| |
|
#541
09-08-2005, 03:08 PM
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Again, he used himself in the statement as self-deprecating humor, which means to simultaneously demean yourself to make the joke funnier.
__________________
 save the cheerleader - save the world 
|
|
#542
09-08-2005, 03:09 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
#543
09-08-2005, 03:12 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
 But, here are some of her lies  Ann Coulter's lies about Cleland torn to bits Ann "Nutcase" Coulter wrote a scathing editorial in which she made up a bunch of unforgivable lies about Max Cleland, a US senator who lost three limbs in Vietnam, by way of rebuttal to his criticism of the Bush administration. The Center for American Progress tears apart her editorial, identifying, lie-by-lie, just how full of **** she is. SAYING CLELAND WAS "LUCKY" TO HAVE LIMBS BLOWN OFF: Coulter said, "Luckily for Cleland? he happened to [lose his limbs] while in Vietnam" and said that had he been injured "at Fort Dix rather than in Vietnam, he would never have been a U.S. Senator." Of course, Cleland probably would not have been dealing with live grenades and enemy fire in the save haven of Ft. Dix. But, then, many top conservatives might not know this because they do not have firsthand knowledge of a combat zone. President Bush did not go to Vietnam because he was in the Texas National Guard. Vice President Dick Cheney did not serve in the military, saying, "I had other priorities in the '60s than military service." According to the Houston Press in 1999, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX) "tried to blame minorities for his lack of military experience" saying, "so many minority youths had volunteered for the well-paying military positions to escape poverty and the ghetto that there was literally no room for patriotic folks" like him. And Rush Limbaugh avoided service by apparently claiming his "anal cysts" prevented him from defending the nation. and another Vile Ann Coulter smears a war hero Joe Conason - The New York Observer 02.18.04 - Finding the bottom of American politics these days is as easy as looking up the latest column by Ann Coulter. In fact, it’s the same thing. Her act may be wearing thin now that she has accused half of the population of treason, but don’t underestimate the kooky commentator. Just the other day, she again managed to shock the conscience of any decent citizen who happened to read her latest screed. Her current target is Max Cleland, the former United States Senator who left three limbs in Vietnam. The courageous Mr. Cleland prevailed over his terrible injury, and the depression that followed; he was appointed Secretary of Veterans Affairs in the Clinton administration and then elected to the Senate from his home state of Georgia. But Ms. Coulter considers him deserving of scorn and denigration -- and lies about his service, despite his sacrifice -- for one reason alone: Mr. Cleland is a Democrat who dares to speak out against the President. There was a time when Republicans were the first to defend veterans and the last to attack anyone who had served, regardless of partisan affiliation. That tradition is dead, however, in part because so many of the party’s extremist leaders, who talk loudly about war, managed to avoid military service when their time came. George W. Bush, of course, served far from Vietnam in the Texas Air National Guard’s "champagne unit" at Ellington Air Force Base, apparently thanks to the intervention of his father’s powerful friends. Now the Democrats seem likely to nominate John F. Kerry, the Massachusetts Senator who fought in Vietnam and came home bearing wounds and decorations. Conservatives already have begun to denigrate Mr. Kerry because he joined the antiwar movement when he returned. (The current Republican leadership had their own quiet little antiwar movement: They simply declined to fight, although they thought the war was being fought to save us from godless Chinese communism.) Inevitably, Mr. Kerry’s war record will be compared with that of the man who calls himself the "war President." By publicly demanding answers about Mr. Bush’s spotty Guard record, Mr. Cleland attracted the malignant attention of Ms. Coulter. "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," she writes, claiming that he "lost three limbs in an accident during a routine non-combat 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. ... Luckily for Cleland’s political career and current pomposity about Bush, he happened to do it while in Vietnam." Denigrating Mr. Cleland became fashionable in Republican circles in the fall of 2002, when his opponents ran television commercials that flashed his face on the screen with Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. That ad offended The Gainesville Times, a daily newspaper in northeast Georgia, which called it misleading, offensive and "an irresponsible and repugnant attack