|
|
May 23, 2013
|
|
Limbaugh’s ‘Phony Soldiers’ SlurPosted on Oct 3, 2007By Joe Conason The controversy over what Rush Limbaugh meant when he uttered the phrase “phony soldiers” last week isn’t just another broadcast sideshow. As the political power of conservatism declines, the symbolic authority of figures such as Limbaugh is likewise shrinking. That is why he backs away from his own words, rips them from context by selectively editing his program’s transcript, and insists he didn’t demean soldiers and veterans who dissent from the Bush White House war policy—as he and his fellow partisans have done so many times before. This revealing episode began on Sept. 26 during a conversation between Limbaugh and “Mike,” a caller who identified himself as an active-duty soldier and supporter of the Iraq war, who warned against the consequences of withdrawing U.S. troops “because Iraq itself would collapse and we’d have to go right back over there within a year or so.” At that point the host interjected, “There’s a lot more than that that they don’t understand. They can’t even—if—the next guy that calls here, I’m gonna ask him: Why should we pull—what is the imperative for pulling out? What’s in it for the United States to pull out? ... I don’t think they have an answer for that, other than, ‘Well, we just gotta bring the troops home. Save the—keep the troops safe,’ or whatever. It’s not possible, intellectually, to follow these people.” Replied Mike, “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 agreed: “The phony soldiers.” Advertisement Not content with insulting the troops, the Limbaugh clones seem to think any soldier who examines the transcript will be too dumb to figure out how they have tampered with it. It is equally telling that both he and his defenders change the original phrase “phony soldiers” and say “phony soldier” instead—because the plural belies his alibi and emphasizes his nasty intention. While today he whines because Media Matters for America, the progressive watchdog group, caught and publicized his slur, he cannot escape what the audio proves. Only in a media environment where conservatives have long felt exempt from scrutiny would Limbaugh still feel free to mock the military service of those who disagree with him. He is, after all, a certified chicken hawk who cheered on the Vietnam War as it ground up tens of thousands of young Americans, but saw no reason why he should serve. His local draft board in a Missouri county, where his family enjoyed political influence, granted him a 1-Y deferment after he dropped out of college and forfeited his student deferment. Explaining how he escaped the draft, he has cited both a “bad knee” and a cyst on his backside that supposedly rendered him medically unfit. Despite that undistinguished record, however, he has never hesitated to denigrate the service of Sen. John Kerry, former Sen. Tom Daschle and other Democrats who volunteered to wear the nation’s uniform. He spent hours repeating the “Swift boat” lies when Kerry ran for president in 2004. And now he insinuates that the troops and vets who question this war are “phony soldiers.” What really worries Limbaugh and his right-wing comrades is that more and more of those who bravely serve America abroad, from foot soldiers to flag officers, have begun to voice their anger at the reckless policies that have cost them so dearly. Leaders of VoteVets, a group of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans organized in support of smarter security policy, have angrily challenged Limbaugh to repeat his slur to their faces—something he is most unlikely to do. Thanks to all the veterans with the courage to speak out—no matter what their opinion—it is no longer so easy for the Limbaugh crowd to claim the military and the flag as their exclusive property. That illegitimate seizure of everyone’s patriotic heritage is coming to an ignominious end. Joe Conason writes for the New York Observer (www.observer.com). © 2007 Creators Syndicate Inc. Previous item: Justice Is Blinded by Rage Next item: Breaking the Taboo: Why We Took On the Israel Lobby New and Improved CommentsIf you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy. |
By xyzaffair, October 22, 2007 at 7:46 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
It’s easy for Rush Limbaugh to sit back in criticize soldiers who have been in combat since he’s obviously 4F - fat, fake, fraudulent, and flatulent.
Report thisBy ~B~, October 8, 2007 at 10:32 pm Link to this comment
Anyone seen the RNCC “Rush"ing to Rush’s aid?
