SwiftVets.com Forum Index SwiftVets.com
Service to Country
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Just who started this? Max Cleland.. HYPOCRITE!

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    SwiftVets.com Forum Index -> Resources & Research
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
SwanLady
Seaman Apprentice


Joined: 20 Aug 2004
Posts: 95

PostPosted: Thu Aug 26, 2004 2:41 am    Post subject: Just who started this? Max Cleland.. HYPOCRITE! Reply with quote

Kerry is whining that the President started attacking him via the Swifites. Oh, really Mr. Kerry? Or is this another opportunist adventure into conspiracy land? Well, here's a little Ann Coulter reading:

Cleland drops a political grenade
Ann Coulter
February 12, 2004

Former Sen. Max Cleland is the Democrats' designated hysteric about George Bush's National Guard service. A triple amputee and Vietnam veteran, Cleland is making the rounds on talk TV, basking in the affection of liberals who have suddenly become jock-sniffers for war veterans and working himself into a lather about President Bush's military service. Citing such renowned military experts as Molly Ivins, Cleland indignantly demands further investigation into Bush's service with the Texas Air National Guard.

Bush's National Guard service is the most thoroughly investigated event since the Kennedy assassination. But the Democrats will accept only two possible conclusions to their baseless accusations: (1) Bush was "AWOL," or (2) the matter needs further investigation.

Thirty years ago, Bush was granted an honorable discharge from the National Guard, which would seem to put the matter to rest. But liberals want proof that Bush actually deserved his honorable discharge. (Since when did the party of Bill Clinton, Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd get so obsessed with honor?)

On "Hardball" Monday night, Cleland demanded to see Bush's pay stubs for the disputed period of time, May 1972 to May 1973. "If he was getting paid for his weekend warrior work," Cleland said, "he should have some pay stubs to show it."

The next day, the White House produced the pay stubs. This confirmed what has been confirmed 1 million times before: After taking the summer off, Bush reported for duty nine times between Nov. 29, 1972, and May 24, 1973 – more than enough times to fulfill his Guard duties. (And nine times more than Bill Clinton, Barney Frank or Chuck Schumer did during the same period.)

All this has been reported – with documentation – many times by many news organizations. George magazine had Bush's National Guard records 3 1/2 years ago.

All available evidence keeps confirming Bush's honorable service with the Guard, which leads liberals to conclude ... further investigation is needed! No evidence will ever be enough evidence. That Bush skipped out on his National Guard service is one of liberals' many nondisprovable beliefs, like global warming.

Cleland also expressed outrage that Bush left the National Guard nine months early in 1973 to go to Harvard Business School. On "Hardball," Cleland testily remarked: "I just know a whole lot of veterans who would have loved to have worked things out with the military and adjusted their tour of duty." (Cleland already knows one – Al Gore!)

When Bush left the National Guard in 1973 to go to business school, the war was over. It might as well have been 1986. Presidents Kennedy and Johnson had already lost the war, and President Nixon had ended it with the Paris peace accords in January. If Bush had demanded active combat, there was no war to send him to.

To put this in perspective, by 1973, John Kerry had already accused American soldiers of committing war crimes in Vietnam, thrown someone else's medals to the ground in an anti-war demonstration, and married his first heiress. Bill Clinton had just finished three years of law school and was about to embark upon a political career – which would include campaign events with Max Cleland.

Moreover, if we're going to start delving into exactly who did what back then, maybe Max Cleland should stop allowing Democrats to portray him as a war hero who lost his limbs taking enemy fire on the battlefields of Vietnam.

Cleland lost three limbs in an accident during a routine noncombat mission where he was about to drink beer with friends. He saw a grenade on the ground and picked it up. He could have done that at Fort Dix. In fact, Cleland could have dropped a grenade on his foot as a National Guardsman – or what Cleland sneeringly calls "weekend warriors." Luckily for Cleland's political career and current pomposity about Bush, he happened to do it while in Vietnam.