on Cleland’s character and sense of patriotism." But that repugnant ad helped Saxby Chambliss -- a pompous hack who had obtained several draft deferments -- win the Senate race against Mr. Cleland. According to the Coulter definition, that made the ad "patriotic." What, then, is the truth about Mr. Cleland? On June 9, 1968, the U.S. Army awarded Capt. Max Cleland a Silver Star "for gallantry in action" at the battle of Khe Sanh, one of the war’s fiercest firefights. According to the citation, he "distinguished himself by exceptionally valorous action. ... When the battalion command post came under a heavy enemy rocket and mortar attack, Capt. Cleland, disregarding his own safety, exposed himself to the rocket barrage as he left his covered position to administer first aid to his wounded comrades. He then assisted in moving the injured personnel to covered positions. Continuing to expose himself, Capt. Cleland organized his men into a work party to repair the battalion communications equipment which had been damaged by enemy fire. His gallant action is in keeping with the highest traditions of the military service, and reflects great credit upon himself, his unit, and the United States Army." The 25-year-old captain had volunteered to help relieve the Marines and the Army’s First Cavalry Division trapped at Khe Sanh. The cited action took place four days before the explosion that ripped off both his legs and an arm. The accident occurred while he was disembarking from a transport helicopter, when he reached for a grenade that he thought had dropped from his gear. It had actually been dropped by a new infantryman who had "improperly prepared the grenade pin for easy detonation." Yes, Mr. Cleland is a true hero. And those who would mock him don’t know what patriotism means. URL: http://www.workingforchange.com/arti...m?itemid=16458 ______________________________________________________________ BTW - did you know that Canada did not send troops to Nam
__________________
save the cheerleader - save the world Last edited by strandinthewind; 09-08-2005 at 03:15 PM..
|
|
#544
09-08-2005, 03:21 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Oh what the hay - here are many more - poor Ann - liar liar pants on fire.
Appendix 1. Fact-checking Ann Coulter. (Note: This appendix was produced by the team at Tapped, the daily web log of The American Prospect magazine, who generously granted me permission to reprint for the purposes of this book.) Chapter 1 ANN COULTER READER CONTEST! We'd almost run out of things to say about that nutty gal, Ann Coulter. But then she went and wrote another book. But it may not be much of a book. Tapped reader U.R. reports that one chapter into Coulter's book -- "I only managed to get through the first chapter," he writes, because "I can't read the book more than a few minutes at a time" -- he's already found two obvious factual errors. On page 7, Coulter writes that Jim Jeffords "opposed Reagan's tax cut, supported the elder Bush's tax hike, supported Clinton's tax hike, and opposed the younger Bush's tax cut." She's right about the first two. But we checked, and Jeffords -- like all Republicans at the time -- voted against Clinton's 1993 budget (which included the tax hike) and for George W. Bush's recent tax cut. The latter is a pretty glaring error, both because it was so recent and because Jeffords' refusal to oppose the cut was a major blow to liberals who thought his party switch would help them defeat it. (On the same page, Coulter also writes that Jeffords "voted against Clinton's impeachment" -- which is impossible, as the Senate never voted on impeachment. The House has the power to impeach; the Senate only votes on whether or not to convict. Jeffords did, however, vote against conviction. So maybe we're quibbling.) If Coulter is going to title her book Slander, it would be nice if she would also go to the trouble of proofreading it. But maybe she didn't have time. (She is, after all, a busy girl.) So we've decided to help Coulter out. Starting today, Tapped will hold a reader contest: Fact Check Ann Coulter. We invite our readers to slog their way through Slander and email Tapped with examples of factual errors. Include the page number; we'll take a look in our own copy and post the ones we can verify. As a reward for this difficult, dirty task, the Tapped reader who emails in the most examples will get a free year's subscription to The American Prospect. Let the fact-checking begin! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2 TIME STANDS STILL FOR ANN COULTER. Okay, this isn't exactly a "fact check" of Coulter's new book. It's almost too obvious for that. Nevertheless, we couldn't resist pointing out something this glaring. On page four of her book Slander, Coulter writes that "after the September 11 attack on America, all partisan wrangling stopped dead," and soon continues: The bipartisan lovefest lasted precisely three weeks. That was all the New York Times could endure. Impatient with the national mood of patriotism, liberals returned to their infernal griping about George W. Bush -- or "Half a Commander in Chief," as he was called in the headline of a lead New York Times editorial on November 5, 2001. From that moment on, the left's primary contribution to the war effort was to complain. Sorry, Ann, but last we checked, November 5 was just under two months after September 11. