Boston Globe: Ex-guardsmen say jab at Bush tars them

Kerry should release his records.

To be honest, I think at this point the two sides should get together and urge their supporters to stop all this nonsense.

 

I miss the point. This says that their memories were different, but they sound like they are saying the same thing. Both are saying that it was a zone where they shouldn't have been and combat was justified.

 

Look again. That's not a Snopes quote but part of the attack piece they dismantle in their comments.

The only thing about the records mentioned by Snopes is a quote from a Boston Globe story:

Kerry had been wounded three times and received three Purple Hearts. Asked about the severity of the wounds, Kerry said that one of them cost him about two days of service, and that the other two did not interrupt his duty. "Walking wounded," as Kerry put it. A shrapnel wound in his left arm gave Kerry pain for years. Kerry declined a request from the Globe to sign a waiver authorizing the release of military documents that are covered under the Privacy Act and that might shed more light on the extent of the treatment Kerry needed as a result of the wounds.

In this case, it's clear he was wounded and he has elected not to make public specific medical info relating to his treatment. No matter how hard the right tries to obfuscate and spin, this is simply not the same thing as the issues surrounding Bush's NG records.

 

Ok, I guess there may be controversey about a lot regarding Viet Nam combat. I was just confused because both quotes were saying basically the same thing.

The way I see Kerry using his Viet Nam record is in a couple of different ways none of which are to the exclusion of current foreign policy records.

Kerry is saying:

1. I can handle making tough decisions under pressure.

2. I'm tough enough to take on whatever job would need to be done.

3. The Republicans better not try play me off as unpatriotic, as they have been fond of doing to other candidates recently.

The way I see it Kerry is saying that, which shouldn't preclude looking at his voting record and speeches regarding foreign policy, or national security.

 

if that's true, so what? the bar for using "patriotism" as a semantic tool has been lowered to a meaningless level by the current administration.

 

I hate to harp on a theme but it's like 1984 and words don't mean what they used to...

 

We've had 1984, and words today mean even less.

 

two words basso

John McCain

&

Max Cleland

 

Well, that's actually four words and a symbol, so your opinion is hereby dismissed.

 

http://www.gainesvilletimes.com/news/stories/20021016/opinion/297860.html

Chambliss attack ad against Cleland both misleading, reckless




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An already nasty race for one of Georgia's two seats in the U.S. Senate has taken an even uglier turn.
U.S. Rep. Saxby Chambliss, the Republican in the contest, is airing a television ad in his contest against incumbent Sen. Max Cleland, the Democratic Party candidate, that features Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. Chambliss' message: Cleland is soft on homeland defense and doesn't support President Bush.

At its best, the ad is misleading. At its worst, it's an irresponsible and repugnant attack on Cleland's character and sense of patriotism.

Chambliss' ad says that Cleland claims to support Bush. "But that's not the truth," the ad continues. "Since July, Max Cleland has voted against the president's Homeland Security efforts 11 times."

What the ad fails to point out is that Cleland supported the creation of a Department of Homeland Security before the president did. Cleland also voted for Democratic-authored legislation to establish the new agency when it cleared committee earlier this year, according to an analysis by Associated Press special correspondent David Espo.

The Department of Homeland Security bill currently is hung up in the Senate, where amendments to the proposed legislation are the issue. Cleland has opposed the administration "on amendments related to civil service rules and labor protection for employees of the new department, the disagreement that has blocked passage of the measure thus far," Espo reports.

It's clear that Cleland supports the homeland defense concept. It's equally evident that he differs on how the proposed legislation should be implemented. And it's insulting that Chambliss should invoke images of bin Laden and Saddam Hussein to confuse the issue and imply that Cleland doesn't have the best interests of his nation at heart.

Cleland, after all, knows more than a little about fighting for his country. As a company commander during the Vietnam War, he lost an arm and both legs.

Chambliss, who was granted deferments during the war, is quick to unfairly characterize Cleland's commitment to the security of his neighbors and countrymen. Perhaps the fact that he trails Cleland in the polls is the reason for the negative and irresponsible ad.

Cleland defended himself on the issue and condemned Chambliss' campaign for the attack.

"Accusing me of being soft on homeland defense and Osama bin Laden is the most vicious exploitation of a national tragedy and attempt at character assassination I have ever witnessed," Cleland said in statement.

"Protecting Americans is not political, and using Osama bin Laden in pursuit of a short-term political goal is an insult to every man and woman from every Georgia military installation now risking his or her life searching for bin Laden and his terrorist cadre."

Zell Miller, Georgia's other Democratic Party senator, was also furious about Chambliss' ad.

"Max Cleland is a courageous man who has given his own blood and so much more fighting for the right of all of us to live in freedom," Miller said. "My friend Max deserves better than to be slandered like this."

We're not certain from whom Chambliss is taking advice, but it's certain that attempting to drag Cleland through the mud for political advantage is a poor strategy. Worse, it shows no respect for the sacrifice Cleland made when his nation called him to duty more than 30 years ago.

For Chambliss to imply that Cleland cares little for his nation's security is preposterous. We're not sure a more reckless and devious plan could have been devised.

 

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1076622/posts

Cleland Drops Political Grenade... On Himself [Did you know He Blew Himself Up In Vietnam?]
Townhall ^ | 2/12/04 | Ann Coulter

Cleland drops a political grenade

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.

Ann Coulter is host of AnnCoulter.org, a Townhall.com member group.

©2003 Universal Press Syndicate


By the way, once again Ann Coulter is caught lying. The story of Max Cleland losing his leg while drinking is complete fabrication. When he parachuted off an airplane he thought he dropped one of his grenades when landed, he picked up and he was wrong. Thats how he lost his legs and arm.

Ann Coulter's miserable story was first on The Heritage Foundation website, I believe.

 

By the way, once again Ann Coulter is caught lying. The story of Max Cleland losing his leg while drinking is complete fabrication. When he parachuted off an airplane he thought he dropped one of his grenades when he landed, he grabbed the grenade and unfortunately he was wrong. Thats how he lost his legs and arm.

There. thats a little better.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2002-09-25-daschle_x.htm



"The Senate is more interested in special interests in Wash ington and not inter ested in the security of the American people."


"Who is the enemy here — the president of the United States or Saddam Hussein?"

— Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., on the Senate floor Wednesday

 

"The Senate is more interested in special interests in Washington and not interested in the security of the American people."

— President Bush, Monday in Trenton, N.J.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2002-09-25-daschle_x.htm

 

Damn you and your proof and evidence and all that crap.