Op-Ed: War Hero Max Cleland Calls for Changing the Course During Visit to Oregon; Many Say it Can't Happen Fast Enough

(SALEM) - Former U.S. Senator Max Cleland visited Salem Thursday evening, joining Paul Evans and his campaign in front of a crowd of 200 at the Grand Ballroom. Cleland is part of the growing support network for aspiring Democrats who want to take the nation back and turn it into something that we may again recognize.

Candidate Paul Evans

"I came to Oregon in support of Paul Evans because it's time that a leader like Paul, with a record of service as distinguished as anybody in the country, take office to change the course instead of staying the course," Cleland said.

Joseph Maxwell Cleland is an American politician from Georgia, with a long history of service to his country. He is also a critic of the Bush Administration.

Cleland was an Army Captain during the Vietnam War, where he was awarded the Silver Star and the Bronze Star for valorous action in combat.

On April 8th, 1968. Cleland was severely wounded by a grenade. He lost both legs and part of one arm due to injuries when the grenade exploded.

Cleland also served as the youngest U.S. Veterans Administrator in history from 1977-81 and served as Senator from Georgia for six years.

Another person standing up for Evans was Jim Rassman, the former Green Beret that John Kerry pulled from the waters of the Mekong River in Vietnam in 1969, saving his life. Even though Rassman, a former Republican from Lane County, was the person rescued, the heavily funded GOP spinsters tried to convince people that he was mistaken, even though he was there.

Many in attendance talked about the tragedy that befell John Kerry when the Bush team began spinning untrue stories about his honorable and documented military service.

They did the same thing to the honor of Max Cleland in a successful effort to unseat him and get a Republican into office.

It was like the non-veterans versus the veterans. But even in this era of chickenhawk politics, honorable veterans and war heroes still have a tendency not to lie, and they can only go so far with defending the truth when the millionaire liars from Texas and their warmongering friends go into public attack mode.

No matter what the Ann Coulters and Bill O'Rileys and the professional media liars say, John Kerry fought honorably, then was directly involved in bringing an end to the war, by testifying before Congress. It wasn't a fair fight that caused Bush to prevail in the election.

Let's not forget that this election was crooked from the word go. John Kerry should have been the President of the United States for the last two years.

That war in Southeast Asia that John Kerry helped bring an end to, claimed over 58,400 lives before it was over, and it would have been a higher number if it weren't for Kerry and the actions of The Vietnam Veterans for Peace chapters.

We have to get through this embattled period and it isn't going to be simple or easy. It is sad that the Bush presidency has so completely polarized our nation.

We left up to 2,500 American POW's in Vietnam. Why were they not released? Because Nixon reneged on $2.2 Billion in War Reparation money for the North government.

Why did they hold the money back? Because the POW's told stories of being tortured, that's why all the rest were left behind and forgotten.

Bush tried to pass legislation in the past week allowing his thugs to legally torture prisoners. We are living in a place that seems to have lost all moral ground.

We're Americans, and anybody who would torture people even under orders, is questionable and should face a court martial. Kind and decent men and women do not do such things to other people. I know many distort the image, but every single one of us knows that torture is wrong, but only if you live by the Golden Rule I guess.

In WWII, German soldiers went to their deaths rather than kill Jews. The myth that soldiers commit crimes and "that is just what happens in war" is a poor excuse for undisciplined, rampant and sometimes murderous behavior. It needs to be dealt with no matter how much we don't like it, and offenders should be punished accordingly.

Why let the actions of a few become representative for what soldiers do in general? Most Americans do not do anything significantly wrong or illegal in war, so why be so soft on those who do?

As a former Marine, I hate hearing about atrocities involving the Corps, but then I recall how many outrightly sadistic people I spent time around in that military service. It is all confusing, the same never ending struggle for an evasive explanation that never comes.

But "Christian" George W. Bush wants to have his cake and eat it too. He wants what always worked effectively in interrogative work; just like it did during the middle ages, and in nazi Germany, and in the Hanoi Hilton. I'm telling you, our problems with extracting information are no more significant than any nation in history.

His father never would have done this, in fact he is the individual who so clearly outlined why overthrowing Saddam Hussein would be a bad idea, "The person who replaces him might be worse" was the verbage if I remember correctly, it was heard over and over like a broken record. The first Gulf War was criticized, but damn if it wasn't over and out very quickly and effectively.

