Posted on 02/11/2004 11:11:19 PM PST by alloysteel
LOL, I am familiar with Arnold's history, and Cleland is no Arnold. Kerry comes close. Clelland can go to the same Hell that Benedict Arnold is in and take his medals with him.
IMO, Cleland owes Bush an apology for jumping on the AWOL bandwagon and he has become a bitter pundit after his election defeat. He dishonors himself.
But I'm not interested in becoming a "hater" myself or making ridiculous ad hominem charges - it would make me too much like a liberal.
Ann doesn't owe Cleland an apology.
Cleland lost three limbs in an accident during a routine noncombat mission where he was about to drink beer with friends.
Yes, so let's hype and misrepresent what happened as a correction.
Look, Cleland can be attacked for what he does now without losing our own credibility disparaging what he did then.
Hey! This guy is a moron, let's make him a congresscritter!
Better yet, he's a handicapped moron, he should be bulletproof!
Perhaps I misunderstood what was posted in posts #5 & #18. But, if those are accurate then Coulter has grossly mischaracterized the circumstances of Cleland's wounding. While setting up a forward radio relay tower on a mountain top secured by an infantry company may sound tame to some, it was certainly a combat operation at that time. It may not have been a hot LZ at the time, it doesn't matter, it was part of a sustained combat mission to relieve the forces at Khe Sanh. It was, by any measure, a combat mission.
Ask anyone who has spent any time on remote fire bases or radio relay sites and the chances are pretty good that they will not characterize it as "routine non combat".
Now, if the info in posts 5 & 18 is not the accurate story, then all bets are off.
It was with curiosity that I read the language contained in the award commemorating Max's gallantry. Curious because I have read it more than a dozen times on other soldier's Silver and Bronze Star histories. When I served in the Army from 1975 to '81, I encountered many a staff officer with the award plaque on their walls, all virtually with the identical language. After a while of seeing this amazing similarity, I had to ask our Battalion Adjutant how this could be? (ignorant little 2nd Louy that I was.)
What came from his files was, to explain the matter, was a "cookbook" that described the proper format and language necessary to procure the appropriately requested award for a given individual. The format was replete with examples of each award language that was guaranteed to procure the requested award; and of course, these examples all mirrored the histories I had noticed before. These cookbook depictions even left blanks for the insertion of dates, units, and places of the supposed action of gallantry.
Furthermore, its not surprising that a horrifically wounded soldier would have an award recommendation made about an event that "occurred" just days before his incident of grievous injury or death. War is hell, and you have only to witness the shattered lives of so many that have returned from the fires of its belly to know that these people have sacrificed more than the common man. They've been there, done that, and are forever marked as special.
But.. don't pull out the bag of medals as proof of honor or valor. The dishonesty that permeates the process of granting such kudos is too suspect to be evidence of anything. The true laurel wreath is in knowing the guy/gal was able to serve and did so honorably.
Ann isn't disparaging what Cleland did... She is disparaging the fact that he allows the Democrats to misrepresent these particular wounds as sustained on the battlefield when they were not.
Ann is disparaging the fact that Cleland allows it because suddenly he has been elevated onto some heroic, righteous platform from which to criticize the President's service in the National Guard.
It is your basic compare and contrast. Cleland - hero, left three wounds on the battlefield in Vietnam... Bush... rich frat boy AWOL from the National Guard. It is smoke and mirrors.
SOP for Dems... And it seemed to work...at least on you.
"OOOooooo...beer.....
What's this thing?
[blam!] D'oh!
Just damn.
If you want on the list, FReepmail me. This IS a high-volume PING list...
Only if they are a democrat or, at the time they are labeled "hero", are somehow allied with and therefore an "honorary" democrat (Sen. McCain, for example). You've gotta understand the rules in order to play the game.
Cleland should not be given a free pass for allowing how he sustained his horrific wounds on the battlefield when he did not.
It's the same as being wounded running away and allowing people to proclaim that you led the charge. (not saying that is what Cleland did...)
Spin and reality are two different things... Ann is attacking the spin...not the man.
To better suit your argument? I don't think so.
The point is Cleland is allowing his wounds to be misrepresented so he can be the Dem "attack dog" on the issue of Bush's service in the National Guard.
Should we just give Cleland's "lie" a free pass so we don't look "mean." Poppycock!
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.