Here’s a link to their site if ya wanna leave em a friendly note or something.
http://www.therealdemocratstory.com/blog/comment.cfm?entry_id=225
He’s scum with the rest - the sad part is there are people actually stupid enough to believe his shit.
B
http://b-political.blogspot.com/
Report thisBy John Hanks, October 8, 2007 at 5:47 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
I wish some genius would right a history of military corruption. A general in Paris had a huge black market operation that was so big that it prevented Patton’s Third Army advance at a crucial time. Vietnam was a huge profiteering enterprise with no other real purpose. Even McNamera admitted it. The gulf wars speak for themselves. I often wonder whether or not my whole anti-submarine enterprise wasn’t a huge graft mill for Lockheed aircraft. No other countries seemed to take as much trouble hunting submarines, when any one of them could destroy much of the Eastern seaboard.
Report thisBy Conservative Yankee, October 8, 2007 at 2:58 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
#105483 by John Hanks on 10/08 at 5:46 am
“No one loves graft and corruption like a soldier loves graft and corruption.”
Maybe
But
Maybe
No one loves graft and corruption like the people who profit from graft and corruption…. At the Honorable soldier’s expense.
When Dad returned from WW II after five years of uncomplaining service, including graves registration duty at Normandy, he began his career five years later than my uncle who stayed behind and worked the wall Street defense boom. They joked about it all the time. My uncle loaned my father the money to buy his first house, my father took in my cousins when my uncle died of a heart attack (Dad said too much wall street, not enough exercise.)
When my cousin returned from Vietnam, after 18 months of service he sat around, drank, and complained about how “the system had used him.
My father died a happy,wealthy man with his family all at his bedside. my cousin is still a drunk!
In two hundred and 32 years this country has never been to war without a Snyder. Soldiers are OK when we need them…. It’s just we don’t need them as often as we have used them.
Report thisBy Can of Whoop Ass, October 8, 2007 at 8:32 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Ignoring Duff Limpball, mAnn Coulter, Sean Insannity and Bill O’Pervert isn’t going to make them go away.
Report thisAttack these rabid dogs the way they attacked Kerry, Gore, Max Cleland, Gen’l Wesley Clark et al and give them some of their own medicine back.
If you heard Rush’s whinefest anytime last week you know these Bush shills cannot take the heat.
Rush sounded like a wounded animal in the woods.
“What did I do my fellow Americans, it’s, it’s, it’s Hillary (Hitlery to him)and BJ Clinton who did this.
NO. YOU did it, Rush.
By John Hanks, October 8, 2007 at 6:46 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Franks is a liar.
No one loves graft and corruption like a soldier loves graft and corruption. And, those who have the misfortune to have honor, will always put it aside to cover for those who have none.
Report thisBy Conservative Yankee, October 8, 2007 at 6:18 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
“No one hates war like a soldier hates war.”
General Tommy Franks
Report thisBy truthbees, October 7, 2007 at 9:50 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
The fakeriots are always for war but never can muster up the courage to go. The fakeriots are for funding the war, but “not on my nickel!” The fakeriots love war so much because their investments in armaments and oil gain them big profits. That their fellow countrymen and women go to their war without proper body armor and equipment, well—it is simply not their problem! That their fellow countrymen and women never return or return half-dead/half-alive, well—that’s simply the name of the game with war! What are the fakeriots? They are the guys and gals dressed in their Armani suits with little flag pins trumpeting on their left lapels, “See me, I’m a patriot. See my flag pin?” Easy…so, easy. Never having been on a battlefield, not even close to one, they shout about patriotism while denigrading those who ask questions about the motives for having gone to war and insult those who are greatly distressed by the individual tragedies of the soldiers, their families, the Iraqi citizins, and the shame this great nation has suffered because the fakeriots, not having any sense of history, ethics, or community, are deluded, thinking they are serving their country by making big profits from their investments. Shame on them all!
