Quote:
|
Originally Posted by strandinthewind
She said he was lucky to have lost them. Do you not understand that is an insulting thing to say? Moreover, he lost his limbs while on duty in Nam. So, it is accurate to say that even though he was not in battle at that time. Finally, as a blind supporter of W, she refuses to turn that high powered "wit" on W's pathetic record (whats left of it  ) and Cheney's pitiful excuse that he had better things to. Unlike these two pathetic creatures, Cleland was there, he was highly decorated for valor, and he lost his limbs while there. I mean that to me is so obvious. But, you blindly support W in the face of every contrary fact out there. Perhaps Bill Maher should envy your ability not to face facts as well. |
Oh on the contrary, I am very well aware of facts - the actual facts - not the sensationalized-facts.
About Cleland - she never argued that this man was not a "war hero". Her POINT was all about how he lost his limbs, because Democrats were portraying him as a war hero who lost his limbs while taking enemy fire on a battlefield...which is just untrue. She wasn't saying that he was "lucky" for losing his limbs...she simply stated that he was lucky he happened to do it while in Vietnam. Ann points out that no one ever challenged "Cleland’s 'patriotism'. His performance in the Senate was the issue." She goes on to say that
"Senator 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.")".
A big fuss was made out of nothing. The point of her column was the way Democrats were portraying Mr. Cleland and his performance in the senate.