There's a lesson here for all of us..... we simply must have the facts before any accusation about someone's military service is put on the table.
Ann doesn't owe Cleland an apology.
Why? Is there a section in the ADA that says that Mr. Cleland gets his own special "handicapped ramp" in the political arena? "Wow. Senator Cleland is physically challenged, so we can't say anything mean about him while he's spewing vituperative lies about George Bush."
He knew what he was doing when he shot his mouth off about Bush. He should have stayed on the bench if he didn't want to get any on him.
I wouldn't go that far; perhaps she was a bit disingenuous and mean-spirited, but that's understandable considering all the bitter invective that Mr. Cleland has been hurling at President Bush and the rest of the (case in point) so-called "week-end warriors".
A war zone is a war zone, and any soldier serving in one is heroic just for being there; not to denigrate Mr. Cleland in any way for his service, but somehow all the pro-Cleland/anti-Bush rhetoric left me with quite a different impression of how Cleland was so grievously wounded. A lethal "accident" just doesn't have sufficient "cachet" if you're a Democrat, I guess? But that's "disingenuous", too, and Coulter's right on with her criticisms of Senator Cleland's actions (like Kerry's)...not to mention, anyone wishing to play "hero one-upmanship" is going to be called on it. If they're going to use it, and especially to denigrate an honorable opponent, we're not going to just take their word on it, not meaning any disrespect.