Report thisBy Can of Whoop Ass, October 7, 2007 at 2:18 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Rush Limbaugh Defended by Arnold Schwarzenegger-
Report thishttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZ5SgCaCCNM
By Dale Headley, October 7, 2007 at 11:53 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Doesn’t Joe Conason realize that Rush Limbaugh is “98.8% accurate” in all he says? It makes one wonder how Rush manages to squeeze so many blatant lies out of that other skimpy .02%.
Report thisBy Can of Whoop Ass, October 7, 2007 at 10:22 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
I knew Kerry would lose in August of ‘04 when he didn’t confront the thugs on the right about his “purple-heart, paper cut band-aids”.
He ignored the Swiftboaters, the Rove created vacuum became occupied by neocons and christofascist nuts and Kerry didn’t slap them.
The lies piled on to more lies.
If Democrats are going to win in ‘08 they must attack. They must get in the mud with the rightist pigs and get dirty.
Report thisIf they’re going to ‘rassle with garbage they’re going to get smelly.
By Buckwheat, October 7, 2007 at 6:12 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Let them continue to drop turds into the Republican punch bowl. The hubris which they evidence will eventually bring them down. They are intellectually lazy and when challenged, try to go “deep”, quoting some historical esoterica which demonstrates how very out of their depth they really are. They are entertainment.
Report thisBy John Hanks, October 6, 2007 at 4:54 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Right-wing Rush supporters are not moral actors. They will use any means at their disposal to maintain their political position in this country. They are basically at war. That is why it is futile to make moral appeals to conscience with these people. They are total moral and intellectual cowards like the KKK.
Report thisBy msgmi, October 6, 2007 at 3:59 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Where’s the outrage from the Rush listeners about Doughboy Rush, a Vietnam deferment-begging chicken, who has evolved into a media-king chickenhawk?
Rush is part of the elite cluster f… which is adored by the policymakers from the White House to the Rushies in the outhouse, and whose rhetoric fuels disinformation in support of the far right neo-CON pipedreams. His media platform serves the political armada of fear propagandists. The traditional conservatism of the republican party died with Ike, and since then, Rush et al has become the voice of a morally bankrupt posse of media moguls.
Report thisBy Mossad, October 6, 2007 at 7:36 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Rush is a Fat Pig of a Douche Bag.
Nothing more than a career minded opportunist.
You can see him in archive news reels in a sheriff’s outfit “Leaning On” civil rights protestors in Alabama during the 50’s and 60’s.
Please tell Hannibal Lecter where this Pork Pie of a Fat Ass lives.
Report thisBy Ga, October 5, 2007 at 6:56 pm Link to this comment
#104744 by truth machine:
Thats sillynothing Conason, Franken, or Olbermann has said about Limbaugh made him more popular.
Well, it can, for it generates more “advertising” for him, and perhaps, he may get a few more listeners as people may tune in to see what the fuss is all about. (This is what drives the “if it bleeds it leads” mentality of the media; it is like how people slow down on the highway when driving past a wreck.)
But, worse, shrill criticism of The Big Fat Idiot can harden the resolve of his supporters!
If criticism is not done calmly and logically, and is just knee-jerk reaction akin to name-calling, it certainly will embolden his supporters.
Remember, the only way to counter speech is by other speech, more speech, counter speech. There must be a “Left” to the “Right.”
People may seek to simply “ban” his type of speech—THAT WILL NOT WORK.
Banning hate speech does not prevent hate.
The only way to counter lies is with the truth. Calm and logical truth.
Report thisBy NYT 9237723, October 5, 2007 at 1:52 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Dee, you’re. Rush was referring to service people who oppose the war, and not to some bunch of chicken hawks (like himself). No one should be criticized for opposing any war, even a just war. Critics remind us that war should be the absolute last resort, started only when no other remedy is possible, rather than the first. Anyone who has served knows that it truly is hell, for soldiers, their families, the enemy civilians and combatants.
Our men and women in Iraq (those in uniform) have sacrificed time and effort, some now have broken families, and all will have health problems from the depleted uranium and other toxic substances.
