Distractions

Fred Thompson, who has way more experience pretending to be in the military than anyone else in politics, steps up to the plate in defense of calling anti-war troops "phony soldiers":

Congressional Democrats are trying to divert attention from insulting our military leader in Iraq and pandering to the loony left by attacking Rush Limbaugh. He is one of the strongest supporters of our troops, yet Democrats claim he is not being strong enough. I wonder who General Petraeus and his troops think is most supportive?

No away around it, but obviously congressional Democrats are trying to divert attention from the "Betrayus" controversy. This, though, just gets us back to the point that congressional Republicans were harping about that in order to . . . distract attention away from their steadfast support of the Bush administration's catastrophically failed policies in Iraq. In some sense, it probably all evens how.

Comments

it all evens how.

Charming.

Thanks for giving a non-native English speaker the opportunity to comment thus on a Harvah graduate's writing. Makes me so proud.

Posted by gregor | October 3, 2007 5:26 PM

It makes me so proud.

Posted by neil | October 3, 2007 5:32 PM

No away around it; it makes me so proud.

Posted by Tim P. | October 3, 2007 5:42 PM

"[O]bviously congressional Democrats are trying to divert attention from the 'Betrayus' controversy."

Lost me on that one. How do you divert attention from "Betray Us" by engaging in tit-for-tat on "Betray Us", in succeeding news cycles?

That aside, Thompson's two cent analysis reveals him again to be ill-informed or drunk with senility, or both. Its not as bad as Condalezza prevarications in the face of a PDB stating "bin Laden determined to strike in US", but there is a record of Big Pharma's phony support.

Posted by sy | October 3, 2007 5:47 PM

Matt, could you do a post where you cop to using voice-recog software to punch out your posts before running a spellcheck and giving it a quick look-through? "It all evens how" is just the latest in the tip-offs. Color me impressed (and jealous): I want to know more...or am I (once again, and ever further) just hopelessly behind the curve?

Posted by elle loco | October 3, 2007 5:48 PM

It's also a convenient distraction from the news of declining U.S. and Iraqi casualties in Iraq -- further evidence in support of Petraeus's testimony about achieving progress with the surge.

Posted by Harry | October 3, 2007 5:55 PM

Fred is really kissing Rush's ample ass on this one.

Posted by Woody Bombay | October 3, 2007 5:59 PM

I'm With Stupid! Oh, sorry, I'm with Fred!

Posted by jim | October 3, 2007 6:15 PM

"All these Republicans went running to the mic and the TV cameras when MoveOn ran their ad about Gen. Petraeus. Now let's see if they really mean it." John Edwards

The Dems are not diverting attention from the ad at all; indeed, they are deliberately calling attention to the ad. They are showing how the Repubs reacted to the ad, and how differently the Repubs reacted to Rush's insult.

In short, they are establishing Repub hypocrisy.

Posted by dogfacegeorge | October 3, 2007 6:16 PM

I think this idea that both sides are "even" when they engage in the same style of tactics has just go to stop. The substance of what's being said matters, too.

General Patraeus is on the wrong side of the question of whether or not we should stay in Iraq. Murtha and soldiers who are against the war are on the right side. Attacking one and attacking the other is not any more equivalent than attacking intelligent design vs attacking evolution.

And it could also be said that the MoveOn ad was targeted specifically at a general who, as his record has shown, has clearly allowed himself to become a political actor. Rush's comments were a sweeping generalization attacking all soldiers who are against the war.

And further, it's pretty obvious to any reasonable objective person that most of the voice of the Left does not hold tremendous animosity for Patraeus, beyond their displeasure that he's providing political cover for Bush's greatest catastrophe. On the other hand, it's a reasonable suspicion that quite a lot of the people on the Right, not only including Rush and his listeners but many congressmen as well, very much do resent the fact that any actual soldiers might disagree with the war, to the point where they don't consider them upstanding soldiers at all.

Of course, Rush is small potatoes. But it's hard to let these things go because there IS a critical difference between two sides employing the same tactics when one of the sides is right and one of the sides is wrong.

Posted by Will Hutchinson | October 3, 2007 6:17 PM

Re Rush Limbaugh

It's always amusing when a draft dodging shithead like Mr. Limbaugh criticizes people serving in the military. Mr. Limbaugh claims that he avoided the draft during the Vietnam War because he was overweight. Well, the army takes fat boys too.