That's because George Herbert Walker Bush knew that if he had faith in our nation's military machine and acted within good faith as far as the rest of the world saw it, that he would succeed.

And we had our first war where combat claimed the same general number of lives as accidents.

Here comes number two, and the world is now in wreckage. The only beef the radical Islamics really have with this nation is a blind, non-objective support for Israel. Israel took the land away from the people who lived on it after escaping the nazis and the Palestenians have never recovered from it.

So over the years relations sour all the more, Israel takes land and gives it back. Palestenians are often poor, and boys grow up throwing rocks at the Israeli soldiers who all serve a mandatory military committment whether they want to or not.

I don't think very many Islamic people want to overtake this country, something tells me they would be happy just being able to live peacefully on their own land. Most were doing just that you know, before we started what is slowly edging in on the title of World War III. I still suspect that the attack on the United States would never have happened if Bush was not in office, or if his cabinet had done any number of things right.

In the middle of this is one of many new chances to regroup and succeed. Paul Evans is a former mayor and another military war veteran like Cleland, Kerry and many others who hail from the Democratic ranks.

"I am humbled and honored to stand with my brothers Max Cleland and Jim Rassmann. We have precious little time to reclaim the promise of Oregon and veterans will lead the way in 2006," explains Evans.

Paul Evans is running for the Oregon State Senate, District 10. The former mayor of Monmouth and an Iraq War veteran, Evans says he has built a grassroots campaign for change.

What Evans represents is the area we all need to go toward; a political future where we can arrest the pendulum in mid-swing. Radical politics in either direction are no good. I believe at the same time that Democrats have to step up and be louder.

The growing number of people who want Bush out are not necessarily radical in their politics either. You don't have to be left wing or liberal or a Democrat to take a stand and disagree with all of the death and craziness Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rove have delivered.

Progressive people need to openly speak their views. War should only be a nation's last resort. The amount of world instability that the current administration has generated could hardly be described in a book.

The President was in the Texas National Guard during the Vietnam years which was a guaranteed slot for not going to war. The idea that he would send today's National Guard troops out on their fourth deployment to the Middle East is more than outrageous, it is obsene.

Oregon is not a red state, do you think there could be a connection? Maybe a little roundabout payback?

Republicans have to lean toward the middle and Democrats have to do the same. It is time for everyone to listen to people like Max Cleland and all the others speaking out increasingly, and find someone that is inspiring to believe in. In this case, Paul Evans looks like the safest investment around.

Salem-News.com Top Stories

2025: Hope for the Best, Prepare for the Worst

Two Wars with No Way Out

No One Owns the Future

The Ugly Origins of Trump's America First Policy

A One-State Solution Could Transform the World

Comments Leave a comment on this story.

All comments and messages are approved by people and self promotional links or unacceptable comments are denied.

Tim King September 19, 2006 1:00 pm (Pacific time)

Thanks Richard, I didn't know if that was in your field of knowledge. The whole thing really takes a toll on my brain, honestly.

By the way, totally off the subject, there is a fantastic war movie coming out this Friday called "Flyboys." This marks the first time on 40-years that WWI has been covered as a subject. When you see the black pilot, he is based on one of my serious heroes, Eugene Bullard of the Lafayette Escradrille. I'm just finishing the new biography on him and preparing to write the review. The book is totally unrelated to the movie to be clear, but the guy in the movie dubbed, "African-American expatriate boxer, Eugene Skinner" is indeed Bullard. He is the only black pilot of the entire war, and sadly he wsan't allowed to fly for his own country once we entered.

I love seeing this amazing period brought back to life and it is Top Gun- cool, which isn't the greatest thing for many people, but I think it will reach youth and show them people like The Red Baron were't much like the old man in the pizza commercial.

Richard September 19, 2006 12:40 pm (Pacific time)

Tim: I'm afraid I have to admit to being wholly ignorant of the subject matter. I simply cannot offer any kind of opinion because, I just don't have one. Clearly you are refering to specific events but, I am totally unfamiliar with the topic.

Tim King September 18, 2006 10:36 pm (Pacific time)

Sorry to leave this hanging Richard. The point behind the question is that the official explanation on why there is no wreckage from the 757 at the Pentagon is because is "became more like liquid." In the same Popular Mechanics article, a government spokesman says he held "body parts" and "parts of uniforms."

