Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Cleland speaks ...
Posted by: McQ on Saturday, April 22, 2006

I have a lot of empathy for any wounded veteran. Any of them.

But that empathy doesn't extend to their playing politics with a war or the people that are fighting it. Their wounds don't give them special dispensation to say stupid and untrue things. Take Max Cleland for instance:
"It is immoral to abuse the good nature of our young people, and send them back and back and back (into combat) ... with no strategy to win, and no strategy to end" the war, Cleland said.
While he may not agree with the strategy being pursued, saying there is no strategy to win (or that there is no end game planned) is patently untrue. Ironically, the only party which has called for "immediate withdrawl", a sure way to lose, has been his party. Max had to really stretch to find a way to call the effort in Iraq "immoral".

Oh, and this. For the record ...
Cleland uses a wheelchair to get around, after he was badly injured by a grenade in the siege of Khe Sanh in 1968 during the Vietnam War.
... he was not "badly injured by a grenade in the seige of Khe Sanh". He was badly injured by a grenade he (or someone) dropped on a helipad as he was getting off of the helicopter. He bent down to retrieve it and it exploded. There was no hostile action involved. The seige of Khe Sanh had ended earlier that day.

The result was obviously horrific ... a triple amputation. Something you wouldn't wish on anyone. And to Cleland's eternal credit, he overcame that and has contributed much to the US since his injury. But if the event is going to be reported, it should be reported accurately.

But then it is AP we're talking about.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
This looks eerily similar to the "Kerry’s wounds were nothing" Swift-boating, and it’s pure ad hominem to boot. Just when I think some people can’t go any lower...
 
Written By: Platypus
URL: http://pl.atyp.us
This looks eerily similar to the "Kerry’s wounds were nothing" Swift-boating, and it’s pure ad hominem to boot.
Heh ... pure ad hominem? Still having problems with that concept Jeff?

Btw ... Kerry’s wounds were nothing.

And Cleland’s remarks are both stupid and untrue.

It ain’t ad hominem if it’s true.
Just when I think some people can’t go any lower...
Still have a hell of a long way to go to catch you, pal.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
Platypus -

How is this anything like the SBVFT?
He duly added,
The result was obviously horrific ... a triple amputation. Something you wouldn’t wish on anyone. And to Cleland’s eternal credit, he overcame that and has contributed much to the US since his injury. But if the event is going to be reported, it should be reported accurately.
He called out Cleland for saying something that McQ thinks is untrue. (I happen to agree with McQuain here, but that’s immaterial).
He also pointed out that AP’s reporting of his wounds is misleading and, furthermore, just inaccurate.

"He was wounded in an accident after the siege of Khe Sanh" is different than "he was badly injured by a grenade in the siege of Khe Sanh." It doesn’t take a partisan hack to point that little fact out.
 
Written By: OrneryWP
URL: http://
Please show a link to said winning strategy per your comment (ideal-blogs do not count as sources IMHO):
saying there is no strategy to win (or that there is no end game planned) is patently untrue.
Picking on Clelend is like standing 6 feet from a target and claiming to be a marksman.

Old women (Allbright) and cripples (Mad Max) are the easiest targets for you, eh kid? Another example of kicking the messenger down the stairs while saying it is their fault.

It must be true that libertarians are men who hate their fathers.

Ah, desperation, I smell it in the air....
 
Written By: Rick D.
URL: http://
Does anyone know what Rick D is talking about?
 
Written By: Chris
URL: http://
For Rick D’s reading pleasure:
National Strategy for Victory in Iraq

And it’s not to another blog either.

Now, you can argue that’s not a winning strategy as you put it, and you could argue that there’s things wrong with it, but it certainly is a strategy for winning put forth by the administration. Oh, and note the dates associated with Bush’s statements in that link. This strategy isn’t exactly new.
 
Written By: Bill W
URL: http://
Please show a link to said winning strategy per your comment (ideal-blogs do not count as sources IMHO):
Hit the search engines (to include the one right here on QandO - this has all been discussed and linked for a long time), Rick ... I’m not going to do your work for you. Unless you’ve been hibernating in a cave for 5 years, you’re just being disengenuous ... as usual.