Posted by SLC | October 3, 2007 6:33 PM

I thought it was a life threatening inoperable pilonidal cyst. Though that may have been related to the weight problem.

Posted by Rihilism | October 3, 2007 7:35 PM

It's also a convenient distraction from the news of declining U.S. and Iraqi casualties in Iraq -- further evidence in support of Petraeus's testimony about achieving progress with the surge.

Actually, throughout most of the summer, casualties were going up, even as Petraeus claimed they were going down.

The right is jumping on the drop in September casualties, but by doing so, you're basically admitting that Petraeus was lying when he said casualties were dropping before. In other words, Moveon.org was right, which certainly can't be said for Rush.

Posted by Mooosiz | October 3, 2007 7:55 PM

SLC is finally right about SOMETHING.

The Army does take fat boys. They took me and made me much less fat (not that I was that fat to begin with, just a little). Definitely physical training - and seriously crappy Army food - will reduce your weight.

OTOH, once I went to Vietnam and was under all that stress, I ate a lot at the Cam Ranh cafeteria and gained twenty pounds or so...not to mention all the crap food I ate when I came back.

You go in fat, you come out fat.

So I guess it "evens how"...

I wonder how many US troops in Iraq will come back bloated so much they can't put on their body armor any more...they've got a lot more stress there than we had in Vietnam due to longer tours and a considerably more effective insurgency.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | October 3, 2007 11:22 PM

Jew who Never Served SLC Proclaims - It's always amusing when a draft dodging shithead like Mr. Limbaugh criticizes people serving in the military.

You mean Draft-dodging shitheads like Clinton?

Or do you mean the 95,000 Jews that dodged the Draft with college deferments and led the Left in anti-War protests? Those shitheads?

Mr. Limbaugh claims that he avoided the draft during the Vietnam War because he was overweight. Well, the army takes fat boys too.
Posted by SLC

The Army takes Jews, too, SLC. The problem is so few volunteer (Jews are as significantly under represented in the military as they are over represented in the communist ranks, Lefty activism).
But when cosmopolitanism, Zionism, runaway materialism, and anti-Americanism are larger influences on Jewish thinking than loyalty to America and it's traditional values - what do you expect? Jews to squander their time and maybe their lives being soldiers?

**************************
Hutchinson - Not only including Rush and his listeners but many congressmen as well, very much do resent the fact that any actual soldiers might disagree with the war, to the point where they don't consider them upstanding soldiers at all.

Not true. They have real hatred for phony soldiers or soldiers that served in marginal positions that fake higher rank, medals, contributions and actual risk they faced to advance careers or politics. Who claim false membership in the most Elite military groups. Or those that smear other troops without cause - steal their honor and valor, the work and sacrifice of others better than they - to advance personal interests.

Phony soldiers are far more common than they should be. But the enhanced credibility and public honor that Americans give to the real accomplished soldiers and Vets make it irresistable to phony resume` padders or anti-war Lefties like Ward Churchill, Scott Beauchamp, John Kerry, Jesse Whatshisface, Tom Harkin (who claimed for 30 years he served in Vietnam before the truth came out).

Several Websites are dedicated to sniffing them out.

Posted by Chris Ford | October 4, 2007 1:59 AM

This Jew who did serve as an Army Reserve drill sergeant (and who is a current fat guy) says the Army's physical standards -- at least when I was last in, in the early '90's -- make it tough for a fat guy to serve. When I was in, Fort Benning used to have a three-week pre-basic training fat camp for mildly overweight recruits (the "Fitness Training Unit", or "Fat Training Unit"), but three weeks can't make a whole lot of difference if you are really overweight. The Army could probably get more recruits today if they offered a longer pre-basic fat camp to give more overweight Americans a chance to serve. Hell, with all the new benefits, I'd even consider joining the National Guard.

Anyhow, a couple of other points:

1) Rush Limbaugh is no longer fat. The guy's been on some sort of starvation diet and/or Nutrasystem. Check it out.

2) The blowback from the Betrayus ad serves the hard left right. Aside from setting a dangerous precedent of political attacks against active duty officers, it was self-destructive and stupid.

