The truth? - Cleland "blew himself up" on the way to "have a few beers with friends"

heartsurgeon

Diamond Member
Aug 18, 2001
4,260
0
0
Yep, all sorts of outrage and name calling for pointing out the truth....well here are the facts..with references.

"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)

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.


linky
 

nutxo

Diamond Member
May 20, 2001
6,809
486
126
Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
Yep, all sorts of outrage and name calling for pointing out the truth....well here are the facts..with references.

"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)

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.

Next thing you know you'll be saying that can opener that injured Kerry was shrapnel! Oh wait, do I have that backwards ?

;)
 

Orsorum

Lifer
Dec 26, 2001
27,631
5
81
Sources for those sources?

Does the DOJ keep records of when soldiers are injured and the types and circumstances of wounds they receive?
 

kylebisme

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2000
9,396
0
0
what "incessant lying" from liberals are you refering to in this topic, heatsurgeon?
 

heartsurgeon

Diamond Member
Aug 18, 2001
4,260
0
0
previous thread (now gone) where critics of this authoress gently berated her for presumably misstating the facts.

 

nutxo

Diamond Member
May 20, 2001
6,809
486
126
Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
previous thread (now gone) where critics of this authoress gently berated her for presumably misstating the facts.


Coulter is not well recieved here I think.
 

nutxo

Diamond Member
May 20, 2001
6,809
486
126
Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
she was called names and accused of making up lies about Cleland...when in fact, she was telling the truth.
original linky


I dont wanna hijack your thread, but Bush released his records last friday and the press shut up. Any idea what happened? I was lookin for the original thread and couldnt find it.
 

kylebisme

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2000
9,396
0
0
The 2nd of the 12th Cavalry was engaged in a combat operation at the time of this incident. Max Cleland was with the Battalion Forward Command Post in heavy combat involving the attack of the 1st Cavalry Division up the valley to relieve the Marines who were besieged and surrounded at the Khe Shan Firebase. The whole surrounding area was an active combat zone (some might call the entire country of Vietnam a combat zone). (Is Iraq a combat zone?) Max, the Battalion Signal Officer, was engaged in a combat mission I personally ordered to increase the effectiveness of communications between the battalion combat forward and rear support elements: e.g. Erect a radio relay antenna on a mountain top. By the way, at one point the battalion rear elements came under enemy artillery fire so everyone was in harms way.

As they were getting off the helicopter, Max saw the grenade on the ground and he instinctively went for it. Soldiers in combat don't leave grenades lying around on the ground. Later, in the hospital, he said he thought it was his own but I doubt the concept of "ownership" went through his mind in the split seconds involved in reaching for the grenade. Nearly two decades later another soldier came forward and admitted it was actually his grenade. Does ownership of the grenade really matter? It does not.

Maury Cralle'
Battalion Executive Officer
2d/12th Cavalry Battalion
1st Air Cavalry Division
During the assault on Khe Shan

http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/04/02/con04074.html

seems like there are some inconsistancies in Coulter's account when compared to Cleland's XO.


 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,677
6,250
126
Originally posted by: nutxo
Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
previous thread (now gone) where critics of this authoress gently berated her for presumably misstating the facts.


Coulter is not well recieved here I think.

Coulter doesn't deserve to be well received anywhere by anyone. At least as a serious commentator.
 

Orsorum

Lifer
Dec 26, 2001
27,631
5
81
Originally posted by: TheSnowman
The 2nd of the 12th Cavalry was engaged in a combat operation at the time of this incident. Max Cleland was with the Battalion Forward Command Post in heavy combat involving the attack of the 1st Cavalry Division up the valley to relieve the Marines who were besieged and surrounded at the Khe Shan Firebase. The whole surrounding area was an active combat zone (some might call the entire country of Vietnam a combat zone). (Is Iraq a combat zone?) Max, the Battalion Signal Officer, was engaged in a combat mission I personally ordered to increase the effectiveness of communications between the battalion combat forward and rear support elements: e.g. Erect a radio relay antenna on a mountain top. By the way, at one point the battalion rear elements came under enemy artillery fire so everyone was in harms way.

