Cleland calls Saxby “Chicken Hawk,” says he “tricked people” to get out of service in Vietnam

Max Cleland and a number of his fellow Democrats are clearly still obsessing over the ad run six years ago that dared pointed out Cleland’s refusal, in the immediate aftermath of September 11, 2001, to vote for new homeland security measures proposed by the Bush administration.

Cleland – who appeared to lose his mind after convincing himself that his patriotism had been left in tatters after a single :30 campaign ad – clearly believes that attacks on service and patriotism are just fine if conducted by his side of the aisle (or out of his own quest for revenge), as he used the opportunity of a Friday conference call with the media to accuse Saxby Chambliss of “dodging” service in Vietnam, and of being a “chicken hawk.” According to AP reporter Ben Evans:

Former Sen. Max Cleland of Georgia called Republican Sen. Saxby Chambliss a “chicken hawk” Friday and accused him of dodging service in Vietnam while Democratic challenger Jim Martin served a tour in the Army.

Cleland, who lost his seat to Chambliss in 2002, offered no evidence that Chambliss inappropriately avoided service.

Speaking of obsessing about a six-year-old campaign ad, the DSCC sent an email to supporters two weeks ago, entitled “This One’s for Max,” which said the following:

I have never forgotten Saxby Chambliss’ revolting and repulsive hit piece equating Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein to triple-amputee war hero Max Cleland in 2002. [Ed: The ad, of course, did no such thing; click this link and watch it for yourself to see how absurd and dishonest this repeated claim is.]

This year, we have a real chance to make Chambliss feel the sting of defeat, but only if thousands of us act in the next 12 hours. The latest polls show Democrat Jim Martin within two points, so the DSCC is adding a 12th battleground state and making a major new investment to win Georgia. This is a brand-new, enormous opportunity and it brings us one step closer to that filibuster-proof majority.

Here’s a suggestion for Martin and the DSCC: Keep letting Cleland talk. Much like his soul mate Jack Murtha up in PA-12, they can only help themselves and their parties’ causes by doing so….right?


  1. griftdrift says:

    Welcome back Jeff.

    You know I don’t know what I find more interesting – the fact that Democrats obsess over the 2002 campaign or the Republicans who continue to gloss right past the fact that Cleland was absolutely right to be concerned about the Patriot Act.

  2. Game Fan says:

    And retroactive immunity for telecoms. The “I’ve got nothing to hide” crowd needs a crash course in history and Constitutional government. I wonder if they even get the fact that a good portion of the outrage against some of the current abuses of power isn’t even expressed openly in public due to the fear factor.

  3. John Douglas says:

    What I find interesting is that Democrats have gone from finding people who avoided service in Vietnam from being heroes years ago to goats now. Its just more of that, “Do as I say, not as I do,” philosophy that they have mastered so well. Meanwhile, we have these Iraq and other military vets running as Democrats for congress in Georgia this year when in fact their own party would lose the war to achieve political goals. It must be some sort of self-hate complex. Ask Wesley Clark…check out

    where he refuses to give our own troops and military leadership credit for the successful surge in Iraq. I dont think I have ever heard of a General Officer in the US military refuse to credit our own troops for a successful operation. Sounds like great potential for a down sized Hussien Obama Dept of Defense Secretary.

  4. John Konop says:


    Why do you support Saxby?

    Do you still support Saxby in thinking tax cuts without proper spending cuts are a good idea?

    Do you still support Saxby on unlimited signing authority by the executive branch?

    Do you still support Saxby on BIO FUEL (Farm Bill) scam?

    Do you still support Saxby on education via the failed heavy handed Federal Program NCLB?

    Do you support Saxby on the bailout bill?

    I could ad more but this alone would be interesting!

  5. Chris says:

    Cleland’s refusal, in the immediate aftermath of September 11, 2001, to vote for new homeland security measures proposed by the Bush administration.

    Alas, Much like Jim Martin’s opposition to the bailout, Max Cleland’s opposition to DHS had less to do with the many reasons why is was a bad idea to build a huge new federal bureaucracy which is just as incompetent as the various small bureaucracies that preceded it, and more to do with the face that the bureaucracy wasn’t unionized so as to be under the control of the Democrats.

    Luckly for the Democrats, voters giver partial credit.

  6. John Konop says:

    John Douglass

    The truth is the country is now split into self ruling regions, which is why the violence decreased. I supported this strategy early on, but it is a containment strategy not a long term one.

    The problem is the tribes have been killing each other for over 2000 years. This is why we must get off the need of Middle East oil.And realize Democracy is not a form of sprinkle dust that destroys hatred.