3) The left's current attack against Limbaugh isn't going to hurt anyone but the left. The military likes Limbaugh, and knows who's on their side (guys like him) and who isn't. They requested Limbaugh's show be put on Armed Forces Radio. When the dust settles, Rush will still have the largest radio audience in the country, and Dem posing won't have earned them any friends from the military, or, for that matter, the anti-war netroots who expected the Dems in Congress to have pulled us out of Iraq already.

Posted by Fred | October 4, 2007 2:40 AM

Military officers SHOULD be attacked as political objects. They are agents of the state and as such are perfectly good targets for criticism.

More importantly than that, however, they should be criticized for being war criminals and fucking incompetents - which is what ninety percent of them are.

The entire US war doctrine is pathetic crap. And the blue nosing, career hustling pimps we call "generals" in the Pentagon are the reason for it. Most of these morons should be busted down to private, cashiered out, and sent to work in Burger King.

I couldn't care less who the military "approves" of. It isn't their fucking job to "approve" anything. They serve at the pleasure of the US citizen - and I mean all of them, right up the line to the Commander in Chief. If they screw up, they should be thrown out.

This business of giving them a free pass because they're too stupid to get out of a job that gets them killed because they "obeyed orders" just doesn't cut it anymore.

Fuck "support the troops". Let's try supporting the US citizen for a change. Which means knocking fifty to ninety percent off the goddamn bloated military budget, and revamping the military to do what it's supposed to be doing under the Constitution - DEFENDING the continental United States - not invading countries the oil companies lust for or acting as the Praetorian Guard for wannabe "Emperors".

I don't give a rat's ass that a bunch of Marines stumble around yelling "Kill! Kill!" and think they're tough. They got their "Kill! Kill!" asses blown up in Beirut - and when they wander into Iran UNDER ORDERS, they'll get the same treatment.

The "military mind" is an oxymoron - or just plain morons.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | October 4, 2007 3:31 AM

"The left's current attack against Limbaugh isn't going to hurt anyone but the left. The military likes Limbaugh, and knows who's on their side (guys like him) and who isn't. THEY requested Limbaugh's show be put on Armed Forces Radio. When the dust settles, Rush will still have the largest radio audience in the country, and Dem posing won't have earned them any friends from the military, or, for that matter, the anti-war netroots who expected the Dems in Congress to have pulled us out of Iraq already."

So, when Limbaugh lies through his teeth by (1) agreeing with a caller that anyone fighting in Iraq who thinks we should pull out is a "phony soldier" (a substantial minority of US troops, according to that Military Times poll) and then (2) denying that he did so, we shouldn't call him on it? And there's no political gain for the Dems in calling him on it, despite the fact that a landslide majority of the voters agree that we should pull out -- and that McCain and Romney agreed that Limbaugh's comment was outrageous? Really, Fred. You're carrying wishful thinking to the point of near-psychosis.

By the way, I seem to recall reading recently (although I'd have to find the reference) that the military high command in Iraq recently ordered that Air America be pulled OFF of Armed Forces Radio, and that they did so without receiving demands on that subject from the regular troops. Now, why do you suppose they'd do something like that?

Posted by Bruce Moomaw | October 4, 2007 4:33 AM

...And here we are: http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2004/05/26/rush_limbaugh/index.html .

Posted by Bruce Moomaw | October 4, 2007 4:41 AM

Man, the nuts sure are on display in this thread.

Posted by Steve | October 4, 2007 8:40 AM

Limbaugh is the most talented propagandist in the right-wing arsenal. He's ridiculed and lied about Democrats and hurt their election chances time after time.

Small potatoes? Hardly. He's a crucial gear in the noise machine.

Destroying Limbaugh should be an obvious priority for the left. Same goes for O'Reilly. People who minimize their importance apparently don't give much weight to the pernicious and large effect that the media has on the beliefs and voting behavior of millions of America.

Rush Limbaugh takes his special brand of hate talk to Armed Forces Radio and trashes Democrats, progressives, liberals, minorities, Iraq war opponents and everyone else to the left of Dick Cheney. Giving Rush a forum to reach the captive ears of our troops, on a tax-subsidized medium, is outrageous.

It should be a priority of Democratic Leaders to see that Rush Limbaugh is removed from Armed Forces Radio. Beyond that, every effort should be taken to weaken him and de-legitimize him because his voice does indeed win votes and help to swing elections.