As they were getting off the helicopter, Max saw the grenade on the ground and he instinctively went for it. Soldiers in combat don't leave grenades lying around on the ground. Later, in the hospital, he said he thought it was his own but I doubt the concept of "ownership" went through his mind in the split seconds involved in reaching for the grenade. Nearly two decades later another soldier came forward and admitted it was actually his grenade. Does ownership of the grenade really matter? It does not.

Maury Cralle'
Battalion Executive Officer
2d/12th Cavalry Battalion
1st Air Cavalry Division
During the assault on Khe Shan

http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/04/02/con04074.html

seems like there are some inconsistancies in Coulter's account when compared to Cleland's XO.

I would take the words of his XO over Coulter. I'm still waiting for the sources on those news articles, heartsurgeon. You of all people should know that just because it's in a newspaper, doesn't make it true.
 

MonstaThrilla

Golden Member
Sep 16, 2000
1,652
0
0
Originally posted by: Orsorum


I'm still waiting for the sources on those news articles, heartsurgeon. You of all people should know that just because it's in a newspaper, doesn't make it true.

His "source" comes from a column defending Ann Coulter's controversial column, written by none other than...

Ann Coulter!


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.
 

MonstaThrilla

Golden Member
Sep 16, 2000
1,652
0
0
Here's a rebuttal to the original column from my favorite liberal rag, The Nation.

We'll get to the loathsome likes of Little Miss Treason shortly, but first let's look at the man she has libeled: Max Cleland.

Cleland lost both legs and an arm in Vietnam, wounds that could have destroyed a lesser man. Instead, he not only kept his life together, he made it all the way to the United States Senate. In the fall of 2002, control of Congress hinged on his seat, and the GOP leadership poured its black heart into his defeat. President George Bush visited Georgia five times to campaign against him, and a Republican ad campaign likened Cleland to -- of course -- Osama bin Laden. Old-school Republicans like John McCain and Chuck Hagel, who both served in Vietnam, were appalled. But the new-school Bushies, morals all a-AWOL, were pleased to do whatever it took to pick up Cleland's seat.

Fast-forward 18 months. Today, George W. Bush is scrambling to put a good face on how he spent the Vietnam war. (To recap: States-side, in a cush gig brokered by his daddy just 12 days before he'd have again been eligible for the draft, he learned at taxpayer expense to fly a fighter jet, then announced he wanted to campaign for an Alabama pal of Richard Nixon's, stopped showing up, then declined to provide that embarrassing urine sample and so lost his flight status, then "arranged it with the military" to leave early to go get an M.B.A. Mission accomplished!)

Those asking harsh questions about the President's frivolous relationship with his military duties include Cleland. This is driving the Bush Republicans crazy. After all, it's embarrassing to have a true-blue war hero point out that your guy is a true-blue phony.

So the new strategy is the old strategy: Smear Cleland.

How dare he question our President!

He must be a traitor!

And he's certainly no hero, says Coulter. After a spit-fleckled rant against those who have permitted themselves to question the Great Leader's National Guard service, she says: "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 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. ... Luckily for Cleland's political career and current pomposity about Bush, he happened to do it while in Vietnam. ...

"Cleland ... 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."

Coulter's account has already been applauded by someone named Mark Steyn who writes for The Washington Times. "As Ann Coulter pointed out in a merciless but entirely accurate column, it wasn't on the 'battlefield.' It wasn't in combat," Steyn writes. "[Cleland] was working on a radio relay station. He saw a grenade dropped by one of his colleagues and bent down to pick it up. It's impossible for most of us to imagine what that must be like -- to be flown home, with your body shattered, not because of some firefight, but because of a stupid mistake." (The clear implication is that Cleland was stupid enough to blow himself up and has to live with that.) Steyn goes on to say Cleland is happy "to be passed off" as a hero, because that makes him "a more valuable mascot."