There is more than a whiff of dishonesty in how Cleland is presented to the American people. Terry McAuliffe goes around saying, "Max Cleland, a triple amputee who left three limbs on the battlefield of Vietnam," was thrown out of office because Republicans "had the audacity to call Max Cleland unpatriotic." Mr. Cleland, a word of advice: When a slimy weasel like Terry McAuliffe is vouching for your combat record, it's time to sound "retreat" on that subject.

Needless to say, no one ever challenged Cleland's "patriotism." His performance in the Senate was the issue, which should not have come as a bolt out of the blue inasmuch as he was running for re-election to the Senate. Sen. Cleland had refused to vote for the Homeland Security bill unless it was chock-full of pro-union perks that would have jeopardized national security. ("OH, MY GOD! A HIJACKED PLANE IS HEADED FOR THE WHITE HOUSE!" "Sorry, I'm on my break. Please call back in two hours.")

The good people of Georgia – who do not need lectures on admiring military service – gave Cleland one pass for being a Vietnam veteran. He didn't get a lifetime pass.

Indeed, if Cleland had dropped a grenade on himself at Fort Dix rather than in Vietnam, he would never have been a U.S. senator in the first place. Maybe he'd be the best pharmacist in Atlanta, but not a U.S. senator. He got into office on the basis of serving in Vietnam and was thrown out for his performance as a senator.

Cleland wore the uniform, he was in Vietnam, and he has shown courage by going on to lead a productive life. But he didn't "give his limbs for his country," or leave them "on the battlefield." There was no bravery involved in dropping a grenade on himself with no enemy troops in sight. That could have happened in the Texas National Guard – which Cleland denigrates while demanding his own sanctification.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SwanLady
Seaman Apprentice


Joined: 20 Aug 2004
Posts: 95

PostPosted: Thu Aug 26, 2004 2:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=14415

This terrible accident happened not on a battlefield but on a helicopter pad 15 miles away from combat. Cleland stepped out of a helicopter to go have a beer with buddies, saw a hand grenade on the ground, assumed that he had dropped it and picked the explosive device up. It had been dropped by another, inexperienced soldier who had left the weapon on a hair trigger setting. It detonated, devastating Cleland’s 25-year-old body and in an instant changing his life.

In the 1986 edition of his autobiography Strong at the Broken Places, Cleland wrote of his receiving the Soldier’s Medal “for allegedly shielding my men from the grenade blast and the Silver Star for allegedly coming to the aid of wounded troops….”

“There were no heroics on which to base the Soldier’s Medal,” wrote Cleland on page 87. “And it had been my men who took care of the wounded during the rocket attack, not me. Some compassionate military men had obviously recommended me for the Silver Star, but I didn’t deserve it.” Two pages later he added: “I was not entitled to the Purple Heart either, since I was not wounded by enemy action.”


http://www.rightwingnews.com/category.php?cat=4
Quote:
Last week, Ann Coulter wrote an excellent column which revealed that Max Cleland did not lose his limbs in combat. Instead, Cleland's injuries were sustained in a non-combat situation when he picked up a grenade while he was on his way to drink beer with friends.

Well, after that, left-wingers lined up around the block to rip Coulter and call her a liar. TBogg called her a "Lying B*tch". Arthur Silber compared her column to "the usual lies about Kerry" and said, "this is beneath contempt, and beyond forgiveness". Crooked Timber excoriates Mark Steyn for even daring to use her as a source on this issue. Tim Dunlop over at "The Road To Surfdom" also mocked the idea of Steyn using Coulter as a source. In her latest column, Coulter also notes that, "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."

Just one problem though -- Coulter's column was as per usual, dead-on accurate and she had the quotes to prove it...

"(Cleland) 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." (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 ..." (Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Sept. 29, 1996)"

It's also worth noting that while Cleland earned a silver star, according to Cleland himself, he didn't deserve it. After being clued in by an email from Mark Steyn to a Crooked Timber reader, I managed to find the following...

-snip-

there are two points worth making here.