I don't like where this is going any more than the next guy for the record; but how in the hell could an airplane turn into liquid when all other similar crashes leave huge parts of the plane, or very small ones, but they don't turn into liquid?

For many years, I have been a crash site researcher, more great (often sad) stories, video and photos than you could ever imagine. In the mix of these stories is a PBS documentary on a WWII B-17 crash here in Oregon that spared one person, the bombardier. Bonnie and I brought him halfway back across the country 49 years after the crash to meet two of the men who were responsible for his rescue.

This stuff about liquid airplanes and guys in a suit standing in a biohazard area handling body parts is a no-go to me. I just wonder if anyone can really disagree? It potentially speaks of something very dark and disturbing, as do paper passports of terrorists floating intact to the New York streets while indestructible flight recorders were not located. I'm not claiming or suggesting anything specifically, but skeptism is my role in life, and I do love my country, so the notion is very disturbing.

Richard September 18, 2006 6:55 pm (Pacific time)

Tim: I have never seen an airplane crash. A few helicopters but, no planes. I really don't have any idea what happens when aluminum and titanium hit the ground at terminal velocity. Any comment I might have regarding those who demonstrate at military funerals, would not be allowed to be printed on your site!

Tim King September 18, 2006 2:43 pm (Pacific time)

Richard, This morphed somehow into something that I would consider positive and educational, that is good. I don't know if you saw my video report on the antics of the Westboro Baptist Church and their protesting military funerals. If you were interested in watching it, just go to the video icon and it is a couple of stories down.

I mention this because the Phelps clan out of Topeka has put more Americans on a single page in one day than anybody else. I jokingly sugggest we should thank them for it. If you watch the video prepare yourself first, because you have never imagined anything like the words this woman spews out. including references toward Vietnam vets.

One more thing if you don't mind... and this is off the wall and off the subject; Seriously, have you ever seen an airplane become like liquid upon crashing? This seems like a silly question and I am trying to make a point. It will not be offensive, if you don't mind playing along.

Let me put it another way, what physically happens to aluminum and titanium when they impact the ground at a high rate of speed?

Richard September 18, 2006 2:37 pm (Pacific time)

Henry: You are certainly correct in your assessment of rampant foot-in-mouth disease which so frequently breaks out when touchy subjects are broached. I've had more than one occasion to wonder if the droopy bits on either side of my mouth were part of my mustache or, in reality, my shoe laces! J. Allison: I agree that there needs to be an end to all the killing. But, I'm just not able to believe that such a hope is realistic in today's world. I think that the American people are going to have to come to grips with the notion that the real killing has yet to begin. We face the most dangerous enemy we've ever encountered. There is absolutely no reason to believe that compromise, negotiation or dialog will have any effect in dissuading them from their stated goal. I truly wish that I was wrong but, I think it will become clearer as time progresses and our attempts at reasonableness fail.

Henry Ruark September 18, 2006 2:18 am (Pacific time)

Richard: Thank you for real courage to keep dialog on the rails until we ALL worked our way past hurtful words and anonymity to much sharper understandings. We all put foot in mouth far too easily, as I know too well. Best to you and I admire and join in Semper Fi for its solid truth though without right to do so having never been a Marine...but that's another story, too !

J. Allison September 17, 2006 11:56 pm (Pacific time)

Phew...what a dialogue! Very interesting. At least I got to see a picture of Tim King finally! There needs to be an end to all the killing...will it be in my lifetime? I dont know. With reference to "Christian" George Bush....I am a new Christian, and I have found that most of the Christian faith support him because he goes to the Methodist Church. THAT does not make him a Christian at all...makes him a churchgoer. Bush surrounds himself with all the wrong people giving bad advice.... when will he wake up and realize this? Well, there are Christians and there are Christians. I was disappointed to find that out. Does anyone know the faith of Paul Evans? Would be interested. I am just discouraged with politics, and if this guy is honest...he doesnt stand a chance. But he can try.... I do hope he can make a real difference! Thanks for the chance to speak.

