread with interest, and I've appreciated your input, but I think you're missing the gist of Ann's point. As other posters have pointed out, the Dems aren't portraying the Cleland incident the way you are. They're portraying it that it was a "Viet Cong grenade". They've been doing so for a long time.

You're nitpicking about the very fine details concerning a friendly fire incident. Ann wasn't trying to make a distinction between an "honorable" friendly fire incident and a "dishonorable" friendly fire incident... she was drawing a distinction between an event that the media was working shamelessly to plug as an ENEMY fire scenario, and point out that it was friendly fire.

She HAS accomplished that. While we can nitpick about the details of the friendly fire incident, no one reasonable is arguing that he lost his limbs to a "Viet Cong" grenade which had been the uncontested DNC line until Ann came along. Her version of the story is far far far far closer to the truth than what the Dems have been plugging. Or would you disagree with that?

Qwinn

[optimistically_conservative]

You're nitpicking about the very fine details concerning a friendly fire incident.

"Cleland lost three limbs in an accident during a routine noncombat mission where he was about to drink beer with friends."

If this is patently false, I do not think it is nitpicking to point it out. If it is false and if the true story is readily available, it is not nitpicking to point out Ann's negligence. If it is false and Ann knows it is false, ...

http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/Vietnam/northern/map1.gif

The Khe Sanh seige lasted from 20 January 1968 to 15 April 1968.

Awarded: Silver Star; Date Action: 4 April 1968: "When the battalion command post came under a heavy enemy rocket and mortar attack, Capt. Cleland, disregarding his own safety, exposed himself to the rocket barrage as he left his covered position to administer first aid to his wounded comrades. He then assisted in moving the injured personnel to covered positions. Continuing to expose himself, Capt. Cleland organized his men into a work party to repair the battalion communications equipment which had been damaged by enemy fire.

The action cited occurred on April 4, 1968, four days before the grenade explosion that cost Sen. Cleland both legs and an arm.

S.C. veteran’s revelation changed a life: Charlie Company was opening up Route 9 going into Khe Sanh, near the demilitarized zone between the then-separate North and South Vietnams, and had secured a mountaintop.

Cleland, a captain in the Army Signal Corps, and his team flew by helicopter to the hill that Price and Charlie Company held to set up a radio relay tower.

When the helicopter landed, Cleland and his soldiers jumped off and the helicopter immediately ascended.

Then there was an explosion.

There is also the minor detail, revealed several years ago, that it was not Cleland's grenade, or his error.

In fact, Cleland could have dropped a grenade on his foot as a National Guardsman ...

Indeed, if Cleland had dropped a grenade on himself at Fort Dix rather than in Vietnam ...

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

So, am I nitpicking if Cleland did not "drop a grenade on himself"?

But he didn't "give his limbs for his country," or leave them "on the battlefield."

This one, combined with the sentence that followed it, REALLY PISSED ME OFF!! It is an absolute lie, in both the sense that Khe Sanh was not a battlefield at the time Cleland earned his Silver Star and Purple Heart, or that Cleland did not lose his limbs in service to his country. Period. And I am not about to be swayed on either point.

So far in Atlanta, where I figured fallout would be the most energetic, this was all I could find:

Coulter slams Cleland

Cleland’s office referred reporters to Kerry’s campaign, which released a statement from the candidate calling Coulter a “Bush campaign operative” and saying her column “achieved a level of cruelty that is not only slanderous, but offensive to the millions of men and women who have fought and bled for America.”

“If the best the other side can do is to attack disabled war heroes when there are millions of veterans in America whose health care and benefits have been slashed by this administration, then they are in for a fight that they will lose,” Kerry said.

[Qwinn]

Erm, from reading her article, and reading the excerpt from Cleland's own book, her account matches his fairly accurately. She's quoting HIM, basically. If you found -another- source that argues that both Cleland and Coulter are essentially wrong about what happened to Coulter, that's fine. But to claim that Coulter is wilfully lying by citing the account that Cleland himself gave, where he believed the grenade was his own and that does not cite enemy activity, is like claiming that Bush deliberately lied when every intelligence agency in the world and the U.N. all agreed that Saddam had WMD's. It's more dishonest than the accused is regarding the point in question.

It still wasn't a Viet Cong grenade, and that has been the gist of all the positive articles concerning Cleland's injuries. She's -still- more accurate than the Dem party has been, and I am far more outraged that they would cite it as a "Viet Cong grenade" than anything Coulter wrote.

Qwinn

[Qwinn]

Correction:

"If you found -another- source that argues that both Cleland and Coulter are essentially wrong about what happened to CLELAND (not Coulter), that's fine."

Bad Qwinn

[optimistically_conservative]

Erm, from reading her article, and reading the excerpt from Cleland's own book, her account matches his fairly accurately. She's quoting HIM, basically. If you found -another- source that argues that both Cleland and Coulter are essentially wrong about what happened to Coulter, that's fine.

As we say in Georgia, that dawg don't hunt. But please, page number from his revised 2000 book, "Strong at the broken places" where Ann gets this.

Senator Cleland

Shipp: Cleland's courage, ability to overcome adversity make him a tough opponent

Going to the Max Body and Soul

[optimistically_conservative]

On the right hand side of the first link I provided is Complete Interview (01:01:14). At 20:30 of the second part of that clip is Cleland telling the story in his own words.

[optimistically_conservative]

On the right hand side of the first link I provided is Cleland's Library of Congress Veterans History Project Complete Interview (01:01:14). At 20:30 of the second part of that clip is Cleland telling the story in his own words.