Sunday, February 22, 2004
Catching up on Reader email
A reader shares her thoughts on Max Cleland:
But think for a minute what kind of partisan low-life you'd have to be to decide that the best way to defend against perfectly legitimate questions surrounding George Bush's military service--given all his "warrior" posturing, mind you--is to strike out at another guy who lost three limbs to a dropped hand grenade while he was serving in a combat capacity in Vietnam.
Even if he was on his way to have some beers with his buddies--don't you think he deserved them? Can't a guy have a beer four days after being cited for "exceptionally valorous action" and "gallant action...in keeping with the highest traditions of the military service" which reflected "great credit upon himself, his unit, and the United States Army" ?
Four days later someone dropped a grenade and blew his legs and arm off. Jesus Christ and she's got a problem with that?
201k maintains that George Bush's service record would not be an issue for us if not for his current actions. He's the one who said "I've been to war". He's the one who launched the first preemptive war in our history--on highly questionable intelligence. He's the one who said, "Bring 'em on." He's the one who paraded around an aircraft carrier in a flight suit.
It's George Bush's advisors who brought this scrutiny on him. They're the ones the right wing should be attacking. Whichever of them had the bright idea to dress him up like GI Joe is the one they should be angry at.
For them to take it out on Max Cleland is disgusting.
Another reader wrote to clarify our confusion with local talk radio. We expressed surprise at the odd coincidence of both a dj and a caller deciding that John Kerry was to blame for the war in Iraq--since that was the stupidest thing we'd heard in a while. Mark, who is familiar with the program, wrote to explain that both dj and caller were, "muddle-headed, lick-spittle, servile, obsequious sycophants".
Well, that clears that up.
From: "Nan"Thank you. Look, our understanding is that "she" is as wrong about the circumstances of Cleland's injury as she is about everything else.
To: editor@201k.com
Subject: War Hero!
Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2004
Even if the circumstances were as she stated, he would still be a "war hero". He is a "war hero" because his accident would not occurred if he hadn't been in a war zone, and most of all because he survived, surmounting enormous obstacles to take his place in society. Thank you for standing up for him.
But think for a minute what kind of partisan low-life you'd have to be to decide that the best way to defend against perfectly legitimate questions surrounding George Bush's military service--given all his "warrior" posturing, mind you--is to strike out at another guy who lost three limbs to a dropped hand grenade while he was serving in a combat capacity in Vietnam.
Even if he was on his way to have some beers with his buddies--don't you think he deserved them? Can't a guy have a beer four days after being cited for "exceptionally valorous action" and "gallant action...in keeping with the highest traditions of the military service" which reflected "great credit upon himself, his unit, and the United States Army" ?
Four days later someone dropped a grenade and blew his legs and arm off. Jesus Christ and she's got a problem with that?
201k maintains that George Bush's service record would not be an issue for us if not for his current actions. He's the one who said "I've been to war". He's the one who launched the first preemptive war in our history--on highly questionable intelligence. He's the one who said, "Bring 'em on." He's the one who paraded around an aircraft carrier in a flight suit.
It's George Bush's advisors who brought this scrutiny on him. They're the ones the right wing should be attacking. Whichever of them had the bright idea to dress him up like GI Joe is the one they should be angry at.
For them to take it out on Max Cleland is disgusting.
Another reader wrote to clarify our confusion with local talk radio. We expressed surprise at the odd coincidence of both a dj and a caller deciding that John Kerry was to blame for the war in Iraq--since that was the stupidest thing we'd heard in a while. Mark, who is familiar with the program, wrote to explain that both dj and caller were, "muddle-headed, lick-spittle, servile, obsequious sycophants".
Well, that clears that up.