Richard September 17, 2006 7:18 pm (Pacific time)

The issue of John Kerry and his betrayal of Vietnam Veterans (my point of view) is one I've lived with virtually every day of my life. While your points regarding My Lai and other incidents (such as the Tiger Force atrocities) are well taken, I believe there is a wide spread misconception as to how common such incidents were. I do not deny My Lai nor, do I condone it. The same can be said of the Tiger Force atrocities and the other 300 odd incidents that were actually documented and found to be true. As someone who has been in the heat of battle, however, I am far less judgmental than many others. I can understand how such things occur. Perhaps if circumstances had been just right, I might have done something similar. I do not dismiss, out of hand, what is possible when circumstances turn honorable men into animals. War IS hell. And I do NOT mean that as a throw away line. But, I strenuously refute the notion, put forth by John Kerry, that such behavior was common place. It was NOT. And, in the 30 years since the end of that conflict, there hasn't been a single, reputable study that has concluded otherwise. Recently, the New York Times splashed a headline regarding a declassified study on US war crimes and atrocities. The NYT claimed that "recently" declassified documents indicated that US war crimes during the Vietnam War were far more wide spread than previously believed. As it turned out, the Times was hyping a point of view which was NOT supported by the documentation refereed to. The notion of the crazy, murderous, drug addled Vietnam veteran is mostly myth. But, that myth's wide spread acceptance is due, in large part, to Senator Kerry who continues to say that he was right. Despite the fact that such a belief is not supported by real evidence. The Winter Soldier's investigation was a farce. Few, if any of the stories recorded during the "investigation" were found to have any basis in fact. The Vietnam War had a terrible impact on many families. Returning veterans were often confronted with accusations of being "baby killers" and War Criminals. I left the US and have remained in a self imposed exile since 1970. I can state unequivocally that during my entire service in Vietnam, I never once witnessed anything which could be remotely labeled a war crime. The killing of civilians was absolutely forbidden. I did, however, see civilians killed during fire fights but, their deaths were NOT intentional. And, I would like to point out, most of my service was conducted in "free fire zones." "Free fire zones" is another subject which has been grossly misrepresented But, that's another story,

Tim King September 17, 2006 5:25 pm (Pacific time)

Semper Fi Richard, you brought a great deal of clarity to this and it is appreciated. I agree that many avoided service at any cost and I could even go further with that, giving good weight to your point. Let's bring up the rest of it some other time, any time for that matter.

I think there is a huge conflict in the perception of what happened over there, because extremely honorable people were operating in one area in Vietnam, while bad things were occurring in others. The idea of establishing free fire zones in places where people either cooperated with both sides clandestinely, or watched their family's tortured and slaughtered by the VC, is unimaginable, and no scenario any young American trying to raise a family would want to be confronted with.

Are you familiar with the inclusion of Category-4's during Vietnam? I'd have to look the dates up, but it was a Congressional move to lower the bar for test scores, they did a very similar thing here again last October. My understanding is that most of those guys at My Lai were Category-4 ASVAB folks, and we know where that went.

But I don't think of you Richard, or my countless friends who were in SE Asia when I think of My Lai, I think about what happens when the logic goes away. I know you're a hard assed Marine still, but I'm right on this one man. We all know what happened over there, it is not a matter of speculation. And in the middle of My Lai, there was Ron Haberele, the Army pilot who flew over, thought "Oh my God, look at the dead civilians, look what the VC has done.

Then he looks over and sees a U.S. Army platoon marching villagers toward a trench and realizes what is happening. So he put his bird between the grunts and the villagers, jumped on the radio and said that if the soldiers advanced, his gunner would cut them down.

Those are some of the only villagers to escape the hamlet that day. I'll be damned if that pilot wasn't the most supreme kind of hero in the world, because he stood up and did something that most people would never have had the courage to do, and he did it while serving his country in Vietnam.

My point is that there were bad things that happened in Vietnam, progressively with the years, it is a fact, but it wasn't everybody doing it, and we have to keep this alive and in front of people. Americans should know about the veteran-built hospital that exists at My Lai today. They should know about all of the good things as well as the bad. I am curious to see what you have to say about John Kerry.

Richard September 17, 2006 5:15 pm (Pacific time)

Mr. King, surely you know, the title, "Marine" is earned, not granted. Once you are a"Marine," you remain one for the rest of your life...Unless you are given a dishonorable discharge or, convicted of treason. My admonishment to "anonymous" was simply my way of saying, to those who don't know any better, "Once a Marine, ALWAYS a Marine." My beef with Max Cleland has nothing to do with his political affiliation. As I said previously, I clearly appreciate the terrible wounds he sustained and admire the courage he has demonstrated by living his life to the fullest. What I do NOT condone, nor accept is the idea that because he is disabled he has somehow earned the right to expound his beliefs without having them called into question. If you're going to lift your leg and piss on others, than you should be prepared to have a few drops splashed on yourself! I believe that is the nature of politics. I am annoyed when others use Cleland's injuries as some sort of moral shield. You don't get points for that. My comment regarding the Bronze Star was for the purpose of pointing out, to those ignorant of the military regulations, that simply having been awarded a Bronze Star is NOT necessarily an indication of "heroics." I did NOT say, at any time that Cleland's Bronze Star was undeserved. I simply pointed out having won a Bronze Star did NOT automatically make him a "Hero." My opinion on that matter remains the same. As for how many Bronze Stars were NOT DESERVED, I have no idea. That was NOT my point. But, I can tell you, virtually EVERY officer who served in country was awarded a Bronze Star. And a substantial percentage were awarded for "meritorious duty," having nothing to do with combat. As for GW's military service, I couldn't care less. The absolute FACT is that the VAST MAJORITY of eligible men avoided service (of ANY KIND) during the Vietnam War. So, I guess I see Mr. Bush as being no different from almost everyone else. Except for one thing, George Bush never accused the servicemen in Vietnam of war crimes, atrocities, murder, rape and pillage. So, as far as I'm concerned, he did me no harm. Finally, you clearly believe that John Kerry did nothing to besmirch the reputation of Vietnam veterans. What I have to say on that subject will have to wait for another time. My wife is calling. Time to eat!

Henry Ruark September 17, 2006 5:03 pm (Pacific time)

Ok, so you're R.M. Why anonymous ? Why so angry ? Why so insulting of vet --no matter how hurt-- who proved himself in other ways, if winning voter approval means anything. It did for Ike --and do you endorse his statement ? If not, why not ? Good enough for that soldier, why not for you ? OR do you question his patriotic drive and desire, too ? Avoiding an answer returns you to Anonymous-status, for me.

Tim King September 17, 2006 3:51 pm (Pacific time)

Richard, that disclosure earns plenty of points with us. Now that we have that out of the way, why don't you explain just what Kerry did to fail the legacy of the Vietnam vet?

Looks like you win the Bronze Star argument, but what ratio of those medals awarded to guys in a combat theater do you suggest were not deserved?

That's a big thing to throw out against your own people.

Would you even question Cleland's past if he swung your way politically? You mentioned that you were a sergeant in the Corps, do you know George W. went through enlisted boot camp for the Army and came out as a 2nd Lt.?

Doesn't that bother you? It should! People are fed up with silver spoons and greedy corporate oil families that want to own the globe or ruin it.

And with all the respect for Viet vets being so slow in nature, why is that Bronze Star not a good thing? I mean, Cleland has lived his life as a triple amputee and regardless of your opinion about that grenade not counting somehow, (come on man, that's so bad) how does he not automatically earn your respect?

Are you not turning your back on one of your own? Or several as the case may be? When you said you were a Marine, you AUTOMATICALLY earned respect from me. That's because certain things in this life require great amounts of sacrifice, and certain things don't. And for the record, there are Marines, former Marines, and ex-Marines. If a person wore the eagle, globe and anchor, then they are a devil dog, named such by the Germans at Belleau Wood in France in 1918, and they can call themselves anything they want.

Richard Montgomery September 17, 2006 3:36 pm (Pacific time)

My, my, so angry when someone disagrees. OK kiddies, now that I've posted my name can I call myself a "hero" too? Mr. Ruark: Marine Sgt. Montgomery. Yes sir, I spilled my share of blood on combat operations such as; Houston, Alan Brook and Marmaluke Thrust. My tours ran consecutively from November of '67 through the end of '69. I got blood on my hands, my shirt and my trousers. If you'd like, I'll send you my address and you can knock on my front door, if you have the guts. I'll happily accomodate you. For anonymous: Didn't you read your own posting? Criteria for Bronze Star includes "meritorious service." It is NOT necessarily, always, awarded for combat ONLY. In fact, that is why a "V" devise is necessary to denote a combat related award. Ask Mr. Ruark, if you don't believe me, he seems to regard himself as an expert. As far as "anonymous" believing I'm a liar...Wow, now my feelings are really hurt. And, what and the world would he know about what "former" Marines think about Bush. Besides, there is no such thing as a "former" Marine, you #%^&*!