Posted by Curt M | October 4, 2007 8:45 AM

If there were such a thing as genuine moderation, maybe some moderate would use this opportunity to say that Congress should just get the f--k out of the business of "denouncing" private citizens. MoveOn.org, Limbaugh, or whoever, for what they say. Period.

Posted by CJColucci | October 4, 2007 11:20 AM

If there were such a thing as genuine moderation, maybe some moderate would use this opportunity to say that Congress should just get the f--k out of the business of "denouncing" private citizens, MoveOn.org, Limbaugh, or whoever, for what they say. Period.

Posted by CJColucci | October 4, 2007 11:21 AM

Re Chris Ford

Gee, Mr. Ford is talking about college deferments. I seem to recall that Dick Cheney dodged the draft through college deferments, just like Mr. Clinton. And Dubya dodged the draft by using his fathers' influence to get into the National Guard. Back in the Vietnam era, it was virtually impossible to get into the National Guard without influence. My former brother in law got in to a National Guard unit because his uncle was the commanding officer.

Posted by SLC | October 4, 2007 1:11 PM

"So, when Limbaugh lies through his teeth by (1) agreeing with a caller that anyone fighting in Iraq who thinks we should pull out is a "phony soldier" (a substantial minority of US troops, according to that Military Times poll) and then (2) denying that he did so, we shouldn't call him on it?"

The crux of the matter is whether Limbaugh was referring to all soldiers who oppose the war as "phony soldiers" or just soldiers and non-soldiers who create phony military identities to bolster their anti-war positions, as Chris Ford explains. From the transcript and the recording of the call where Limbaugh made the comment, it's at worst unclear what his meaning is, but from the broader context and subsequent clarifications, it's pretty clear that he is referring to the folks Chris Ford describes, not real soldiers who oppose the war, like the authors of that NY Times op/ed.

So ultimately, this isn't going to get the left much traction. People who don't listen to Rush Limbaugh and think he's evil will continue to think so; those who have listened to him for years, including many in the military, know where his views on those who serve.

Posted by Fred | October 4, 2007 1:13 PM

"it probably all evens how."

Don't you bother to go back and fix mistakes this awful? I know I would

Posted by Campesino | October 4, 2007 1:48 PM

Fred: "From the transcript and the recording of the call where Limbaugh made the comment, it's at worst unclear what his meaning is, but from the broader context and subsequent clarifications, it's pretty clear that he is referring to the folks Chris Ford describes, not real soldiers who oppose the war, like the authors of that NY Times op/ed."

The hell it is. Let's take a look at his actual exchange with his caller, as pointed out by Stgeve Benen in the Sept. 28 "Media Matters":

"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.

"LIMBAUGH: They joined to be in Iraq. They joined --"

As Benen points out, Limbaugh then edited the transcript of his actual conversation to conceal the fact that it was two minutes or so before he suddenly started mentioning Jesse Macbeth. In that initial exchange, he was clearly agreeing with his dimwitted caller that all "real soldiers" favor the Iraq War. Then he started having uneasy second thoughts about how that would come out.

Still, if Limbaugh is forced to do enough groveling now and publicly repeat enough times that he didn't REALLY mean that all active soliders who disagree with the Iraq War are traitors, it's fine with me as a substitute. Until he does something like this the next time, that is -- which won't be long.

And as for Limbaugh's supposed belovedness among the troops: take a look, Fred, at that Salon article I linked to on the extent to which the directors of AFR don't give the troops much choice on who, or what, they listen to. Of course, as we all know by now, it's extremely unlikely that the Pentagon under Bush would ever engage in such crass attempts to manipulate public opinion. But it DOES seem a little odd.

Posted by BruceMoomaw | October 4, 2007 4:00 PM

While we're at it, let's note that, in Limbaugh's "apology", he announced that John Murtha was also a "phony soldier" because he had been "blanketly accepting the notion that Marines at Haditha engaged in wanton murder of innocent children and civilians" -- although Murtha actually said that sources within the military had told him that the investigation had already concluded that they had done so and, as MSNBC reported on 5-17-06, "Military officials told NBC News that the Marine Corps' own evidence appears to show Murtha is right." Murtha received the Bronze Star with Combat "V", two Purple Hearts and the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry.

Give it up, Fred. You're out of ammunition.

Posted by Bruce Moomaw | October 4, 2007 8:34 PM