Speaking of disingenuous:
Picking on Clelend is like standing 6 feet from a target and claiming to be a marksman.
I didn’t pick on Cleland, I picked on what Cleland said - a difference you and Platypus can’t seem to wrap your heads around, not that I’m surprised.

But I am amused by how you stand these strawmen up so you can display your faux indignation, especially when you haven’t a clue.

Oh, and Chris?
Does anyone know what Rick D is talking about?
No. And that includes Rick D.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
Old women (Allbright) and cripples (Mad Max) are the easiest targets for you, eh kid? Another example of kicking the messenger down the stairs while saying it is their fault.
So in your world Rick D. old people and the handicapped are immune from criticism of what they say.
So because Dick Cheney has a heart condition. Bob Dole’s right-arm is completely paralyzed. Are they immune from criticism?
Donald Rumsfeld is older than Madeleine Albright. Is he immune from criticism?
Or is it just old women? In which case how sexist of you.
 
Written By: Paul L
URL: http://kingdomofidiots.blogspot.com/
Hah! I love it! I sit down with a cup of Postum and I am treated to the spectacle of two liberal twits getting their butt handed to them. Of course, having hung around the liberal cocoon recently, I know that drivel like claiming that one is attacking Cindy S. or Max instead of their statements is par for the course for liberals. As is the hypocrisy about Rumsfeld and Dole. Also, it is accepted truth in Liberal Lalaland that there is no winning strategy in Iraq. Fudging the facts (as Kerry did in getting some of his medals) is easily tolerated [to remove the cognitive dissonance, don’cha know].
 
Written By: Notherbob2
URL: http://
It ain’t ad hominem if it’s true.
Utter bollocks. It looks like you’re the one who’s having a little trouble with the concept, McQ. This source makes no such exception. Neither does this one, or this one. The truth of the ad hominem attack doesn’t make it anything but a fallacy, and this is an ad hominem attack.
he was not "badly injured by a grenade in the seige of Khe Sanh". He was badly injured by a grenade he (or someone) dropped on a helipad as he was getting off of the helicopter. He bent down to retrieve it and it exploded. There was no hostile action involved. The seige of Khe Sanh had ended earlier that day.
That in no way addresses whether Cleland’s recent statements were accurate, appropriate, or anything else. It does not engage his arguments at all, but only seeks to attack the messenger. It is a textbook case of "to the man" which is what ad hominem literally means. It doesn’t matter that at least Cleland was a combat soldier, not a gofer. It doesn’t matter that he served until he had no choice, not until his apparent prospects for continued coattail-riding had faded because of a bad review. Who he is, or who you are, shouldn’t matter. Attacking a non-existent strawman ("it’s immoral to..." is a general statement that only you made specific) is bad enough, but attacking the man itself is just despicable.

"I’m rubber, you’re glue" won’t save you, McQ. It only works on an already-deluded audience (or one of sockpuppets) who will applaud "their guy" even while he’s lying on the mat. Anyone else will see that you’re the one who consistently relies on rage to displace reason, and who most regularly presents insults in lieu of arguments.
 
Written By: Platypus
URL: http://pl.atyp.us
Uh, he was not making an ad hom at Cleland.
If anything he was attacking the AP. If the AP finds it relevant to include innaccurate and irrelevant information, your problem should be with the AP, and not McQ who was correcting the (falsified) record, not making it part of his argument about what Cleland said.
 
Written By: anonymous
URL: http://
Ad hominem:
The person presenting an argument is attacked instead of the argument itself.
Show me where I attacked Cleland and not his argument.
That in no way addresses whether Cleland’s recent statements were accurate, appropriate, or anything else.
That’s correct. Of course it wasn’t aimed at Cleland either. Which is why, btw, the last two lines in the post say:
But if the event is going to be reported, it should be reported accurately.

But then it is AP we’re talking about.
Yeah, that’s right Jeff ... I was talking about AP’s reporting.