* * *

It's hard to know how to continue, because all I want to do is direct an awful string of insults and profanity at Coulter and Steyn.

Instead, I'll just lay out Max Cleland's record.

First of all, Cleland was wounded during the siege of Khe Sanh.

Khe Sanh, for Christ's sake!

I know the smug Bush Republicans are utterly ahistorical, but surely they've heard of Khe Sanh?

Let's help them out. Here is a fine timeline by PBS of the Vietnam war for 1968. I'll quote a three-month stretch of it here, February, March and April:

February 23, 1968 -- Over 1,300 artillery rounds hit the Marine base at Khe Sanh and its outposts, more than on any previous day of attacks. To withstand the constant assaults, bunkers at Khe Sanh are rebuilt to withstand 82mm mortar rounds.

March 6, 1968 -- While Marines wait for a massive assault, NVA forces retreat into the jungle around Khe Sanh. For the next three weeks, things are relatively quiet around the base.

March 11, 1968 -- Massive search and destroy sweeps are launched against Vietcong remnants around Saigon and other parts of South Vietnam.

March 16, 1968 -- In the hamlet of My Lai, US Charlie Company kills about two hundred civilians. Although only one member of the division is tried and found guilty of war crimes, the repercussions of the atrocity is felt throughout the Army. However rare, such acts undid the benefit of countless hours of civic action by Army units and individual soldiers and raised unsettling questions about the conduct of the war.

March 22, 1968 -- Without warning, a massive North Vietnamese barrage slams into Khe Sanh. More than 1,000 rounds hit the base, at a rate of a hundred every hour. At the same time, electronic sensors around Khe Sanh indicate NVA troop movements. American forces reply with heavy bombing.

April 8, 1968 -- US forces in Operation Pegasus finally retake Route 9, ending the siege of Khe Sanh. A 77-day battle, Khe Sanh had been the biggest single battle of the Vietnam War to that point. The official assessment of the North Vietnamese Army dead is just over 1,600 killed, with two divisions all but annihilated. But thousands more were probably killed by American bombing.

April 8, 1968, was also the day that Captain Max Cleland lost both legs and an arm. He had less than a week earlier already earned commendations for heroism during some of the bloodiest combat of the whole Khe Sanh siege -- combat missions for which he had volunteered, so as to relieve stranded Marines and Army infantry. The order in which the President awarded him the Silver Star reads:

"Captain Cleland distinguished himself by exceptionally valorous action on 4 April 1968, while serving as communications officer of the 2nd Battalion, 12th Calvary during an enemy attack near Khe Sanh, Republic of Vietnam.

"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."

Here, in a speech he was invited to give about character, is how Cleland himself tells what happened next:

"I remember standing on the edge of the bomb crater that had been my home for five days and five nights, stretching my six-foot, two-inch frame, and becoming caught up in excitement. The battle for Khe Sanh was over, and I had come out of it unhurt and alive! Five terrible days and nights were behind us. In spite of dire predictions, we had held Khe Sanh. I had scored a personal victory over myself and my fears. ... My tour of duty in Vietnam was almost over. In another month I'd be going home. I smiled, thinking of the good times waiting stateside.

"On April 8, 1968, I volunteered for one last mission. The helicopter moved in low. The troops jumped out with M16 rifles in hand as we crouched low to the ground to avoid the helicopter blades. Then I saw the grenade. It was where the chopper had lifted off. It must be mine, I thought. Grenades had fallen off my web gear before. Shifting the M16 to my left hand and holding it behind me, I bent down to pick up the grenade.

"A blinding explosion threw me backwards."

