[optimistically_conservative]

I think the specific issue that Ann was referring to was the "grenade incident" and how it was hyped and misrepresented.

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.

[carton253]

Well, that's twice you missed the point. Once in Ann's article...and in my post.

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.