Limbaugh Attacks The Troops

Jon Soltz of Vote Vets responds to Rush Limbuagh's attack on US soldiers who served in Iraq who oppose continuing the Debacle:

Rush Limbaugh, on his show said that those troops who come home and want to get America out of the middle of the religious civil war in Iraq are "phony soldiers." I'd love for you, Rush, to have me on your show and tell that to me to my face. First, in what universe is a guy who never served even close to being qualified to judge those who have worn the uniform? Rush Limbaugh has never worn a uniform in his life - not even one at Mickey D's - and somehow he's got the moral standing to pass judgment on the men and women who risked their lives for this nation, and his right to blather smears on the airwaves? . . .

Time for a Congressional resolution condemning Limbaugh. Yes, I am serious. This is how the game of politics has to be played.

Update [2007-9-27 19:53:3 by Big Tent Democrat]: Dems firing hard at Limbaugh.

< What Is The Netroots? Part 79 | Racial Profiling in Irving? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Yeah, but (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by DA in LA on Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 03:35:19 PM EST
    the Democrats don't "play politics."  They're above it, apparently.  That is why they are getting their A**es handed to them in Congress.

    Probably (none / 0) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 03:40:57 PM EST
    You've Got To Feel Sorry for Rush Limbaugh (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by john horse on Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 04:39:01 PM EST
    You've got to feel sorry for Rush Limbaugh.  Apparently, the boil on his ass (pilonidal cyst) that he used to avoid the military draft during the Vietnam war has spread and taken over his whole body resulting in frequent occurrences of diarrhea of the mouth.

    Heh (none / 0) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 04:50:47 PM EST
    Typical... (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Adept Havelock on Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 05:12:59 PM EST
    Just another tirade at folks who honorably wear the uniform from Talk Radio's own Pilonidal Cyst.

    Support The Troops, Not The War (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by john horse on Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 05:17:15 PM EST
    What the right means by "Support The Troops" is "Support The War".  They don't care about our troops.  How can they claim to care about the welfare of our troops and support Bush's policy of multiple and extended deployments in Iraq?  How can they send our soldiers to fight and die in Iraq for such light and transient reasons?  

    For the right the only good soldier is a soldier that they can use as a prop to support the war like General Petreaus.  Those that oppose the war, such as Sgt Mora and Sgt Gray who were recently killed in Iraq, are defamed.  

    Its all about supporting the war.  That is why someone like GOP Representative Marsha Blackburn (TN) knows all the talking points for attacking moveon.org but can't name the last soldier from her district killed in Iraq.  See dialogue below.

    Shuster: "Let's talk about the public trust. You represent, of course, a district in western Tennessee. What was the name of the last solider from your district who was killed in Iraq?"

    Blackburn:"The name of the last soldier killed in Iraq uh - from my district I - I do not know his name -"

    Shuster: "Ok, his name was Jeremy Bohannon, he was killed August the 9th, 2007. How come you didn't know the name?"

    Blackburn: "I - I, you know, I - I do not know why I did not know the name..."

    Republicans SPIT on soldiers returning from Iraq (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by Chris Andersen on Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 06:05:04 PM EST
    ...if they dare to disagree with them.

    Chris (1.00 / 1) (#16)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 08:06:18 AM EST
    And you, Rush and Bush splitting (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by jondee on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 12:47:54 PM EST
    when it came time to walk your tough talk.

    Damn those rectal cysts; they woulda' put Sgt York out of commision.


    Bush and Cheney are in the same boat (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Saul on Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 08:43:30 PM EST
    Bush and Cheney, the draft dodger, send soldiers to their certain death every day and they have  never been on the frontline or in the case of Cheney in the  miltary.  Forget about Rush he's small potatoes.

    In the interest of transparency, (1.00 / 1) (#14)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 06:57:53 AM EST
    perhaps you can tell us you do understand:

    1. That Clinton dodged and that is bad, bad, bad, although Kerry said serving wasn't important. But that was 1992. I guess things change. He also pulled the majority of the troops out of Somalia, not leaving enough there to control the warlords, but enough there to get them killed in what has become known as "Blackhawk down." What a military leader he was.

    2. FDR was never in the military (and no, being Under Secretary of the Navy) doesn't count.)

    3. Lincoln was in a state militia for considerably less time than Bush was in the TANG.

    4. Grant served with distinction, but his Presidential administration was known for corruption.

    On a personal note, and again in the interests of transparency, I served 10 years in Naval Aviation, but unlike MoveOn and others of the Left confess to not being able to judge Generals. I am, of course, an excellent Monday Morning Quarterback and Arm Chair Admiral.

