Sen. Max Cleland and embellished military records

Apparently, Mr. Paul A Morin, the national commander of the American Legion, is in some hot water because he's used overly-clever words to suggest he served in combat during the Vietnam War when in fact he served state-side for his two years in the United States Army (Fort Dix, New Jersey, 1972 - 1974).

This is all you really need to know as the set-up to the following letter to the Boston Globe:

Editor,

In the very article where Mr. Walter V. Robinson challenges a veteran's "embellished" military record, Mr. Robinson allowed a most compelling witness against such embellishment to do the very same thing (Legion chief alters line on war service, Dec. 3, A1).

Retired Army Captain and former Sen. Joseph Maxwell (Max) Cleland (D, GA) is a bona fide American war hero and anyone reading this letter that does not understand that or that chooses to be offended by what follows is simply desirous of being offended (Blogger's Note: If this subject matter is of interest to you, please see my post on Sen. Cleland from February 12, 2006 or my post on another bona fide American war hero, Maj. Tammy Duckworth, from February 28, 2006).

Mr. Robinson described Sen. Cleland as a Vietnam War veteran "who lost both legs and an arm in Vietnam." While this is true, the reader is given the impression that Sen. Cleland lost his limbs in combat. He did not. On April 8, 1968, then-Capt. Max Cleland picked-up a "hair-triggered" grenade that another soldier dropped on a helicopter tarmac in Vietnam after returning from a combat mission. The grenade exploded after Capt. Cleland picked it up. Capt. Cleland lost two legs and an arm in the explosion.

During the 2004 Presdential campaign, Sen. John F. Kerry ("Sen. Cleland left his limbs on the battlefield"), national Democrats, and a compliant liberal media absolutely exploited Sen. Cleland; they all seemed embarrassed that Sen. Cleland's injuries were not suffered in combat. Their strategy was: let's imply the injuries were combat-related and dare anyone to call us on it. However, the Boston Globe is certainly capable of discerning a combat-related injury from a non-combat injury. Recall, on June 1, 2006, the Boston Globe did a story on Sgt. Peter Damon and twice in the story it was noted that Sgt. Damon's injuries (he lost both arms while serving in Iraq) were not combat-related. Then again, Sgt. Damon expressed a view not critical of President Bush; I suspect this had something to do with the "clarification". Sen. Cleland's service to his Country, his bravery (a Silver Star awarded on Apil 4, 1968; the same day Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. was assassinated, by the way), and his tremendous personal sacrifice are so very honorable, why cannot this be enough for those listed above who imply more? Sgt. Damon's service to his Country is no less honorable than Sen. Cleland's regardless of the Boston Globe's different treatment of the two.

My point is, Sen. Max Cleland should not have been the voice condemning military-record embellishment. Or, Mr. Robinson should have made it clear that Sen. Cleland's injuries were not combated-related. Or, Mr. Robinson most definitely should not have implied Sen. Cleland's injuries were combat-related.

If I've offended anyone with military service, I only ask you to consider how offensive and dishonorable it is to take credit for a combat injury when no such thing occurred . . . regardless of how horrific the injuries. Sen. Max Cleland is an American war hero, however, he does not have a Purple Heart. (End of letter.)