(Update) Apparently,”Phony Soldiers” Die, Too
LIMBAUGH: “Save the — keep the troops safe” or whatever. I — it’s not possible, intellectually, to follow these people.
CALLER 2: No, it’s not, and what’s really funny is, they never talk to real soldiers. They like to pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and talk to the media.
LIMBAUGH: The phony soldiers.
CALLER 2: The phony soldiers. If you talk to a real soldier, they are proud to serve. They want to be over in Iraq. They understand their sacrifice, and they’re willing to sacrifice for their country.
Says Soltz in his post at HuffPo (second link above) in which he documents the large numbers of Iraq war vets and top brass who think Iraq is a debacle, my emphasis:
Finally, as Media Matters notes, just recently, members of the 82nd Airborne in Iraq wrote a New York Times op-ed, very critical of the course in Iraq, and suggesting it was time to figure out the exit strategy. Two of them just died. Will Rush call up their grieving parents and tell them that they should stop crying, because they were just “phony soldiers?”
Oh, and we are going to see a fulll week of right-wing bloggers waxing in angry hysteria at Limbaugh, as they did over an ad in the NYT about the oh-so-sullied honor of Gen. Petraeus? Yeah, snowballs melting in hell ‘n all that.
************
Update: Steve Benen, as usual, calmly but pointedly puts the situation in perspective, my emphasis:
Limbaugh, who avoided military service, feels entirely justified in questioning the patriotism of those who did. When Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.), a decorated veteran of the war in Vietnam, stood with Democrats in opposition to Bush’s Iraq policy, Limbaugh labeled him “Senator Betray Us.†A few months earlier, after Bush said decent people can disagree about the war forward in Iraq, Limbaugh took issue with the president’s comment:
“I want to respectfully disagree with the president on the last part of what he said. I am going to challenge the patriotism of people who disagree with him because the people that disagree with him want to lose.â€
And if that means smearing those who serve in the military, so be it.
MoveOn questioned the integrity of one general [in the NYT ad that had the right-o-sphere going apeshit - ed. Mona]. In contrast, Rush Limbaugh described thousands of U.S. troops — including dozens of generals — who recognize the folly of Bush’s Iraq policy as “phony soldiers.â€
Where’s our congressional resolution?
Comment by Chris Andersen —
September 27, 2007 @ 6:02 pm
Let’s call this what it is: Republican SPIT on soldiers returning from Iraq.
Comment by Tony P. —
September 28, 2007 @ 12:03 am
Chris: GOPers spit on soldiers still IN Iraq.
Lush Rimbaugh needs to get his fat ass literally kicked by one of the “phony soldiers” he disparages. Seriously: I want one of them to walk up to him, circumnavigate him, and kick him. In the ass. With his Army boot.
Cellphone video of the event would amount to exculpatory evidence in any subsequent court-martial.
– TP
Comment by Quiddity —
September 28, 2007 @ 12:23 am
What interests me is the hypocrisy of Limbaugh. Not that he does it, but that others, like Benen, make a point of mentioning it.
True, for most “normal” people, there is a moral code that inhibits the kind of behavior that Limbaugh exhibits (I’m speaking of the hypocrisy), but so what? I’m reminded of those occasional television news stories where, right after the suspect has been convicted of murdering someone, the affected family members say to him as he’s being led out of the courtroom, “How could you do that?”
They are expecting the guy (serial killer, child molester) to hold to a moral code that they share. They are expecting his brain to function in a manner similar to theirs.
But he doesn’t. It’s regrettable, but you have to face the fact that there are people out there that are functioning in a way that is significantly different from most of us.
This “say anything and suffer no consequences” has happened before. In the 1950’s we had the McCarthy era where wild charges were hurled with abandon.
Two things to note: One, is that Limbaugh isn’t some guy shouting on a street corner. He’s being paid big money and being aired on lots of radio stations. Do his paymasters care about his actions? Not at all. Neither does Murcoch care how offensive O’Reilly is. Or Bill Kristol or Sean Hannity. The second thing is that these characters would have a much tougher time getting their message out if the “standards of discourse” required integrity and decency. For some reason that’s not the case (at least when it comes to right-wing commentators).
I put the blame for fostering today’s environment mostly on those Guardians of Civility that inhabit the major news outlets – editors and pundits. For the most part, they’ve given the right-wing a pass. I’m not sure why, but I suspect it a combination of a still-lingering post-9/11 fear (completely irrational in my view), along with a common economic interest with capitalist conservatives.
Comment by quasibill —
September 28, 2007 @ 9:39 am
interesting part of that last link is that Ron Paul voted in favor of the resolution condemning MoveOn?
Interesting. Either there’s slightly more to the story (i.e. the vote was some sort of omnibus thing) or Paul has some ’splainin to do about the Constitutional authorization for that amendment.
Comment by Steve —
September 29, 2007 @ 11:57 am
John Hall, the Democratic Congressman from Duchess County, NY, is sponsoring a resolution condemning Limbaugh’s remarks. It’s probably, divorced from the context, an effective piece of political theater, but shut up shut up shut up. We didn’t elect these guys to nanner on about how MoveOn.org was too mean for politics — Limbaugh either. This isn’t even substantively harmless like making May 13 the official National Apple Pie Die; I don’t want the idea that Congress is obligated to rebut any fool thing a private citizen says to get any more entrenched than it apparently already has.
Comment by Hume's Ghost —
September 29, 2007 @ 9:43 pm
Bottom line:
If you disagree with Rush, you’re not an American. Give him the power and opportunity, and I have little doubt he’d make that a reality.
Comment by Ted Smythe —
September 30, 2007 @ 12:18 am
You included this statement in your recent comments on Limbaugh’s comments. Finally, as Media Matters notes, just recently, members of the 82nd Airborne in Iraq wrote a New York Times op-ed, very critical of the course in Iraq, and suggesting it was time to figure out the exit strategy. Two of them just died. Will Rush call up their grieving parents and tell them that they should stop crying, because they were just “phony soldiers?â€
This is not in support of Limbaugh’s comment, but did you really mean to imply that of the seven men who wrote the op ed piece for the NYTs, that two of the men who wrote the op ed just died?
Or, that two of the 82nd Airborn just died. The context implies the first interpretation. Can you claify?
Comment by Dan Johnson —
September 30, 2007 @ 7:43 am
I am an Army Captain currently deployed in Iraq. Two of the 82nd Airborne NCOs who wrote the op-ed for the NYT were recently killed. Their opinions were their own and they were real soldiers.
Comment by Mona —
September 30, 2007 @ 7:44 am
Ted Smythe: Jon Soltz meant that two of the seven who wrote the Op-Ed just died, because that is what happened.