One, Coulter was right in her original column when she said, "There is more than a whiff of dishonesty in how Cleland is presented to the American people". The reason the Democrats have been keeping Cleland front and center in the Kerry campaign, are using him as the point man to attack Bush on the bogus AWOL charges, and keep lying about Cleland's patriotism being challenged, is because most Americans incorrectly have the impression that Cleland sustained his injuries in combat. If the average person on the street knew what actually happened to Cleland, the Dems wouldn't be trying to use him as the face of the party on military issues. People on the left will hate to admit that because it makes them sound cynical & dishonest, but deep in their bleeding hearts they know it's the truth.

Secondly, there are a lot of people on the left who should publicly set the record straight and admit that they were wrong about this issue and Ann Coulter was right. However, I'd advise you not to hold your breath waiting for them to do the right thing...


BIRDS OF A FEATHER FIB TOGETHER???
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bergstrom79
Ensign


Joined: 06 Aug 2004
Posts: 66

PostPosted: Thu Aug 26, 2004 9:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ann's great. Always on mark.

I heard on Charlie Jones tonight that Cleland was given a signed letter at the gate signed by various Texas vets including Congressman Sam Johnson, a fmr Vietnam war POW. Jones read the contents of the letter late in his show and it was absolutely moving.

It was quite long and detailed why the men that signed the letter were upset at Kerry...It had to with what Kerry did AFTER he got back stateside. Seriously, the letter was quite moving.

If anyone can find the text in link, please post. I have to mail that around. Great thinking by the Tx group, reverse the whip!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bergstrom79
Ensign


Joined: 06 Aug 2004
Posts: 66

PostPosted: Fri Aug 27, 2004 5:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Found the letter. Wish the cameras had zoomed in on Max when this was handed to him. Smile

http://georgewbush.com/KerryMediaCenter/Read.aspx?ID=3364

August 25, 2004

Senator John Kerry
304 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator Kerry,

We are pleased to welcome your campaign representatives to Texas today. We honor all our veterans, all whom have worn the uniform and served our country. We also honor the military and National Guard troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan today. We are very proud of all of them and believe they deserve our full support.

That’s why so many veterans are troubled by your vote AGAINST funding for our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, after you voted FOR sending them into battle. And that’s why we are so concerned about the comments you made AFTER you came home from Vietnam. You accused your fellow veterans of terrible atrocities – and, to this day, you have never apologized. Even last night, you claimed to be proud of your post-war condemnation of our actions.

We’re proud of our service in Vietnam. We served honorably in Vietnam and we were deeply hurt and offended by your comments when you came home.

You can’t have it both ways. You can’t build your convention and much of your campaign around your service in Vietnam, and then try to say that only those veterans who agree with you have a right to speak up. There is no double standard for our right to free speech. We all earned it.

You said in 1992 “we do not need to divide America over who served and how.” Yet you and your surrogates continue to criticize President Bush for his service as a fighter pilot in the National Guard.

We are veterans too – and proud to support President Bush. He’s been a strong leader, with a record of outstanding support for our veterans and for our troops in combat. He’s made sure that our troops in combat have the equipment and support they need to accomplish their mission.

He has increased the VA health care budget more than 40% since 2001 – in fact, during his four years in office, President Bush has increased veterans funding twice as much as the previous administration did in eight years ($22 billion over 4 years compared to $10 billion over 8.) And he’s praised the service of all who served our country, including your service in Vietnam.

We urge you to condemn the double standard that you and your campaign have enforced regarding a veteran’s right to openly express their feelings about your activities on return from Vietnam.

Sincerely,

Texas State Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson
Rep. Duke Cunningham
Rep. Duncan Hunter
Rep. Sam Johnson
Lt. General David Palmer
Robert O'Malley, Medal of Honor Recipient
James Fleming, Medal of Honor Recipient
Lieutenant Colonel Richard Castle (Ret.)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    SwiftVets.com Forum Index -> Resources & Research All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group