Dee, Rush is once again fat, sassy and comfortably out of harm’s way. Let him shut up.
Report thisBy Michael, October 5, 2007 at 8:07 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Certainly Rush’s “phony soldiers” remark was a reference to Bush, Cheney and himself, no?!
Report thisBy reason, October 5, 2007 at 7:39 am Link to this comment
rush Limbaugh is a cheap “talking head”. He has little to say that is not part of an extremely right wing political script. To give this man any response is show an acknowledgement of his having an original thought. His show can not exist without support in the form of listeners since he must have sponsors who feel he gives access to a large audience. HE CAN NOT CONTINUE HIS HATEFUL CRAP WITHOUT US GIVING HIM MATERIAL TO.
Report thisBy Inherit The Wind, October 4, 2007 at 8:44 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
So Rush Limbaugh put his foot in his big mouth and lied about it afterward.
What makes this news? Like he hasn’t done it before?
Report this(ask Donovan McNabb)
By SamSnedegar, October 4, 2007 at 7:42 pm Link to this comment
“Thats sillynothing Conason, Franken, or Olbermann has said about Limbaugh made him more popular.”
advertising even a bad product makes it more popular with some
“Not really; you should listen to his interview on Democracy Now”
YOU should pay attention to what Greenspan ACTUALLY SAID in his book. If you aren’t going to do that, then your comments are “not really” to the point, are they?
Why don’t you also use the word “nonsense” if you really want to denigrate me and not take issue with my remarks? I guess the trolls are out. What is it you don’t like about oil? is it that going to Iraq to steal control of it means you have to own up to coveting, lying, stealing, and murdering?
For the people interested in the truth, what Greenspan said was not that the occupation of Iraq was largely about oil, BUT that EVERYONE KNEW THAT, and they wouldn’t TALK ABOUT IT. When he had to recant, and he did so first on 60 Minutes, he tried to muddy the waters with more garbage about WHY (and how) it was or was not “largely about oil,” but his statement was pretty clear that EVERYONE knew it was about oil and wouldn’t discuss it.
If you want to ask Greenspan a question, then ask him WHY the people he mentioned wouldn’t discuss it, since THAT was his point, not that it was “largely” about oil. That it was about oil was a GIVEN to him; his point was the same as mine, that people hate to admit their sins, and breaking four of their God’s commandments in one action comprises a pretty strong sin, wouldn’t you say? No, of course you wouldn’t say so, because you want to keep on lying about it.
Report thisBy CharlesDoan, October 4, 2007 at 6:18 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
I say this to Rush:
The mind is a terrible thing to waste, in this case, Rush is a waste that is a terrible thing to mind.
http://complaintdepartmentmanager.blogspot.com/
Report thisBy truth machine, October 4, 2007 at 4:37 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
“If people like you and Al Franken and Keith Olbermann would stop advertising the moron, his only possible popularity would come from people YOU CANT REACH in a thousand years, stupid, dull, bigoted, fools from the right wing lunatic fringe.”
That’s silly—nothing Conason, Franken, or Olbermann has said about Limbaugh made him more popular.
“Alan Greenspan, are agreed that our Iraq adventure is about oil”
Not really; you should listen to his interview on Democracy Now! Greenspan’s claim is that Hussein wanted to control the straits of Hormuz—that it was all about oil for *Hussein*—and that’s why Greenspan thought him a threat. But that’s absurd. Greenspan also said he believes Hussein had WMDs and was surprised when they weren’t found.
Report thisBy John Hanks, October 4, 2007 at 4:14 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
You’ve got it wrong Dee. And, I think you are willfully spreading false info. I heard the quote too, and it clearly referred to soldiers who hated the Iraq policy. The so-called false testimony soldiers are elsewhere on the transcript.
It’s time to quit with the lies. We check on everything that right wingers say.
