Comments on: Mark Steyn

By: Someguy

Someguy — Mon, 01 Mar 2004 21:29:26 +0000

The following is taken from Steyn’s website. You’ll find that Mr. Steyn is more than willing (in fact, eager) to take on any questions you may have about his research or fact-finding. That is what makes him different from most opinion columnists like Paul Krugman or Ann Coulter. THE CHICKEN-SHIT CHICKEN-HAWK PANTS-WETTING PANTS-SHITTING PUTRID LYING SCUMBAG REPLIES: It’s not I who disputed the official record, but Max Cleland. In his autobiography, Strong At The Broken Places, a very moving and sincere account of how he feels about what happened, Cleland writes of his having been awarded the Soldier’s Medal “for allegedly shielding my men from the grenade blast and the Silver Star for allegedly coming to the aid of wounded troops… There were no heroics on which to base the Soldier’s Medal. And it had been my men who took care of the wounded during the rocket attack, not me. Some compassionate military men had obviously recommended me for the Silver Star, but I didn’t deserve it.” “Allegedly shielding”, “allegedly coming to the aid”, “no heroics”, “I didn’t deserve it”: Those are Max Cleland’s words, not mine. He makes plain what happened: that his “compassionate” comrades all the way up the chain decided retrospectively to enhance the events of four days earlier. What they did was understandable, but Max Cleland was honest enough with himself to acknowledge the truth. My characterization of the events of April 1968 is no different from his, made repeatedly over three decades, from 1968 to 2002 – until he decided to allow himself to be used to impugn the National Guard record of America’s Commander-in-Chief at a time of war. As I said last week, this is “sad”. Cleland disagrees with Bush’s strategy on this war: that’s why he lost his seat in Georgia – because instead of taking homeland security seriously he wanted to prioritize union featherbedding in the new department. That’s his right. But let him fight Bush on the war Bush is fighting, not the last one. Maybe it will work. Maybe John Kerry’s four months in Vietnam are more important than his remarkable two-decade lack of legislative accomplishment. But, if you think what I wrote last week is wrong, you really ought to take it up with Mr Cleland. I got it from him.

By: chairm

chairm — Wed, 25 Feb 2004 21:37:47 +0000

Oops. Clarification of that last paragraph: The tactical distraction is utter nonsense and its primary purpose is to provoke mud-slinging. And the overall goal is make people get fed-up with all sides and thus camouflage Kerry’s questionable record during the Vietnam War.

By: chairm

chairm — Wed, 25 Feb 2004 21:33:42 +0000

How does one defend the political theater of Cleland’s criticisms of veterans (about 2/3rds during the Vietnam war) who didn’t seen combat? To say that combat made him superior in current political judgment? And whatabout Kerry’s Vietnam theme? To say that his was a superior example of presidential character? The tactical distraction is utter nonsense and its primary purpose is to provoke mud-slinging. And the overall goal is make people get fed-up with Kerry’s questionable record during the Vietnam War.

By: robbo

robbo — Wed, 25 Feb 2004 10:29:35 +0000

I wish this thread was unbelievable, but by now it’s not. The stench of desperation is all around the likes of Ms. Coulter and her admirers. The need to protect the palpably incapable GW Bush has led hard right “opinion leaders” to lash out with increasing frenzy against such amorphous foes as evil, terrorism, liberals, gay marriage, Bill Clinton’s recession, Max Cleland, John Kerry’s putative intern, etc. etc. You can smell the fear on them. Winger in-laws who openly questioned my patriotism and understanding of politics all through 2002 and 2003 now sit quietly and meekly in my presence. I don’t stick their noses in it, but they know not to say a peep about their man George, his flight suit, his war, his abuse of America’s standing in the world, his jobs plan, his open disdain for the majority who didn’t vote for him, his attempts at contemporaneous thought, his record on the environment, his National Guard record, his record deficits, or anything else in his record. Period. Bush is going down, and going down hard. It’s clear that he will take pitiable scum like Ann Coulter down with him. So let her dig her own grave with this inane line of reasoning about Max Cleland. It’s great that she’s chosen to decry the putative embellishments of Cleland’s war record. It serves mainly to invite further poking into Bush’s wartime credentials. It’s great when George waves his honorable discharge around like the slow kid who got a gold star from teacher for his outstanding performance. Bite me Republicans—I cannot wait to see your representatives tossed out en mass come November.