Editor's note... people like this who insist on using foul language will only be warned once. Salem-News.com is a live Website and all comments are approved by the powers to be. You can say just about anything you want, but have decency if you do it.

Tim King September 17, 2006 2:31 pm (Pacific time)

Where did this guy come from? Kerry betraying Vietnam veterans? Again people, these characters think that if they just lie often enough, that a certain percentage will believe them, just like Bush, if they just maintain the frequency of the lie.

Maybe this guy would like to discuss just how John Kerry did anything that proved to be contrary to the outcome of the lives of Vietnam veterans.

Kerry served in Vietnam, then he helped bring an end to it. But he's not popular with guys like this because he cares about the little people, the poor people, women. Kerry's testimony was very life changing for many people who were allowed to go on living. Again, the whole case in hand; the non veterans versus the veterans. Anyone who knows me knows that I was in the Marines, there are probably even photos of that period here on Salem-News.com. But this guy without a name has no credibility. Anyone who lacks the very courage to put their name on these comments when they make a stiff allegation or accusation over a story is lacking character, at minimum.

Finally, just remember that this isn't about politics for real Americans, it is about right and wrong. Bush's father, Ronald Reagan, even Nixon himself would have found W.'s thinking absurd and revolting. Playground bullies should not be national leaders.

Anonymous September 17, 2006 2:18 pm (Pacific time)

The alleged two tour ex-Marine would be well served to read the following description, as it is very hard to imagine anyone who served two tours in Vietnam really believing that Bronze Stars are not a combat medal.

Personally, I think he is lying as very few "former-Marines" are still supporting Bush after all the nonsense:

"The medal is awarded to a member of the military who, while serving in or with the military of the United States after December 6, 1941, distinguished him- or herself by heroic or meritorious achievement or service, not involving participation in aerial flight, while engaged in an action against an enemy of the United States; while engaged in military operations involving conflict with an opposing foreign force; or while serving with friendly foreign forces engaged in an armed conflict against an opposing armed force in which the United States is not a belligerent party." - en.wikipedia.org

Bush supporters, don't believe 'em.

Henry Ruark September 17, 2006 1:28 pm (Pacific time)

BeenThere: Here's test-run for you before you "report in" and ID yrslf which my sgt. beat me over-head with until I understood. If this fits even though speaker is Army, might turn on the light a bit for you... "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed." -- Dwight D. Eisenhower

Henry Ruark September 17, 2006 11:08 am (Pacific time)

B-T: All that "courage" --and STILL anonymous ? It figures...easier said than checked. Both of us-others ID-selves immediately --why not YOU ? Otherwise you sound like so many others --injected over their formative years with something subjective, not necessarily truly "patriotic" since it often misses the main point of matters simply substituting that ole nasty cutthroat kill-em instinct. SO come out from behind those easy charges and "report in", in routine military manners.

Been There September 17, 2006 7:09 am (Pacific time)