    BTW - Have you served?

    BTW - After Cheney's demonstration of his shooting ability, would you have wanted him in your platoon in Vietnam?? ;-)


    Ten years and (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by jondee on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 12:56:51 PM EST
    a died-in-the-wool true believer who couldnt find Vietnam all those years in a world atlas.

    Didnt know "served" was a synonym for hiding out. Did Dad make a few phone calls, Jim?


    I see Jondee (1.00 / 1) (#28)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 01:19:02 PM EST
    has woke up. Welcome to the world, sunshine.

    Anyway you go at it I served and you did not. So as long as you want to make service part of the requirement to comment on the war, I'm qualified and you are not.


    Yeah... but that means (5.00 / 0) (#41)
    by Michael Gass on Sat Sep 29, 2007 at 10:01:53 AM EST
    that Murtha IS qualified and Rush ISN'T... nor is Bush, Cheney, Rice, O'Reilly, Beck, Malkin, Coulter... etc etc

    Yep Vietnam veteran (5.00 / 0) (#42)
    by Saul on Sat Sep 29, 2007 at 11:21:16 PM EST
    Have you my friend.

    my sincerest to you... (5.00 / 0) (#43)
    by Michael Gass on Sun Sep 30, 2007 at 01:08:48 AM EST
    from a gulf war I vet... you were truly in hell... compared to that, we were in the Ritz...



    wait a minute (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Jen M on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 11:10:12 AM EST
    I thought Rush was all against badmouthing soldiers. Didn't he get his boxers all up in a twist about the Move-On ad?

    oh for god's sake, (4.00 / 1) (#7)
    by cpinva on Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 05:17:10 PM EST
    don't give limbaugh that kind of standing. geez, use your brain son. he's an "entertainer", remember? a "comedian" as it were. certainly, nothing he says is meant to be taken seriously, by any actual thinking person, anyway.

    yeah, i know, the rubes who listen to him think he's being serious, but hey, they are just rubes, who pay his salary.

    frankly, congress has enough real issues on its plate to deal with, it hasn't the time to waste on limbaugh.

    aw come on. (1.00 / 1) (#13)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 06:33:35 AM EST
    Nothing wrong with a good spirited discussion with humorous overtones... don't you ever watch CNN and MSNBC??

    I'd like to see that myself.. (1.00 / 2) (#5)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 04:58:36 PM EST
    Of course Soltz might also explain why

    Does Rush believe that highly decorated Major Generals are "phony soldiers?"

    his generals are right and Petareus is wrong. Should be an interesting conversation.

    In the meantime.... meet some of the troops you're talking about.


    Test (1.00 / 0) (#12)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 06:29:41 AM EST

    If, and I make that a big IF, (1.00 / 1) (#15)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 07:51:26 AM EST
    the claim about Fallon's comments are true, it would be highly unusual for two flag rank officers to speak like this outside closed doors, and in private.

    And given that the remark supposedly happened in March, about 6 months previously, I find it highly suspicious that it only came into play just as Petraeus was about to issue his report to Congress. It would have been too juicy to set on for six months,

    Can anyone show us an earlier link? I have given it a quick look and see none. Absent that, and the fact that the source is unknown, I don't think it happened.

    BTW - I couldn't find a match on Snopes.

    As for trusting Generals, I don't.

    Evaluating their performance? I'm not qualified, and neither are you and 99.09% of the folks who hang out on the Internet. I mean Monday Morning Quarterbacking is grand fun, and we all know we would have had a better game plan, but at the end of the day we all know that is not true.

    Generals are hired to win wars and accomplish objectives. If Petraeus' Iraq is capable of becoming a stable government capable of  defending itself against internal and external terrorists, he will have succeeded. If not, he has failed.

    It really is that simple.

    Have you heard him deny it? (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Dadler on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 11:01:43 AM EST
    Nope.  Do you thin a General would let that quote go uncommented upon if it he'd never said it?  He said it, he meant it, and he's not alone.  Generals and soldiers are talking all over the place about this war for one reason....because it's an uprecedented disaster and silence equals death in a democracy.

    I repeat, I trust Generals, people, who sound like FREE AMERICANS WITH FREE AMERICAN MINDS OF THEIR OWN.  I can just a persons rationality and logical and intellectual ability and honesty by using my own brain.