By: Sophi

Sophi — Mon, 23 Feb 2004 11:30:37 +0000

Back the truck up. Cleland has become a mascot for Kerry’s Vietnam theme. He and Kerry were in Vietnam and based on this common experience they have derided the credibility of anyone from Howard Dean to GWB. They have persistently taunted their opponents in a manner that Kerry had denounced in 1992 when something like it was aimed at Clinton. This time Kerry can point to a man whose missing limbs become a prop for what exactly? It is too much a ploy for bogus sympathy rather than respect of a war hero. That Cleland goes along with it is a mystery to me. Are we to pity him? Are we to admire him for being used like this? What is the message about Kerry that we are to take from this theater? By Kerry’s weekend Press Release and letter to President Bush, it seems, we are to pretend that their time in Vietnam ought to shield them from criticismm on the issues. Or that they can resort to defensive prickliness at the mere challenge to their stance on national security and defense. They like the Vietnam motify only so far as it permits them to frame the discussion. And that discredits them and is a disservice to the country. Although Coulter and Steyn punctured this pretense of Kerry and Cleland, there’s not much point in increasing the granularity of honorable service. If not for a change in mission, Kerry and Cleland would not have seen anything close to combat; likewise with GWB and thousands of others.

By: Ian

Ian — Sat, 21 Feb 2004 18:27:10 +0000

The British Army lost more men to US fire than Iraqi in both Gulf wars. I guess by Coulter’s standards they are not war dead because their allies did it.

By: Peter

Peter — Sat, 21 Feb 2004 07:07:23 +0000

Wbb, Hmm, took your advice but couldn’t find the “Protocols” on Amazon. Maybe they’re just out of stock. But if you have an extra copy…

By: Jon H

Jon H — Sat, 21 Feb 2004 06:52:48 +0000

Geoff Matthews writes: “I demand as much proof for your claim as people are clamboring for Bush’s claim.” Here’s another example: ” John Allen Muhammad, convicted last November for his participation in the D.C. sniper shootings, served in the Louisiana National Guard from 1978-1985, where he faced two summary courts-martial. In 1983, he was charged with striking an officer, stealing a tape measure, and going AWOL. Sentenced to seven days in the brig, he received an honorable discharge in 1985” http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=express&s=benson021204 Good enough?

By: wbb

wbb — Sat, 21 Feb 2004 01:29:23 +0000

Liam – no need to travel so far to get a copy – it sells well enough on Amazon too (rank: 21,545 c/w The Memoirs of Richard Nixon – rank: 123,812.) But, just out of interest, what was it selling like in Tehran – hotcakes? Will you be doing a follow up survey – pls let us know the results.

By: Liam

Liam — Sat, 21 Feb 2004 00:10:37 +0000

Greg, Try Google: “Iran” and “anti-semitism”, and maybe, while you’re at it, “Greg” and “naive”. When I was in Tehran just about a year ago (for the 2003 Fajr Film Festival), I visited several bookstores. As is the case throughout the Middle East, “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion” and “Mein Kampf” are well-stocked and sell briskly.

By: zizka

zizka — Fri, 20 Feb 2004 23:32:18 +0000

Seriously, where do these slime come from? Someone must have linked.

By: Greg

Greg — Fri, 20 Feb 2004 23:26:59 +0000

Ignorant nonsense, Liam? Ignorant of what? Muslims have always seen Jews and Christians as fellow people of the book, spiritual descendants of Abraham, and followers of the one God. Throughout history Jews and Christians have generally done a whole lot better under Muslim rule than Jews or Muslims did under Christian rule. The most impressive example is Spain, where the Moors nurtured a Jewish ‘Golden Age’, but almost anywhere would prove the same point. Iran’s Muslims are theocrats, certainly, but are modern fundamentalists, not primitive ones; their totalitarian attitude represents a strain of Islam thrown up in the last century.

By: Geoff Matthews

Geoff Matthews — Fri, 20 Feb 2004 23:24:02 +0000

Yeah, ZJO, except your ‘aquaintance’ is unsourceable. I demand as much proof for your claim as people are clamboring for Bush’s claim. That’s the thing with the Dems. Long on claims, short on sources.

By: zjo

zjo — Fri, 20 Feb 2004 22:40:55 +0000

Oh, and as for Bush’s ‘Honorable Discharge,’ an aquaintance of mine in the US Navy developed a nasty amphetamine habit. After going AWOL for a week then coming back and copping to his speed habit, he got an honorable discharge. So, it’s not like you have to be a virginal unicorn hunter to get an HD. FYI.

By: brb

brb — Fri, 20 Feb 2004 22:36:31 +0000

“an entirely excremental display” Entirely?!? Every word was complete crap? None of it was true? Or shouldn’t have been said, even if true?? Or are you a pathetic liar??? As for Steyn being wrong on the electoral count, whatever, he is rarely wrong, he is funny because he is smart. Ann is just pissed off because people are trying to shut her up by shunning her, using social pressure, rather than addressing her arguments. You guys can’t see it, and I don’t really care if you do, but Coulter and Steyn kicked your collective butts this time.