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3 FACT CHECK ANN COULTER!: SHOOTING BLANKS ON CROSSFIRE. Okay, this isn't from Slander. It's from Coulter's appearance on Hardball, guest-hosted by Mike Barnicle. We missed this gem, but reader R.L. passed it along: I will guess that the judges who said the Pledge of Allegiance violates the constitution were appointed by Democrats and not Republicans. I haven't looked at the decision. I haven't even heard about the decision because I've been busy today, but that's a wild guess I'm going to make....Oh, I'm just waiting to see if anyone will take any bets on me on whether the judges who wrote the decision were appointed by a Democrat or Republican. We think we can safely assume the implication here. In actuality, of course, only one of the two judges was appointed by a Democrat -- Judge Stephen Reinhardt, a Carter appointee. The other was Judge Alfred T. Goodwin, who was appointed by that great liberal, Richard Nixon. This really speaks volumes about just what a hack Coulter is; it requires no elaboration on our part. But perhaps now the chat shows will stop billing Coulter as a "constitutional lawyer." No wonder the profession is held in such low regard. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 4 FACT CHECK ANN COULTER!: LEXIS-NEXIS ABUSE. On page 15 of Slander, she writes: "In the New York Times archives, 'moderate Republican' has been used 168 times...There have been only 11 sightings of a 'liberal Republican.'" Coulter does not footnote her methodology in "discovering" this nugget, but we checked using both the Times's own free search page and Lexis-Nexis. Our results? Our Times search reveals twenty-two hits for "liberal Republican" since 1996 -- that is, in just the last seven years. For Lexis, we searched for "liberal Republican" in The New York Times over "all available dates" -- and got 524 documents. Coulter's claim is obviously false. But stay tuned -- Tapped spent all weekend reading Slander and there's lots more to come. P.S. We also have another non-Slander error, courtesy of reader J.O. In Coulter's latest column on Townhall.com, she writes: If Arabs were being stopped at airports before Sept. 11 -- and that's a big if -- that was probably wrong. There had been only one terrorist attack here in America by Arabs -- the bomb at the World Trade Center in 1993. (This is excluding Sirhan Sirhan, the first Muslim to bring the classic religion-of-peace protest to American shores, when, in support of the Palestinians, he assassinated Robert Kennedy.) But Sirhan Sirhan was, in fact, a Christian of Arab descent, not a Muslim. For a relatively recent source on this, you can check out the historian Godfrey Hodgson's 1995 review of Dan Moldea's The Killing of Robert F. Kennedy in The Washington Post. We found it on Lexis, but a quick Google search led us to the citation. Hey, Jonathan, is Coulter phoning it in or what? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 5 FACT CHECK ANN COULTER: THE "GORE LIED" LIE. Today's first installment concerns Al Gore's reputation as a lying, exaggerating braggart, gleefully perpetuated by Ann Coulter in her new book, Slander. Coulter eeks out impressive mileage from Gore's supposed lie about having been "the inspiration" for Love Story, Erich Segal's 1970 bestselling-romance-novel-turned-Oscar-nominated-film. She refers to the alleged Love Story lie a whopping four times in Slander -- on pages 145, 154, 159, and 160. But this one has been debunked by Eric Boehlert in Salon, Bob Somersby in the Daily Howler, Robert Parry in The Washington Monthly, and Sean Wilentz in TAP. The truth is that Gore was the inspiration for the book's hero, Oliver Barrett IV, according to Segal. Segal's reported "denial" of Gore's claim was no denial at all. Speaking to the New York Times's Melinda Henneberger for a follow-up story, Segal said that Oliver Barrett was based on Gore and his Harvard roommate, actor Tommy Lee Jones. He only denied that the female lead, the fiery musician Jenny Cavilleri, was based on Tipper Gore. And even that wrong detail was not Gore's mistake. What actually happened? On a late-night plane ride in late 1997, shooting the breeze with Time's Karen Tumulty and the Times's Rick Berke, Gore mentioned that the main characters in Love Story were based on him and Tipper. At any rate, Gore said, that's what Segal had told the Nashville Tennessean years ago on his book tour. Segal met Gore and Jones when they were students at Harvard together and Gore was dating Tipper, then a student at Boston University. Tumulty reported this comment in Time but neglected to include in her story the fact that Gore had said explicitly that his only source on Love Story was what the Tennessean had reported some seventeen years prior. But the Tennessean, it turned out, has misquoted Segal, who had said nothing about Tipper. In Henneberger's follow-up, Segal himself defended Gore: "Al attributed it to the newspaper...They conveniently omitted that part. Time thought it was more piquant to leave that out." So did Coulter. DEGREE OF DISHONESTY: 6 ANALYSIS: It's a small detail, but Coulter uses it so often -- and so flagrantly disregards the truth -- that we're giving this one an above-average score. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 6 FACT CHECK ANN COULTER: THE SELMA LIE. Live by LexisNexis, die by LexisNexis. That certainly seems to be the case with Ann Coulter's latest book, Slander. Yesterday we exposed a blatantly false statement in her book about the use of the phrase "liberal Republican" in the New York Times, and today we expose another. Here is the relevant passage, from p. 199 of Slander: Since abortion is not the left's proudest moment, liberals prefer to keep reminiscing about the last time they were giddily self-righteous. Like a senile old man who keeps telling you the same story over and over again, liberals babble on and on about the "heady" days of civil rights marches. Between 1995 and 2001, the New York Times alone ran more than one hundred articles on "Selma" alone. I believe we may have revisited this triumph of theirs sufficiently by now. For anyone under fifty, the "heady" days of civil rights marches are something out of a history book. The march on Selma was thirty-five years ago. Tapped smelled a rat here. Maybe it was Coulter's repetition of the word "alone"; or maybe it was the fact that the famous 1965 "Bloody Sunday" march was from Selma to Montgomery, not a march "on" Selma. So we searched the New York Times archives on LexisNexis for the word "Selma" for the years 1995-2001. This produced 776 total hits. Of these, 424 were death notices, 18 were wedding announcements, 25 were other sorts of paid notices, 5 were in photo captions, and 234 were either: a) contents listings; b) people with the name Selma; c) references to Selma, California; or d) references to Selma, Alabama that had nothing to do with civil rights (b, c, and d includes letters and op-eds as well as regular articles). Of the remaining 70 items, in our judgment only 16 were centrally concerned with historic happenings at Selma from the civil rights era. The other 54 contained brief mentions of Selma and civil rights but appeared in articles on different topics. Once again, Coulter's dubious claim -- that "between 1995 and 2001, the New York Times alone ran more than one hundred articles on 'Selma'" -- is false. DEGREE OF DISHONESTY: 5 ANALYSIS: Another misdemeanor for Coulter. It's hard to tell whether this one resulted from deliberate deceit or incorrigible stupidity. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 7 FACT CHECK ANN COULTER: LIBERAL CHEAP SHOTS. As Tapped readers know, we've been fact checking Ann Coulter's new book with some regularity lately. And we've got some more on this today, but first, a couple of asides. Lest we be accused of bias against Coulter -- as opposed to mere animus -- let us note that she actually isn't wrong about everything. Yes, we know it's a shock. But Mickey Kaus has the goods. Now that that's said, though, we'd like to get on to the various problems with Coulter's book. Coulter, herself a paragon of high-minded political dialogue, charges that the left resorts to ad hominem low blows and cheap shots on conservatives, especially women. On p. 17 of Slander, she asks rhetorically: "[W]hich women are constantly being called ugly? Is it Maxine Waters, Chelsea Clinton, Janet Reno, or Madeline Albright? No, none of these. Only conservative women have their looks held up to ridicule because only liberals would be so malevolent." Coulter apparently forgot John McCain's notorious joke about Chelsea Clinton: "Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly? Because Janet Reno is her father." And let's not forget Jay Leno calling a man dressed as Reno an "ugly bitch." Now, is this a "fact check"? Well, note that Coulter says categorically, "No, none of these" -- i.e., none of these women are frequently being called ugly. Coulter's point about low blow attacks is well taken, but her comment plainly isn't true. DEGREE OF DISHONESTY: 6 ANALYSIS: How could anyone honestly claim that Chelsea Clinton hasn't suffered slights based on her appearance? If Ann Coulter had a movie made about her, it would have to be titled "Say Anything." -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 8 FACT CHECK ANN COULTER: RONALD REAGAN, COLD WAR HERO. In her new book, Slander, Ann Coulter repeats herself a number of times on a number of points (and we use the term "points" here