I'm a phony soldier, or something
Sep. 27th, 2007 08:06 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
pecuniumIt's no secret that I think the War in Iraq was a bad idea from the get-go, and that staying there is an idea even worse.
Rush Limbaugh says that makes me a phony soldier.
Someone who says he's a soldier called in.
LIMBAUGH: 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? They can't -- I don't think they have an answer for that other than, "Well, we just gotta bring the troops home."
CALLER 2: Yeah, and, you know what --
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.
So Limbaugh's caller is of the Andrew Sullivan school of what a soldier is (i.e. a warmongering, bloodthirsty, sort).
There's no way to know if this guy is a soldier, or not.
Mind you, if he is a soldier, he's not talked to his mates, because an Army Times poll found that 1 in 5 agrees with me that we ought to be pulling out. 1 in 3 agrees going in was a bad idea. He also doesn't read the NYT, nor hear about things in it, like the seven NCOs who said the cause is lost, and the question is how much good money we intend to throw after bad.
They were such phony soldier that two are dead, and one's in hospital.
The "keep the troops safe, or whatever," comment is harder to evaluate. Being in a war zone is dangerous. On that level his comment is understandable; but I've listened to Rush, and that's not quite the way it reads. He seems to be just brushing aside the question of value (if the cause be not just, then getting soldiers killed isn't acceptable).
So, are all those senators who were so up in arms about MoveOn slamming Petraeus going to be clamoring for the censure of Rush?
I'll wager not.
Why? Because the Pearl Clutching about the MoveOn add was cynical, partisan and false.
How can I say this?
I can say this because they didn't give a damn when it was Wesley Clark, carrying out the policies of Clinton being attacked.
“For MoveOn.org and their left-wing allies to brand General Petraeus a traitor and a liar crossed a historic line of decency. It was a despicable political attack by a radical left-wing interest group. I’m pleased that majority of the Senate, in a bipartisan vote, has repudiated it.
We will not tolerate the patriotism and integrity of our troops and their leaders in the field being dragged down into the swamp of Washington politics.”
That was John Cornyn, on the Senate's censure of MoveOn.
"The problem is Wes Clark making--at least approving--the bombing decisions," said one such diplomat, who then asked rhetorically: "How could they let a man with such a lack of judgment be [supreme allied commander of Europe]?" Through dealings with Yugoslavia that date back to 1994, Clark's propensity for mistakes has kept him in trouble while he continued moving up the chain of command thanks to a patron in the Oval Office.
That was an anonymous source, reported by Bob Novak, who said, in his own words, "Balkan failure is Clark's
Who is responsible for an air offensive that is building anti-American anger across Europe without breaking the Serbian regime's will? The blame rests heavily on Gen. Wesley Clark, the NATO supreme commander.
That was, apparently, on the fair side of the line Cornyn was talking about.
Rush Limbaugh says that makes me a phony soldier.
Someone who says he's a soldier called in.
LIMBAUGH: 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? They can't -- I don't think they have an answer for that other than, "Well, we just gotta bring the troops home."
CALLER 2: Yeah, and, you know what --
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.
So Limbaugh's caller is of the Andrew Sullivan school of what a soldier is (i.e. a warmongering, bloodthirsty, sort).
There's no way to know if this guy is a soldier, or not.
Mind you, if he is a soldier, he's not talked to his mates, because an Army Times poll found that 1 in 5 agrees with me that we ought to be pulling out. 1 in 3 agrees going in was a bad idea. He also doesn't read the NYT, nor hear about things in it, like the seven NCOs who said the cause is lost, and the question is how much good money we intend to throw after bad.
They were such phony soldier that two are dead, and one's in hospital.
The "keep the troops safe, or whatever," comment is harder to evaluate. Being in a war zone is dangerous. On that level his comment is understandable; but I've listened to Rush, and that's not quite the way it reads. He seems to be just brushing aside the question of value (if the cause be not just, then getting soldiers killed isn't acceptable).
So, are all those senators who were so up in arms about MoveOn slamming Petraeus going to be clamoring for the censure of Rush?
I'll wager not.
Why? Because the Pearl Clutching about the MoveOn add was cynical, partisan and false.
How can I say this?
I can say this because they didn't give a damn when it was Wesley Clark, carrying out the policies of Clinton being attacked.
“For MoveOn.org and their left-wing allies to brand General Petraeus a traitor and a liar crossed a historic line of decency. It was a despicable political attack by a radical left-wing interest group. I’m pleased that majority of the Senate, in a bipartisan vote, has repudiated it.
We will not tolerate the patriotism and integrity of our troops and their leaders in the field being dragged down into the swamp of Washington politics.”
That was John Cornyn, on the Senate's censure of MoveOn.
"The problem is Wes Clark making--at least approving--the bombing decisions," said one such diplomat, who then asked rhetorically: "How could they let a man with such a lack of judgment be [supreme allied commander of Europe]?" Through dealings with Yugoslavia that date back to 1994, Clark's propensity for mistakes has kept him in trouble while he continued moving up the chain of command thanks to a patron in the Oval Office.
That was an anonymous source, reported by Bob Novak, who said, in his own words, "Balkan failure is Clark's
Who is responsible for an air offensive that is building anti-American anger across Europe without breaking the Serbian regime's will? The blame rests heavily on Gen. Wesley Clark, the NATO supreme commander.
That was, apparently, on the fair side of the line Cornyn was talking about.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-09-28 03:53 am (UTC)"Someone with a spine in '08" should be the democratic Party rallying cry.
no subject
Date: 2007-09-28 05:34 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-09-28 07:09 am (UTC)As for a commanding officer with a long record of incompetence in battle - try Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill.
no subject
Date: 2007-09-28 08:28 am (UTC)Who is responsible for an air offensive that is building anti-American anger across Europe without breaking the Serbian regime's will? The blame rests heavily on Gen. Wesley Clark, the NATO supreme commander
Of course it was Jackson who refused an order to effectively start "world war 3" by provoking the Russians at Clarke's behest.
I'll cross-post some things I wrote on other means later for your interest.
no subject
Date: 2007-09-28 10:41 am (UTC)Gallipoli was worth the try. The failure was far from being all his fault, and it doesn't compare so badly with the Western Front.
Nobody chooses right all the time. Chimp or Churrhill, I know who I'd pick.
And, reading some of his speeches (not the only measure of ability, but...) it's very clear that he was listening to the military professionals in 1940. And I think I prefer "We are waiting for the long-promised invasion. So are the fishes."
no subject
Date: 2007-09-28 12:34 pm (UTC)Yeah, they support the troops as long as the troops are politically useful, and make a nice photo op for Maximum Leader.
But deviate from the party line, then you too will be crapped on, regardless of your service.
Because these people are not really interested in your service, their sole interest in you is your political utility.
Just ask Max Cleland...
mojo sends
no subject
Date: 2007-09-28 01:12 pm (UTC)Besides, whatever happened to the concept that the best soldiers were the ones who wanted peace more than war?
no subject
Date: 2007-09-28 03:47 pm (UTC)This "support the troops as long as they agree with us" attitude is reprehensible.
no subject
Date: 2007-09-29 08:23 am (UTC)