Max Cleland, LIES Part 2
File Under: 'Omission Accomplished'
February 18, 2004
The Brilliant Ann Coulter!
(Attention Liberal bigots, racists & hate-mongers... Insert your usual
hate-filled personal attacks HERE if unable to refute the article... as
usual!)
LIBERALS are hopping mad about last week's column. Amid angry
insinuations that I "lied" about Sen. Max Cleland, I was attacked on
the Senate floor by Sen. Jack Reed, Molly Ivins called my column
"error-ridden," and Al Hunt called it a "lie." Joe Klein said I was the
reason liberals were being hysterical about George Bush's National
Guard service.
I would have left it at one column, but apparently Democrats want to go
another round. With their Clintonesque formulations, my detractors make
it a little difficult to know what "lie" I'm supposed to be contesting,
but they are clearly implying -- without stating -- that Cleland lost
his limbs in combat.
It is simply a fact that Max Cleland was not injured by enemy fire in
Vietnam. He was not in combat, he was not -- as Al Hunt claimed -- on a
reconnaissance mission, and he was not in the battle of Khe Sanh, as
many others have implied. He picked up an American grenade on a routine
noncombat mission and the grenade exploded.
In Cleland's own words: "I didn't see any heroism in all that. It
wasn't an act of heroism. I didn't know the grenade was live. It was an
act of fate." That is why Cleland didn't win a Purple Heart, which is
given to those wounded in combat. Liberals are not angry because I
"lied"; they're angry because I told the truth.
I wouldn't press the point except that Democrats have deliberately
"sexed up" the circumstances of Cleland's accident in the service of
slandering the people of Georgia, the National Guard and George Bush.
Cleland has questioned Bush's fitness for office because he served in
the National Guard but did not go to Vietnam.
And yet the poignant truth of Cleland's own accident demonstrates the
commitment and bravery of all members of the military who come into
contact with ordnance. Cleland's injury was of the routine variety that
occurs whenever young men and weapons are put in close proximity --
including in the National Guard.
But it is a vastly more glorious story to claim that Cleland was
injured by enemy fire rather than in a freak accident. So after Saxby
Chambliss beat Cleland in the 2002 Georgia Senate race, liberals set to
work developing a carefully crafted myth about Cleland's accident.
Among many other examples, last November, Eric Boehlert wrote in Salon:
"(D)uring the siege of Khe Sanh, Cleland lost both his legs and his
right hand to a Viet Cong grenade."
Sadly for them, dozens and dozens of newspapers have already printed
the truth. Liberals simply can't grasp the problem Lexis-Nexis poses to
their incessant lying. They ought to stick to their specialty -
hysterical overreaction. The truth is not their forte.
One of the most detailed accounts of Cleland's life was written by Jill
Zuckman in a lengthy piece for The Boston Globe Sunday magazine on Aug.
3, 1997:
Finally, the battle at Khe Sanh was over. Cleland, 25 years old, and
two members of his team were now ordered to set up a radio relay
station at the division assembly area, 15 miles away. The three
gathered antennas, radios and a generator and made the 15-minute
helicopter trip east. After unloading the equipment, Cleland climbed
back into the helicopter for the ride back. But at the last minute, he
decided to stay and have a beer with some friends. As the helicopter
was lifting off, he shouted to the pilot that he
was staying behind and jumped several feet to the ground.
Cleland hunched over to avoid the whirring blades and ran. Turning to
face the helicopter, he caught sight of a grenade on the ground where
the chopper had perched. It must be mine, he thought, moving toward it.
He reached for it with his right arm just as it exploded, slamming him
back and irreparably altering his plans for a bright, shining future.
Interestingly, all news accounts told the exact same story for 30 years
-- including that Cleland had stopped to have beer with friends when
the accident occurred (a fact that particularly irked Al Hunt).
"He told the pilot he was going to stay awhile. Maybe have a few beers
with friends. ... Then Cleland looked down and saw a grenade. Where'd
that come from? He walked toward it, bent down, and crossed the line
between before and after." (Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Dec. 5, 1999)
"(Cleland) didn't step on a land mine. He wasn't wounded in a
firefight. He couldn't blame the Viet Cong or friendly fire. The Silver
Star and Bronze Star medals he received only embarrassed him. He was no
hero. He blew himself up." (The Baltimore Sun, Oct. 24, 1999)
"Cleland was no war hero, but his sacrifice was great. ... Democratic
Senate candidate Max Cleland is a victim of war, not a casualty of
combat. He lost three limbs on a long-forgotten hill near Khe Sanh
because of some American's mistake ..." (The Atlanta
Journal-Constitution, Sept. 29, 1996)
The story started to change only last year when the Democrats began
citing Cleland's lost Senate seat as proof that Republicans hate war
heroes. Indeed, until the myth of Republicans attacking Cleland for his
lack of "patriotism" became central to the Democrats' narrative against
George Bush, Cleland spoke only honorably and humbly about his
accident. "How did I become a war hero?" he said to The Boston Globe
reporter in 1997. "Simple. The grenade went off."
Cleland even admitted that, but for his accident, he would have
"probably been some frustrated history teacher, teaching American
government at some junior college." (OK, I got that wrong: I said he'd
probably be a pharmacist.)
Cleland's true heroism came after the war, when he went on to build a
productive life for himself. That is a story of inspiration and
courage. He shouldn't let the Democrats tarnish an admirable life by
"sexing up" his
record in order to better attack George Bush.
--
Left-wing liberals are EVERYTHING they accuse the right of being. They
are mean, vicious, hateful, greedy, cold-hearted, closed-minded,
selfish, intolerant, bigoted and racist.
.
|