    Petraeus served neither the interests of our country, Iraq, or those of his own soldiers.


    It's a smear, dadler. Pure and simple. (1.00 / 1) (#36)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 08:22:38 PM EST
    Nope.  Do you thin a General would let that quote go uncommented upon if it he'd never said it?

    First of all, Fallon is an Admiral.

    And yes, he wouldn't dignify the comment by a public  denial because he understands that the critics would just come out with something like:

    Bush made him.

    I know he was lying because I saw his fingers crossed.

    I know he was lying because my cat attacked the screen...

    etc. etc.

    In the meantime show me anything about this prior to the 9/9-9/12 timeframe. And we both know it couldn't have been kept quiet for 6 months if it actually happened.

    It's a smear, dadler. Pure and simple.


    He has denied it: (none / 0) (#45)
    by robrecht on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 01:50:55 PM EST
    "Another quoted Pentagon sources as saying Fallon openly derided Petraeus during their first meeting last March after Fallon took the CentCom reins.

    The latter story particularly galled Fallon, who called it "scurrilous," adding that the characterizations of a dysfunctional relationship with Petraeus are "just absurd." Link

    The original story was already 3rd hand as heard by the reporter: "according to Pentagon sources familiar with reports of the meeting."  Link


    And your point is??? (1.00 / 1) (#18)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 09:16:15 AM EST
    Ah... Then why didn't he pull them all out??? He LEFT enough there to get them killed. His administration also didn't get them the needed equipment.

    Clinton was seeking to placate the Repubs' and Libertarians' base while playing to what was left of the Wilsonian Demos...

    BTW - Don't mistake me for a Repub, but I also wanted them out because I saw no real national interest.

    I also didn't want us in Kosovo for the same reason and objected to my Congressional delegation in strong terms.

    But AFTER they were committed and I shut up and supported them and the mission.

    Oh... so, you REALLY blame Bush Sr... (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Michael Gass on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 09:38:03 AM EST
    You just MENTIONED Clinton ACCIDENTLY, right?


    1992 - 1994...

    Ummm... you DO realize that means it was Bush Sr. who put those troops in there to begin with... don't you?

    You just MISTAKENLY blamed CLINTON that a REPUBLICAN put the soldiers into Somalia and REPUBLICANS screamed when it turned bad... yes?


    Nope... (1.00 / 1) (#23)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 12:04:54 PM EST
    I didn't BLAME Bush Sr, I disagreed with his actions.

    I blame Clinton for not bringing them ALL home, and not giving the remainder the equipment needed.
    He pulled what turned to be typical trick of his, trying to have it both ways. And yes, I use "blame" because it is represents disapproval based on the deaths that followed.

    And I care not one bit what the Repubs did, or did not do. Clinton allowed a serious mistake to happen when he left people there.

    Guess what's about to happen in Iraq??


    Of course Rush was (1.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Wile ECoyote on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 11:14:29 AM EST
    Was talking about Jesse MacBeth  That phoney soldier.  Need to listen to the call.  

    Facts, facts, facts (1.00 / 0) (#24)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 12:11:12 PM EST
    Would you quit that??  ;-)

    yep... gotta hate FACTS... (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Michael Gass on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 03:30:08 PM EST
    Rush doesn't apologize... he simply names Jack Murtha as a "phoney soldier" OUTRIGHT.

    Jack Murtha is a 37 year MARINE who retired a Colonel.

    No spin here... Rush NAMES Murtha as a "phoney soldier"... a 37-year veteran.


    John Murtha... not Jack... (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Michael Gass on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 03:33:07 PM EST
    see below...

    Maybe Limbaugh will apologize (1.00 / 1) (#34)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 07:55:07 PM EST
    when Murtha apologzies for what he said about the troops.

    Think you can arrange that??


    When MURTHA apologizes??? (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Michael Gass on Sat Sep 29, 2007 at 09:57:59 AM EST
    For WHAT??? Saying the TRUTH instead of SMEARING someone????

    FYI... a soldier just testified in a court of law that we was ordered to kill an unarmed Iraqi.

    It's clear to me (and has been for several years) that the GOP and their base have no use for the truth, only whatever it takes for them to feel good and win... ie... the "family values" and "morals" Party is bankrupt on both.


    Limbaugh, and you, (1.00 / 0) (#39)
    by Edger on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 10:10:29 PM EST
    need liberal Democrats to show you the right thing to do?

