Unfair and Unbalanced: Coulter on Cleland

[showcase]

If this doesn't crystalize what's wrong with the current state of American political discourse, then "I killed JFK." In a recent column that attempted to demonstrate why Max Cleland was a hypocrite for supporting the inquiry into Bush's Nat'l Guard records, Coulter argues:

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.

You heard Coulter, vets: you could have been shot just as easily in Detroit - get over it.

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.

Okay, put aside momentarily the assertion that Cleland "dropped a grenade on himself" and some of the other factual issues in this column. How low, how despicable, how vile a person (let alone a political pundit) do to you have to be to question the adequacy of Cleeland's military service? The man received a Silver Star (fully documented, by the way) for actions occurring just four days before he was wounded. How consumed by irrational hatred do you have to be to try to discredit someone by portraying his sacrifice as a blunder? More importantly, is anyone supposed to feel better about their political views or support for Bush in light of such a screed?

In the interest of the record, here are a couple of salient factual issues that Coulter may have mischaracterized. First, according to her, Cleland "didn't 'give his limbs for his country,' or leave them 'on the battlefield.' No, he only lost them picking up a grenade he thought he dropped (but actually fell off of someone else's webbing) after being airlifted into Khe Sanh. The men who fought and died at Khe Sanh will be glad to know it they did not do so "on the battlefield."

www.gainesvilletimes.com/news/stories/20021026/opinion/372490.html

As has been widely reported in the Atlanta Constitution beginning in 1968, then-Capt. Cleland, an Army Signal Officer, volunteered for infantry service to relieve the stranded Marines and members of the Army's 1st Cavalry at the battle of Khe Sanh.

While disembarking from a transport helicopter, Capt. Cleland reached for a grenade he believed had become dislodged from his web gear. Later it was discovered that the grenade belonged to a young soldier new to the theater. That soldier had improperly prepared the grenade pin for easy detonation and had dropped it while coming off the helicopter. The grenade exploded and severely injured Capt. Cleland.

Coulter is a national embarrassment. Even if she had a point, it was totally lost in her vitriol. Coulter may have called for a literacy test and poll tax as requirements for voting, but I would offer that the franchise only be denied to those who can't figure out what's wrong with this reptile's thinking.


#nosmileys

[Frank Black]

That does bring up an interesting issue. You have to wonder if a guy wounded because of his own stupidity (not saying this pertains to Cleland) still deserves free beer everywhere he goes. Should Pvt. Dumass, who shot himself in the kneecap while putting on his uniform, be treated the same as someone who was wounded by enemy fire?

[showcase]

Frank said:

That does bring up an interesting issue. You have to wonder if a guy wounded because of his own stupidity (not saying this pertains to Cleland) still deserves free beer everywhere he goes. Should Pvt. Dumass, who shot himself in the kneecap while putting on his uniform, be treated the same as someone who was wounded by enemy fire?

Maybe, but who puts their uniform on with their gun?

[Frank Black]

That's what makes the example so troubling from a beer-buying perspective.

[showcase]

Frank said:

That's what makes the example so troubling from a beer-buying perspective.

Oh Lord, I can't countenance 'buying' beer with a gun - nosirreebob. You shoot yourself while doing that, you're on your own.

[Z]

story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=108&ncid=759&e=1&u=/uclicktext/20040219/cm_ucac/fileunderomissionaccomplished

coulter has published her follow-up on the cleland column and--surprise!--its extremely intellectually dishonest. rather than acknowledge the serious factual mistake she made in the first column--namely, that cleland dropped the grenade on himself--she moves the goalposts and suggests that the liberal (or more accurately, general) outrage over her first cleland colum stems from a misguided claim that cleland was wounded in combat. she has finally shattered whatever mirage of credibility she may have clung to before these columns.

[showcase]

I just don't understand how she continues to get published - I can't imagine there's anyone regularly following her columns who isn't doing it to catalogue her latest gaffe. I mean, I'm all for having a lot of different voices contributing a lot of different ideas to the marketplace, but Coulter's proactively defecating in the marketplace. I can't think of another columnist who's ranting and raving reaches Coulter's proportions.

[hlb2]

Yes, how meaningless was his loss of limbs! Unlike so many others, he didn't do it for...um, what was it the others did it for back then? It slips my mind just now. I guess he was in the jungles to pick up grenades--sanitation duty in SE Asia. But, excuse my memory again: Why were the others there?

And, by the way, just what is it they are doing it for now? Someone who was standing near a car that blew up is coming back from Iraq with no arms and legs today. And an Iraqui mother is staying in Iraq today--with no arms and legs. Just standing in the same place. I know this wasn't even that long ago, but that slips my mind too: What is the reason for that again?

Someone said "oil." Maybe that had something to do with it. Who knows?

Someone said, " America has the power. We ought to use it to make the people in that part of the world (i.e., that bunch of Arabs) get in line and do things the way they ought to." Now that sounds like the ideology that moves the current administration. Who said that? Someone said, "Wolfowitz"? Well, that is his thesis. Isn't it?

What would Augustine say about that?

One thing though, maybe we just can't put our finger on a just reason anymore or even a real reason any more, but nevertheless we must assume that everyone of them did it, or are doing it, out of duty. We've taught many of our youth an unquestioning sense of duty. Now we need to select leaders who are just. Or, failing that, we need to teach our young that not every leader is right in assessing what is right and just duty.

[Z]

im sorry, but just chalking up this war to "oil" is oversimplistic to the point of laughability, even if you oppose the war. huge capital outlays, highly uncertain future returns--sounds like a harvard MBA's dream venture, huh!?!