From time to time, even I make unfounded remarks. Most recently, I made a comment about the activities of the Christian Right as being near "lawless." Michael Parker of Prolegomena (yes, there are two of us in the blog world) called me on this. I erred by making a gross generalization. Even though I feel that the language used by the Christian Right is inciteful, and spur violence and hate crimes (e.g. against abortion clinics) that doesn't mean that the majority of adherants is lawless. I will be more careful in the future to keep my attacks grounded and more descriptive (to the point).
In light of this, Joe Conason talks about the unfounded attacks against Max Cleland by Ann Coulter and Mark Steyn. If you are not familar with Max Cleland, he is the Democratic Senator from Georgia who lost his limbs in Vietnam after picking up a hand grenade that he thought had dropped from his gear. Coulter has been spinning the story to say that he dropped it on himself. The true story is that one of the "less experienced soldier[s] had dropped that lethal object."
At her harshest, Coulter writes that his service involved "no bravery." He did not "give his limbs for his country" or leave them "on the battlefiled."
Conason points out that a reader of Coulter's article would ascertain that Cleland saw no combat at all. Most importantly, "That same reader also wouldn't know that he was decorated for the valor he displayed in one of the war's bloodiest battles, only four days before the accident that grievously maimed and nearly killed him."
Conason continues:
She complains that his liberal defenders "are clearly implying -- without stating -- that Cleland lost his limbs in combat." In the very next sentence she states that Cleland "was not in combat" and "was not in the battle of Khe Sanh, as many others have implied." Had he not suffered the loss of his limbs, she smarmily reminds us, he would have ended up as a school teacher or a pharmacist, rather than a U.S. Senator and a Cabinet secretary. (What career does she believe George W. Bush would have pursued if he had been born into less privileged circumstances?)
Conason then turned his commentary toward the remarks of Mark Steyn, who recently wrote that Cleland was "no hero" but merely "a beneficiary of the medal inflation that tends to accompany unpopular wars."
Conason surmises about these ugly accusations:
Neither of Cleland's critics told the truth about him. Both misuse the modest remarks he has made in the past about his wartime experience to try to damage his reputation. He was indeed racked with self-doubt and depression after the accident that cost him his limbs. But that doesn't change the truth about who he is and what he did before that terrible day. He earned the decorations that these two termites now disparage.
Cleland defended his honor on cable television, where he told "Hardball" host Chris Matthews: "I volunteered for a combat mission with the 1st Air Calvary division going in to break the siege at Khe Sanh, and if that isn't a combat mission, you ought to ask some of the people that were there and the 200 guys that were killed in that mission."
In this time, though critics of Bush are pressing him to prove his legitimate turn in the National Guard, it should not be attempted to discredit those veterans who have legitimate records, such as Cleland and Kerry. In Cleland's case, consider this evidence of courage and valor published by Conason by US Army General Order 4361. (Dated June 9, 1968)--
"Awarded: Silver Star; Date Action: 4 April 1968; Theater: Republic of Vietnam
"Action: For gallantry in action while engaged in military operations involving conflict with an armed hostile force in the Republic of Vietnam. 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.
"Authority: By direction of the President, under the provisions of the Act of Congress, approved 9 July 1968."
I love Conason's closing remarks: "Neither [Coulter or Steyn] would be worthy to shine his shoes -- if only he still needed them."
11:18:50 AM  | |
|