    You can't figure it out on your own? Figures...


    Wow (1.00 / 0) (#26)
    by Slado on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 12:55:35 PM EST
    What a bunch of Dem spinning on this one.

    What always amuses me about dems piling on Rush is they don't listen to him and they take what he says out of context and don't realize that it's part of a bigger theme that he develops over months or even years..

    He was refering to soldiers such as the gentleman from the New Republic who lied about what he saw in Iraq or John Kerry who betrayed his fellow soldiers when he testified in front of congress etc...

    Also he was wondering out loud if this soldier was one of those people not saying he was one.

    You don't have to agree with his point of view but Dems trying to play the blame game are now I guess admintting that what Move on did was wrong by trying to play the equivalency game when it's not even close.

    The country is well aware of which party "supports" the troops and which party "supports" the election of the politicians through our defeat in Iraq.

    "out of context"... right... (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Michael Gass on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 03:31:36 PM EST
    Rush calls Jack Murtha a "phoney soldier".

    See above for Murtha's record as a 37-year retired Marine Colonel.


    John Murtha... not Jack... (1.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Michael Gass on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 03:32:44 PM EST
    sorry... still pissed...

    Meanwhile, in the future (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by roy on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 03:53:04 PM EST
    Transcript here.

    So, Rush says "phony soldiers", meaning whatever it means.

    THEN he talks about how any real soldiers join to be in Iraq or Afghanistan or somewhere.

    THEN he talks about WMDs being a moot point.

    THEN he talks about WMDs, which were there, which is moot.

    THEN he talks about the Surge, which is working.

    THEN he talks about anti-war Dems being hell-bent on pulling out, meaning success by soldiers in Iraq is a threat to them.

    THEN he talks about MacBeth.

    I don't listen to Rush regularly.  Maybe he makes his points by dividing them in half and separating them by a half dozen or so other points.  Or maybe he's full of it, and he's reaching for a way to defend himself that looks plausible to people who aren't motivated to think about it too much.


    a look at the time line (1.00 / 1) (#35)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 08:16:31 PM EST
    CALLER:  No, it's not.  And what's really funny is they never talk to real soldiers.  They pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and spout to the media.

    RUSH:  The phony soldiers.

    The caller has made the point, Limbaugh ID's..

    CALLER:  Phony soldiers.  If you talk to any real soldier and they're proud to serve, they want to be over in Iraq, they understand their sacrifice and they're willing to sacrifice for the country.

    RUSH:  They joined to be in Iraq.

    CALLER:  A lot of people.

    RUSH:  You know where you're going these days, the last four years, if you sign up.  The odds are you're going there or Afghanistan, or somewhere.

    CALLER:  Exactly, sir.  My other comment, my original comment....

    RUSH:  Well, that's a moot point for me right now.

    CALLER:  Right.

    RUSH:  The weapons of mass destruction.  We gotta get beyond that.  We're there.....

    Note that it was the caller who changed the subject, back to his original point.

    Limbaugh then returns to:

    Here is a Morning Update that we did recently, talking about fake soldiers.  This is a story of who the left props up as heroes.  They have their celebrities and one of them was Army Ranger Jesse Macbeth.  

    That's very plain... it's all associated with one call and the caller initiated the subject.

    It didn't work in the other thread either. (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Edger on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 09:55:14 PM EST
    AWOLBush dot Com (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Edger on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 10:02:16 PM EST
    The full Chickenhawk database... and Who served in the military?
    Rush Limbaugh, did not serve (4-F with a 'pilonidal cyst' [see "The Rush Limbaugh Story" by Paul D. Colford, St. Martin's Press, 1993, Chapter 2: Beating the Draft.])

    Reid's shinanigans (1.00 / 1) (#44)
    by jmbreland on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 12:02:14 AM EST
    I am a soldier in the U.S. Army. I served for a year in Iraq. Senator Reid, where are these "thousands" of soldiers who oppose the war? I didn't meet them in uniform. I submit, Senator Reid, that they are a product of your putrid imagination - phantom, phony soldiers indeed.

    Senator Reid, the thing about this war that frustrates us soldiers more than anything else are the intentional, malicious and subversive efforts by you and your cronies to undercut our mission. You, Senator Reid, are a far more virulent enemy of the United States than anything we have confronted in Iraq. We can deal directly with the enemies we face in combat. Be thankful that we have to deal with you through more civil means.