loosely). Her most beloved mantra, however, is Ronald Reagan's heroic Cold War victory. Coulter returns to Reagan as a sacred mantra, reiterating at least ten times her assertion that Reagan "won the Cold war" (see pp. 16, 33, 34, 125, 130, 132-33, 134, 145, and 197). Now, mind you, Coulter's book isn't about Reagan. She simply uses Reagan's Cold War victory as the ultimate trump card against liberals who criticized Reagan, then and now. How can they call him stupid, she asks -- and fiscally irresponsible, and a supporter of brutal third-world regimes -- when "the ripe old fellow single-handedly won the Cold War, ending the forty-year threat of nuclear annihilation"? (Aside: Will someone please tell India and Pakistan to get with the program? Nuclear brinksmanship is so fifteen years ago -- it went out with shoulder pads and good punk rock.) The obvious objection to Coulter is that both the collapse of the Berlin Wall and the end of the Soviet Union took place while Bush Sr. was president. So at the very least, she ought to explain how they're Reagan's doing (she doesn't). More importantly, though, the frequently-touted argument that Reagan deserves credit for exhausting the Evil Empire through huge increases in military spending (with which the Soviets were forced to keep pace) is flawed. Soviet documents released in the 1990s reveal that Reagan's defense policies had little effect on Soviet spending (see, for example, Jonathan Kwitny's Man of the Century). The Soviet Union was going to collapse under its own weight no matter how many peasants U.S.-trained death squads murdered in El Salvador. Reagan deserves credit for disarmament efforts, but those certainly had support from Democrats -- as, to be fair, did huge budget deficits. (For a good summary of how the Cold War ended, see here.) DEGREE OF DISHONESTY: 5 ANALYSIS: Cold War debates are always murky, and Coulter isn't the first to lionize Reagan, so she isn't lying. Still, Coulter never bothers to back-up her claim with any historical argument, even a flawed one. She glibly refers to Reagan's "winning" as though it were common knowledge, substituting soggy repetition for evidence. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 9 FACT CHECK ANN COULTER: MEDIA DARLING AL GORE. This, gentle reader, is the mother of them all. Make sure you're sitting down. Thanks to Coulter whistle-blower K.M. On page 139 of her new book, Slander -- now a bestseller -- Ann Coulter describes how cruelly the media treated George W. Bush during the election. By contrast, she reports: [T]he press maintained radio silence on stories embarrassing to Gore. For example, … Al Gore couldn't pick George Washington out of a lineup. In a highly publicized stop at Monticello during Clinton's 1993 inaugural festivities, Gore pointed to carvings of Washington and Benjamin Franklin and asked the curator: 'Who are these guys?' He was surrounded by reporters and TV cameras when he said it. Only one newspaper, USA Today, reported the incident. Coulter isn't wrong if, by "only one newspaper," she actually means "dozens of newspapers." In the immediate aftermath of the incident, references to Gore's gaffe appeared in USA Today, Newsday, The Washington Times, London's Evening Standard, and, the coup de grace, two articles in Coulter's favorite bulwark of liberal bias, The New York Times. The Associated Press also ran a story with the incident in its headline, so many local papers probably picked it up. But wait! There's more! The authors of one of the New York Times articles were none other than Maureen Dowd and Frank Rich, two of Coulter's most reliable liberal scapegoats, who were both reporters in 1993 when the incident occurred. If these two are co-leaders of the vast, left-wing conspiracy, they sure dropped the ball. Had enough of the love? We're still not done yet because …Coulter also misquoted Gore! His actual words were "Who are these people?" not "Who are these guys?" It's a small error, but it obviously makes Gore sound more disrespectful of the founding fathers, and even the USA Today article Coulter did find got the quotation right. DEGREE OF DISHONESTY: 7 ANALYSIS: Either Coulter is purposefully lying, or she is breathtakingly incompetent, even using her favorite research tool, LexisNexis. Have you no sense of decency, madam, at long last? http://www.whatliberalmedia.com/apndx_1.htm
__________________
save the cheerleader - save the world
|
|
#545
09-08-2005, 03:46 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Once again - we don't have to be so formal around here...you can just call him Jason  
|
|
#546
09-08-2005, 03:48 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
#547
09-08-2005, 04:33 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
#548
09-08-2005, 04:38 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
File under: 'Omission accomplished'
February 19, 2004 http://www.NewsAndOpinion.com | 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.
