Look - saying he is a hero for winning the Silver Star has nothing to do with how he received his wounds. Surely, having read the links, you are aware that the two incidents are completely distinct. He engaged in acts of heroism for which he won him the Silver Star, AND at a later time was wounded shortly after disembarking his helicopter on a mission. Saying he is a hero for winning the Silver Star neither acknowledges or corrects your mischaracterization. He could have won the Silver Star, AND later been wounded while on the way to the keg. However, he was not, and to say otherwise is a base and sickening act.
What you and Coulter are trying to do is suggest that his wounds did not occur in the course of his duties in Viet Nam (and therefore reference to his sacrifice for his country become minimized because he was “clueless” and because it was the kind of accident that might have occurred anywhere, for which even George Bush was equally at risk). You wanted people who see and think about Cleland in the future to think about a dullard on the way to grab a brewski who gets hoist on his own petard. Show me the words that correct the impression you tried to give on these points. This is the third time I have specifically asked you to do so. It is not hard to comprehend for most, but your evasion persists. How can anyone not regard this as weaseling? You and Coulter speak of honor. Frankly, neither of you have one ounce.
No, you look. You’ve been repeatedly immature and insulting what with the “pricks” and the “assholes” and the “pieces of shit.”
Now you’re trying to mischaracterize my post in order to defend yourself, because you got caught in a lie.
I acknowledged the error in my earlier characterization, and I did so nicely and completely.
Sofa’s link details both Cleland’s Silver Star and his accident, which are seperate instances.
In acknowledging his correction, I am accepting it. My recharacterization of Cleland as a “hero” should make this clear to you if you weren’t so eager to create something in my post to find offense at.
Your continued unwaranted namecalling mischaracterizations and lies do not deserve the level of attention and courtesy I’ve afforded them thus far. At this point, I’m through dealing with them. They’re your problem. Good luck with them.
Your correct. In that sense it was exactly what I asked you for.
I disagree with this analysis. If you look at the other thread, you’ll see we have what MR. Svinlesha calls a “Mexican standoff” on this issue with conflicting authoritative cites contradicting each other.
The only way out of this standoff is to do a comparative analysis of Bush’s exit of the guard versus others’.
I never called you an asshole. Sofa King alluded to assholes attacking Cleland, although he chose to exclude you from this group, affording you greater courtesy than I am inclined to do, because I think you are an asshole.
You asshole!
His link may, but your post does not. You have not corrected your version once. You have not said that you were wrong, only that you were unaware. You went to great lengths to describe him in the poorest manner, and the least lengths to acknowledge your own mistakes.
I created the offense? Yeah, that’s it. Again, even if he had been wounded in the way you wished to convey, he would still have been a hero. You did nothing to correct your version.
Once again, boo fucking hoo, Scylla. Try and spin this as my lies rather than your own. As to my namecalling, well, this is the pit, and I feel that my calling you names is far too little to make up for what you were trying to do to Cleland. You are weak and sniveling. Unfortunately, there is clearly no hope for you in that regard, so I cannot wish you luck. I do at least hope that everyone here has been disabused of your bullshit.