Don't call you ignorant? Why in the world not? As a "former" Marine, you should know that the Bronze Star can be awarded for any number of things..including being a good administrator! But, I guess you didn't know that. I never said "automatic." As a Vietnam veteran who served as a grunt in the 5th Marines, one by the way who ACTUALLY served two real tours in country, unlike your lying friend Kerry, I know full well what I am talking about. I'm sick of people who attack someone and then hide behind their wheelchair if those attacked fight back. Cleland wants to engage in his own aggressive political rhetoric but, demands he be treated with kid gloves. Doesn't work that way pal. I find it ironic that you feel that MY comments are attacking Vietnam veterans just because I don't agree with the idea that Max Cleland is some kind of war "Hero." Or, perhaps I've missed the point. Perhaps you are accusing me of attacking Vietnam veterans because I said that you are ignorant. Either way, you're simply wrong, again. I find it even more incredible that who you accuse me, while embracing the greatest betrayer of Vietnam veterans, John Kerry. I never said that Vietnam veterans were murderers, Kerry did. I never said our troops were roaming the country side slaughtering innocent civilians, Kerry did. I never said that our veterans were engaged in a systematic campaign of war crimes and atrocities, encouraged and approved at all levels of command. That was YOUR buddy, John Kerry. So don't lecture me. If you think you can "reasonably question which side I'm on." Let me clarify that for you. So that you or anyone else will have absolutely no doubts. I am on the side of strength and resolve. I am for doing absolutely everything it takes to protect our people and our country. I am for the side that is willing to fight and never surrender, give in or back down. For anyone to suggest that there is any reason to believe that people like Kerry, Cleland or, John Murtha are prepared to fight the battles that need to be fought, they need to consider the complete lack of action taken during the Clinton years. The idea that our military is stretched thin and that our troops are growing "weary and unhappy" is the kind of namby-pamby nonsense that Murtha spews. If our military is really in such sad shape, than I suggest it's time those folks started to toughen up. It's the military, for God's sake, not the Girl Scouts. The absolute FACT of the matter is, and always has been, you fight with what you have. If it was up to me (and here is where I really shake up the readership) I'd reinstate the draft. Everybody serves. EVERYBODY. No deferments. It's high time that EVERY citizen had a blood stake in the freedom they enjoy.

Henry Ruark September 16, 2006 11:47 pm (Pacific time)

Takes real guts to write real rapacous rants like that, then run-for-cover without name-attached. As drafted-vet barred from some duties with deficient left-eye, have known some-few who believe blood on hands makes them martyrs free to attack comrades later. Cleland's situation and record known-and-proven: what we got on this guy is mere messy- sound...and it reverberates like you-know-what, for me...

Tim King September 16, 2006 10:05 pm (Pacific time)

Man, don't call me ignorant. For the record, the information this guy without a name is putting out is just more of what the article is about.

The Bronze Star is a medal earned in combat. The only thing anyone was automatically given was a National Defense Medal. Even the Vietnam Service Medal was not earned unless a certain amount of time was spent there.

This is the same sad stuff Vietnam vets have put up with since the day they returned. Somebody is always willing to lie and drop the bar in order to attack them.

If you think the nation is safer today under Bush and his chickenhawk cronies, then I reasonably question which side you are even on. It takes no courage to be another sheep who believes every lie they are told. We are talking about people who served their nations in war. It takes a certain type of mentality to even be able to act like these war veterans should not be respected. Their records and pasts put Bush and his team to shame. While Kerry, Cleland and Murtha took up arms and fought for the nation, the only thing one of your heroes ever shot was a lawyer.

Having said all that, I'm sure your intentions are good, however much we disagree. I have no faith and it is based on more things that you want to see named.

Our nation's military is stretched thin and troops are growing more weary and unhappy by the day. This current war was not fought by the military's standards, they needed way more people, better armor and preparation, and all kinds of other things.

We are some of the most pro troop people you are likely to meet, but we are thinking on the human level. They are not policy creators, and they are not at fault for mistakes their nation's leaders make.

Been There September 16, 2006 9:59 pm (Pacific time)

Max Cleland, a war HERO? That's just hyperbole. I don't think being involved in a tragic ACCIDENT (his injuries were NOT incurred in combat) qualifies as "heroism." Such nonsense detracts from those who received their injuries while fighting. Clearly and understandably, there should be and is a difference. As far as Cleland's Bronze Star is concerned, it's also refereed to as an "Officer's Good Conduct Medal." Which is to say, virtually EVERY officer who served a tour of duty in Vietnam, was awarded a Bronze Star. Let's not blow things out of proportion. What happened to John Kerry, during the presidential campaign, was of his own making. The people who attacked the Senator didn't need any prodding by the "Bush White House." Mr. King is simply another left-wing nut case. And, as a Marine myself, listening to King's tripe makes me want to puke! He's NOT a "progressive" person, he's an ignorant one. Who is going to save this country from those who want to destroy us? Kind and decent, reasonable folks who believe if we'd just sit down and have a dialog with the terrorists everything could be worked out? I know full well were people like King, Kerry and Murtha would lead us. The American people know, in their hearts that people like that are far more dangerous to this country than any outside force. Good intentioned? Perhaps. But, ultimately, unreliable. They clearly cannot be depended upon to protect this country.

[Return to Top]