    Analysis: Confusion in Iraq if security deal fails
    TH-American soldiers might stop patrolling the streets and head back to their barracks. Help to the Iraqi army could suddenly cease _ not to mention raids on al-Qaida fighters and Shiite extremists.
    U.S. and Iraqi officials would scramble for options to salvage their mission here, in the waning, lame-duck days of a Bush administration that launched and pursued the war.
    It’s a vision of what may take place if Iraq’s parliament refuses to accept a new security agreement with the U.S. before year’s end. That date _ Dec. 31 _ is when a U.N. mandate expires and with it, the legal basis for American troops to operate inside Iraq.
    No one knows for sure what will happen if that D-Day comes and passes with no done deal.

    read more


    MCK-Iraq’s prime minister won’t sign U.S. troop deal

    …Top U.S. military officials have warned of serious consequences if the agreement isn’t signed. Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said earlier this week that Iraq’s forces “will not be ready to provide for their security” after the current U.N. mandate runs out. “And in that regard there is great potential for losses of significant consequence,” Mullen said.

    Army Gen. Ray Odierno, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, told USA Today: “Without (a security agreement), we would potentially have to cease all operations….”
    read more

  7. atlantaman says:

    Keep in mind, the reason Cleland was not voting for Homeland Security was because he sold out to the national unions and was trying to ensure the new department could unionize. This was a stark contrast to his Democrat colleague, Zell Miller, who was more worried about getting the Homeland Security bill passed and less worried about sucking up to the national unions.

    While I have tremendous respect for Cleland’s service in Vietnam and the sacrifice he made or our country, it’s somewhat bizzare to think the citizens of Georgia are not allowed to question one of their Senator’s military voting records simply out of guilt over his being an amputee. That’s placing a lot of unchecked power in one man simply because of any public dissent would be viewed as questioning his patriotism.

    I’m always amazed at Georgia politicians who suck-up to the unions, knowing that a major reason our economy has grown over the last 50 years is that we are a right-to-work state.

    Zell, and his conservative voting record, did more to highlight Cleland’s sellout to the national Democrats than Saxby ever did.

  8. IndyInjun says:

    Martin served. Chambliss didn’t, just like other chickenhawks who led the USA into a useless $multitrillion war in Iraq. This is the salient point.

    Cleland presents no advantages to Martin, other than as a reminder of how Georgians will summarily throw him out, just as they did Cleland and Chambliss, for abandoning their interests and conservativism to follow the dictates of IDIOTIC ‘leadership.’

  9. IndyInjun says:

    Zell Miller has said repeatedly that he is a friend of Cleland, but Cleland bought defeat by doing the bidding of the Democrat leadership.

    Yes, I know it is the ‘DemocratIC’ party, but mainly they act more like rats, although I support JIM MARTIN in this race because Saxby Chambliss is STEALING FROM ME and giving my money to crooks.

  10. Decaturguy says:

    Oh, John Douglas, I thought they told you to not be seen until after election day since you are such a cancer on your party.

  11. rugby fan says:

    “in the immediate aftermath of September 11, 2001, to vote for new homeland security measures proposed by the Bush administration.”

    And how great those measures were huh Jeff?

    Do you still support them? Do you think they were good?

    If so by god you and your party deserve to lose for sheer idiocy.

  12. Chris says:


    If Senator Douglas is a cancer, he is a small melanoma compared to metastasized pancreatic cancer that is the Bush White House.

  13. Decaturguy says:

    Hey Dumbass Douglas,

    If you are going to be so open about your bigotry and call others out for misspelling your last name then you could at least spell Barack’s middle name correctly.

  14. Jeff Emanuel says:

    Wow – I leave for six months or so, and the same old John Konop is still here saying the same things 😉

    Chris and Rugby, that’s a synopsis of the ad, not a value judgment of Cleland’s votes or of the success or failure of the homeland security apparati put in place by GWB and the post-9/11 Congress.

    The distinction there, at least in this post, isn’t that Cleland should or shouldn’t have voted for those measures, but that Cleland’s votes were the subject of Chambliss’s ad, not whether or not the former GA Senator was the equivalent of Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden, as folks who continue to freak out over that spot dishonestly maintain.

  15. Rick Day says:

    OK Jeff, you just flip-flopped, which, according you your ilk in 2004, this disqualifies you from being intelligent.

    First you slam Max for what he says.

    Then you encourage him to keep repeating it.

    Adjust your meds.

    Can I interest you in a position within the LPGa?

  16. Bill Simon says:

    “And how great those measures were huh Jeff?”

    Perhaps it has been another one of those coverups by the MSLM (Mainstream Liberal Media), but I don’t recall an attack on U.S. soil since 9/11.

    In short, Rugby, those “measures” have allowed you to continue watching rugby games uninterrupted from “breaking news of a terrorist attack” on US soil.

  17. rugby fan says:

    “Perhaps it has been another one of those coverups by the MSLM (Mainstream Liberal Media), but I don’t recall an attack on U.S. soil since 9/11.”

    That’s the best you can do Bill?


  18. rugby fan says:

    Hey Bill:

    I don’t recall a single terrorist attack on U.S. soil after Oklahoma City.

    Then Bush came in and changed Clinton’s anti-terror policies.

    Ergo, Clinton’s methods were better, and didn’t infringe on civil liberties.

    You see the problem with your logic?

Comments are closed.