[optimistically_conservative]

She is disparaging the fact that he allows the Democrats to misrepresent these particular wounds as sustained on the battlefield when they were not.

What an assinine argument.

So, let's tell the families of 100s that died in Iraq their deaths were less meaningful and were not "sustained on the battlefield". Let's tell the thousands injured in Iraq that they are not heroic injuries.

I get the point. I don't like it. As a vet of the first Gulf War, I don't think I have to and I'll be damned if I sit quietly by and watch the honorable and heroic service of someone I politically disagree with be disparaged and mischaracterized.

Have I made myself crystal clear?

[carton253]

Ooooohhhh!

I can feel your outrage clear over here!

I get the point.

If you get the point...then why reply to me like you don't?

[hopespringseternal]

I'll be damned if I sit quietly by and watch the honorable and heroic service of someone I politically disagree with be disparaged and mischaracterized.

Cleland was a war hero. Now he is a politician and an @ss who is lying about someone else's service record. Coulter is being far more honest about Cleland's record than Cleland is about Bush's record.

[Truth Table]

You are exactly correct. Coulter was wrong. I read the article and thought what Coulter would think about decorations and service not directly related to combat.

After all, while I understand that the chest fruit I earned while serving in the USAF was not combat related, it does not take away from the accomplishments themselves, or their overall relationship to how they helped further the mission.

Coulter's article was just as disgraceful as anything Moore, Clark, or any other liberal has spouted about Bush. You are right--It weakens our position.

[Stone Mountain]

Great post!