Ann Coulter, the facts be damned, calls this "a routine non-combat mission where he was about to drink beer with friends," and says "there was no bravery involved." Mark Steyn says Cleland is happy "to be passed off" as a hero. And both, incredibly, characterize Cleland's wounds as good fortune.

But just because these two hacks think losing limbs to advance their Republican political careers would be a lucky trade -- hell, they've already given away their souls, what's an arm or a leg? -- doesn't mean the rest of us share their warped priorities.

I mean, Khe Sanh!
 

burnedout

Diamond Member
Oct 12, 1999
6,249
2
0
Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
previous thread (now gone) where critics of this authoress gently berated her for presumably misstating the facts.
Here is my problem with Coulter's comments. Max Cleland brought it all with him to Vietnam and returned without. For Coulter to use his wounds in that particular context for political gain is horribly insulting to the man, vets - especially disabled vets, and the U.S. Army. Whether or not he was going to "have a few beers with friends" is immaterial. The fact of the matter is that he put it all on the line and received a terrible paycheck.

Furthermore, was he joking with the pilot? Could the pilot even hear him correctly? UH-1s under power, although less noisy than a UH-60 or CH-47 are still so loud that speech is quite hard to understand.
 

sMiLeYz

Platinum Member
Feb 3, 2003
2,696
0
76
According to Kurtz (Washington Post, 10/16/98), "Coulter was debating a disabled Vietnam vet when she snapped: 'People like you caused us to lose that war.'

This is why I don't take any thing she says or her very seriously...
 

Bleep

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
3,972
0
0
Ann Coulter is a lying pig, she accused me of being a draft dodger because I inlisted and the only reason was that I inlisted was because I wanted to avoid the draft.
The story about the hand gernade holds no credibility because the Cotter pin which holds the fireing mechanism is very hard to pull, they just dont fall out.
I can tell you guys one thing and that is do not ever dis a guy that gave his all for his bellow soldiers and to rail aver Max is one of the most unamerican and to me tratorous things that anyone can do.
I gave up part of me in the service and one of my sons and then some on here call me a trator and this piece of crap Coulter not only calls me a draft dodger but a trator as well. Anyone agreeing on anything she says should leave this country and call somewhere else home.
Bleep
 

Orsorum

Lifer
Dec 26, 2001
27,631
5
81
Originally posted by: Bleep
Ann Coulter is a lying pig, she accused me of being a draft dodger because I inlisted and the only reason was that I inlisted was because I wanted to avoid the draft.
The story about the hand gernade holds no credibility because the Cotter pin which holds the fireing mechanism is very hard to pull, they just dont fall out.
I can tell you guys one thing and that is do not ever dis a guy that gave his all for his bellow soldiers and to rail aver Max is one of the most unamerican and to me tratorous things that anyone can do.
I gave up part of me in the service and one of my sons and then some on here call me a trator and this piece of crap Coulter not only calls me a draft dodger but a trator as well. Anyone agreeing on anything she says should leave this country and call somewhere else home.
Bleep

Did she tell this to you personally?
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
Since Coulter is so enraptured with truth . . . why doesn't she merely ask the Globe writer to provide the source for the first hand account? "Hopping off the helicopter to stay for awhile and have some beers" . . . IMHO, really makes or breaks her version. Everybody agrees what happened in that he saw a grenade, he assumed it was his, he picked it up, and paid a price. The broader context of the episode is essentially ignored by Coulter . . . except to say he was in that position b/c he wanted to have some brew with the boys. It looks like Cleland's version has some support from others that were there . . . while Coulter has nothing more than a Search reference.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
If I were a Republican I would be ashamed to be affiliated with the likes of Ann Coulter..or heartsurgeon. At least Ann Coulter has an excuse one week out of the month where as heartsurgeon doesn't.
 

Pennstate

Diamond Member
Oct 14, 1999
3,211
0
0
I have a really hard time believing heartsurgeon is a real heart surgeon. To be a heart surgeon, one MUST have had enough education and critical thinking skills to be impartial.