__________________
|
|
#549
09-08-2005, 04:39 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Just like she researched the lies above That you even try to defend her use of lies is astonishing and makes your credibility wane 
__________________
save the cheerleader - save the world
|
|
#550
09-08-2005, 04:39 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
#551
09-08-2005, 04:43 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
save the cheerleader - save the world
|
|
#552
09-08-2005, 04:44 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
save the cheerleader - save the world
|
|
#553
09-08-2005, 05:01 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
My Readers Respond!:
Dear Ms. Coulter: I referenced your comment about Max Cleland losing his limbs in a non combat accident to a local talk-show host. He told me I was wrong. I told him he was wrong because you said it in your colomn. He said you distort the truth regularly. Would you please tell me where to find your source for how Max lost his limbs? Dan, Kansas City A right-wing hit lady named Ann Coulter charged that Max Cleland, who won a Silver Star in Vietnam and is a prominent Kerry supporter, lost his three limbs while getting ready to drink beer with pals. She said it just as easily could have occurred in the Texas Air National Guard. That's irrelevant, that's vicious, and that's a lie. Captain Cleland lost his legs and an arm on a reconnaissance mission in Vietnam. They don't usually carry lives grenades and M-16s in the Texas Air National Guard. This despicable venom was carried on the Heritage Foundation website. Al Hunt, CNN's The Capital Gang, February 14, 2004 The reason why Democrats are doing this [being hysterical about Bush's National Guard service]-- let me give you an example. Today in her column, Ann Coulter attacked Max Cleland, the Vietnam war hero. She said 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 as a National Guardsman." Now, that's the sort of thing -- I also have here -- I also have here Cleland's citation for his Silver Star that he received four days before that at Khe Sanh in Vietnam in 1968. Joe Klein, CNN's Paula Zahn Now, February 12, 2004 It doesn't take much imagination to guess how far into the gutter the presidential race will dip before it's over [such as] the continuing, shameful treatment of former Georgia Senator Max Cleland by the likes of Ann Coulter, who in a recent Townhall.com column derided his loss of three limbs in Vietnam... Joy-Ann Reid, Miami Herald, February 16, 2004 Friday, it was the Democrats' turn for outrage....The villain in this case is conservative pundit Ann Coulter, whose column on the Heritage Foundation website said that Cleland, who lost three limbs in a grenade accident in Vietnam during the war, "didn't 'give his limbs for his country.'" Dana Milbank, Washington Post, February 15, 2004 But for sheer, vicious nastiness, no one can compete with Ann Coulter, whose latest error-riddled effusion is an attack on former Georgia Senator Max Cleland, who has been critical of the Bush administration. Apparently in an effort to make George W.'s incomplete in the National Guard look better, Coulter wrote a column distributed by the Heritage Foundation saying Cleland, a triple amputee, had showed "no bravery" in Vietnam, "didn't give his limbs for his country," is not a war hero. My favorite scentence is "Luckily for Cleland...he happened [to lose his limbs] while in Vietnam," her point being that if he had been injured at Fort Dix, he wouldn't be a hero. Molly Ivins, February 17, 2004. From "How To Talk To A Liberal If You Must" ENTER THE COLUMN I JUST POSTED ABOVE... SECOND "MY READER'S RESPOND" COMING UP...
__________________
Last edited by Brwn_eyes0511; 09-08-2005 at 05:04 PM..
|
|
#554
09-08-2005, 05:02 PM
|
||||
|
||||
Lol
Quote:
One reason why I don't identify with Repubs or Dems (or any political group) is because of the polarization in it. Repubs and Dems (and all other groups) have a set of beliefs and they stick to them, sometimes, NO MATTER WHAT. I have a brain, and would like to use it, thanks. You've got liars everywhere and I don't want to be involved with liars. I know that ya'll will say, "Well, that's all we have, two major groups, you gotta pick one." I really wish the polarized USA would mesh together and in the words of Dr. Phil...(who I don't like, even though I'm quoting him. LOL)...get real.
__________________
**Christy** Last edited by wondergirl9847; 09-08-2005 at 05:07 PM..
|
|
#555
09-08-2005, 05:16 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
A friend on another list believes that lie that the gov never asked for help from the feds. Probably half the people believe it. I hate this administration. They're heartless and possibly souless. And they're probably going to get away with this one too the slimy bastards. Why?
__________________
~Suzy
|
 |
|
|
Barbie Stevie Nicks Bella Donna White Dress Doll BRAND NEW
$74.98
Stevie Nicks Vintage Tshirt, Don't Be A Lady Be A Legend Shirt
$6.99
Timespace: The Best Of, Stevie Nicks
$6.49
Stevie Nicks Enchanted Tour DVD Radio City Music Hall New York 1998 Sealed
$33.99
musician Stevie Nicks performs onstage July 18 1983 Music Singer Old Photo 9
$6.96
Linear Mode