Report thisBy Dee, October 4, 2007 at 3:23 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
I heard Rush’s call to “Mike” and heard the comments thereafter, and have since heard all the rhetoric concerning it. He was not talking about soldiers who had fought in the Iraq war. He was talking about men who say they were soldiers and have fought and recieved metals who have not. He was speaking of men who lie about their service. He had just finshed talking about this Jessie McBeth guy and how he lasted 44 days in the military and then went out and made up stories about how the soldiers were haninging people in the street and committing atrocities. It was all lies. He had dicussed 8 men who had been arrested for doing the same thing to get VA benefits. Why arent the soldiers against the war angry about men like this? Rush was not talking about these soldiers who are against the war and certainly not talking about this soldier who now has a television ad against Rush. How many of you who are outraged actually listened to his program that day and not some sound bite or pieced together script of the program? Dont call me names and say Im some right-wing Rush-head to try and discredit my comments. The fact is Sen. Harry Ried got it all wrong and got all head-up about something he knew nothing about. How many of you who critize Rush’s program listen to it? How many of you get your information about what he says from some blog or liberal website? Until you can say that you are a listener and that you heard the actual words he uttered then you have no right to make a fuss over something that was “supposedly” said.
Report thisBy Jose A. "Andy" Chacon, October 4, 2007 at 2:02 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Flush Rush!!!!!
Report thisBy John Hanks, October 4, 2007 at 12:04 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
When I was in the Navy, we used to refer to an exemplary sailor as a “real” sailor. We looked on them much like one would look at a dog walking on his hind legs.
Report thisBy alice, October 4, 2007 at 10:57 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Rush is an entertainer looking for manufactured controversy and ratings. He has cashed in on all of this. Fox news is the same way. Fox, like Rush, is contentless but as long as cooked up controversy can be manufactured, they get paid. Ignore the morons.
Report thisBy AlexH, October 4, 2007 at 9:06 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
It’s a pity Alan didn’t speak up when he was still fed chairman
Report thisBy ocjim, October 4, 2007 at 8:40 am Link to this comment
A man who will say anything because of his ambition, and for ratings, a man who is as flawed as Limbaugh should not have enough of an audience to sustain him. We should not target Limbaugh’s taintedness. We should educate the public to recognize the propaganda tactics for what they are. The most serious flaw is in our society, which a variety of forces play on to sell ideas and products.
Report thisBy Alejandro, October 4, 2007 at 6:54 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Nothing further need be said.
Report thisBy Thomas Billis, October 4, 2007 at 5:37 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
I used to think that attacking the lunatic right wing fringe like Limbaugh and Coulter was a huge waste of time and took time away from serious discussions of relevant issues.I was wrong these moronic issues are what people vote on.The attack on Cleland and Kerry.The call me Harold advertisement in Tennessee.I would like to think that my fellow citizens were bright enough to see what bullshit this stuff is but alas I was wrong and if the democrats are to win this is a necessary exercise.The great Joe Connasson instead of focusing on something relevant like I do not know maybe getting out of Iraq has a column on the right wing buffoon.Things have not really changed since Willie Horton.The democrats through necessity have learned to play this moronic game.Do you wonder how we could end up with a moron as President?
Report thisBy SamSnedegar, October 4, 2007 at 3:21 am Link to this comment
If people like you and Al Franken and Keith Olbermann would stop advertising the moron, his only possible popularity would come from people YOU CAN’T REACH in a thousand years, stupid, dull, bigoted, fools from the right wing lunatic fringe.
If you want to criticize a fool, take me on. I and another fool, Alan Greenspan, are agreed that our Iraq adventure is about oil, only he qualifies it with the adverb “largely,” and I do not, saying that if there were no oil there, there would be no halfway intelligent Americans there at all ever for any reason.
Limbaugh is surely an excellent target for derision, but by taking your valuable time to natter about him, you waste it in talking about nothing when you might be talking about something informative and worth the time of your readers. (such as the fine Iraqi oil law which is guaranteed to cheat the Iraqi people out of their birthrights for all time.
Report this