I know ...oops.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
I disagree strongly with your comments on Max Cleeland. He is correct in saying that there is no strategy to win the war. Saying that his comments are ’patently untrue’ is just wrong. There is no strategy to win. If that isn’t clear to you, then you haven’t been paying attention. Oh, and the Democratic Party did not call for an immediate withdrawal. Only one or two people have called for that.
 
Written By: Shawn
URL: http://politicalcritic.com
He is correct in saying that there is no strategy to win the war.
Really? I guess you missed Bill W’s link above.
Saying that his comments are ’patently untrue’ is just wrong.
Bill W’s link says it’s not. And we have many links on the blog here as well which say that’s not true (of course you have to do you homework and use the search engine provided).
Oh, and the Democratic Party did not call for an immediate withdrawal. Only one or two people have called for that.
Let’s see, Pelosi ...
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - House of Representatives Minority leader Nancy Pelosi on Wednesday backed a call by Democratic Rep. John Murtha to quickly start the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.

"I will be supporting the Murtha resolution,’’ Pelosi said of Murtha’s resolution calling for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq at the earliest practicable date.
So I know of Pelosi, Murtha, Kennedy, (Dean weasel-worded it into "immediate redeployment), etc. For whom to they speak?

I mean really ... for whom does a House Minority Leader and Party chair speak?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
but attacking the man itself is just despicable....Anyone else will see that you’re the one who consistently relies on rage to displace reason, and who most regularly presents insults in lieu of arguments.
Well, Jeff...now that you’ve been shown your errors (again), where’s your apology?
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
Only one or two people have called for [immediate withdrawal].
Well, besides the democratic leaders McQ already pointed to, we can add Cynthia McKinney, Jose Serrano, and Robert Wexler who are the three who voted in favor of the "immediate withdrawal" resolution. Six additional representatives voted present: Jim McDermott, Jerrold Nadler, Maurice Hinchey, Major Owens, Michael Capuano, and William Lacy Clay.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
There is no strategy to win. If that isn’t clear to you, then you haven’t been paying attention.
Aw shucks guys. He used the "if you don’t agree with me, then you just haven’t been paying attention" argument. We’re done for.

As someone who’s followed the political and military ends of this war and actually paid attention to the strategy of our government in Iraq, I can turn that right back around on you.

Are you familiar with the Anbar campaign, Shawn? Have you been following the publicly announced troop movements and operations, and the changes in the patterns of the insurgency — particularly the fact that massive portions of the country, notably the ratlines from Syria into Iraq, have methodically been all but cleared of enemy activity? Have you paid any attention to the progression of the Iraqi security forces, which need only a core logistical backbone before a large number of units reach Level 1 readiness? Or do you just have some vague impression that American soldiers are driving up and down Iraqi roads waiting for an IED to go off?

The military has a strategy. They’ve coordinated their efforts with a number of agencies that are busy doing exactly what McQ has said (and no, I’m not his sock puppet, I’ve heard military officers in Iraq say this at press conferences too): they’re giving the government of Iraq the time and space it needs to constitute itself as a stable body capable of handling whatever remains of the insurgency on its own. Such things don’t happen overnight, but given that we only invaded three years ago, I’d say things have come pretty far in that historical blink of an eye.
The overall strategy has been published. You can read it. If anyone’s not paying attention, Shawn, it’s you... Bill W linked to it before you even posted.
 
Written By: OrneryWP
URL: http://
For something to be true is it because more that two people state it as fact, therefore it has to be true? How does someone determine if the premises’ are true? Has this strategy been used in other circumstances? Is the winning strategy true because you believe or do you think it has the highest probability of succeeding? Truth and probability are not the same to me.
It seems to me the game plan is being improvised, due to the changing environment. Because of this, you may look at any moment and the plan would appear not to exist.
 
Written By: VRB
URL: http://
"It seems to me the game plan is being improvised, due to the changing environment."

No battle plan survives contact with the enemy.


"Because of this, you may look at any moment and the plan would appear not to exist."

And people who only take a moment to look—who don’t attempt to see the whole picture—maybe they should refrain from commenting and so declaring their ignorance.

Also, a fact is a fact whether all, one, or none agree it to be so. A winning strategy is one that wins—will you know it when you see it?

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider