Phonies Everywhere

Krugman yesterday put Rush Limbaugh's phony troops thing into context:

And Rush Limbaugh — displaying the same style he exhibited in his recent claim that members of the military who oppose the Iraq war are “phony soldiers” and his later comparison of a wounded vet who criticized him for that remark to a suicide bomber — immediately accused Mr. Fox of faking it. “In this commercial, he is exaggerating the effects of the disease. He is moving all around and shaking. And it’s purely an act.” Heh-heh-heh.

That does seem to be the pattern. It seems that, to Rush, it's actually inconceivable that people could be in situations — suffering from disease, being used as pawns in the president's bizarre ego fantasies in Iraq — in which they are appealing to the public for assistance. Anyone doing that must be faking it.

Comments

Rush Limbaugh is controlled by neocons. He is hardly a real conservative; just look at his undying support of propositionalism.

Interestingly, many military officers I know, who previously were pro-Bush, are beginning to wake up to the fact that there are foreign (read: neocon) influences in our government, and realize that our boys are dying in a Wilsonian war that is in no way in America's interest.

If we really want to end terrorism in the West, we should engage in disengagement from the Muslim world: (1) completely withdraw from the Middle East; (2) end all immigration from the third world; (3) deport all Muslims from the West; and (4) end all foreign aid to all Middle Eastern countries, including Israel.

Posted by Bede | October 5, 2007 3:25 PM

I wonder if Rush was faking his impotence?

Posted by Dan Kervick | October 5, 2007 3:28 PM

I suspected that Limbaugh was a phony from the '92 election on. Perot and Perot's policies should have been catnip to him, instead, he went with the money. Which is the good for what ailes him.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | October 5, 2007 3:29 PM

True. And the Holden Caufield is even more annoying in a 50 year old than in a teen.

Posted by AJ | October 5, 2007 3:30 PM

I'll go with Senator Reid's opinion -- that it's the Oxycontin talking.

Posted by Don Williams | October 5, 2007 3:35 PM

You're overthinking it, Matt -- the common denominator is not people who are appealing to the public for assistance. It's people who disagree with Rush Limbaugh but whose personal story gives them unassailable authority in our culture -- e.g. soldiers, war veterans, heroic disease-sufferers, etc. Such people must have their claims to authority undercut. Thus antiwar soldiers must be phony soldiers, John Kerry didn't earn his medals, John McCain wasn't really mistreated as a POW but cracked anyway, M.J. Fox was faking his symptoms, etc.

Posted by Ryan | October 5, 2007 3:48 PM

The Dems should seize on the suicide bomber thing, which is far worse than the phony soldier thing, although that was obviously bad.

He equated a wounded veteran of the Iraq War to a terrorist! To someone who straps on an explosive belt and goes out and kills innocent women and children! He also smeared the soldier by saying that he can't think for himself and is somehow brainwashed.

WTF is everyone waiting for? He already won us a Senate seat in Missouri? He's the gift that keeps on giving!

Also, give some bucks to votevets.org. Far and away the best way to end this war is to make people see it up close and personal, even if the best we can do today is run an ad, rather than, you know, more than 1 minute of coverage on the TV news.

Posted by bob | October 5, 2007 3:52 PM

It's the same with Ann Coulter and the 9/11 widows.

Posted by KCinDC | October 5, 2007 3:52 PM

"(1) completely withdraw from the Middle East; (2) end all immigration from the third world; (3) deport all Muslims from the West; and (4) end all foreign aid to all Middle Eastern countries, including Israel."

Speaking as the son of an immigrant from the Third World, go fuck yourself. Considering how American Muslims are more educated and earn 50% more than the average American, all you would end up doing would be to make America poorer.

Posted by Reality Man | October 5, 2007 4:13 PM

Bede, this isn't stormfront.com

Posted by Gus | October 5, 2007 4:38 PM

You know the two things that really drive me crazy? The first is when those right-wing nuts try to rouse a lot of phony outrage over things like that "General Betray-us" ad. Open political discourse is a vital part of our heritage. The second is when those right-wing nuts insult our gallant troops in their service of their political agenda. Some forms of political discourse are beyond the pale and shouldn't be permitted.

Posted by y81 | October 5, 2007 4:44 PM

You're overthinking it, Matt -- the common denominator is not people who are appealing to the public for assistance. It's people who disagree with Rush Limbaugh but whose personal story gives them unassailable authority in our culture -- e.g. soldiers, war veterans, heroic disease-sufferers, etc.

Posted by Ryan | October 5, 2007 3:48 PM

No Ryan, the common denominator is liberals' use such people to shield themselves from any criticism of their policy proposals. A perfect example of this was the Dems using a 12 year old boy to give their radio response to Bush's veto of SCHIP last week. When you point out the fact that SCHIP defines children up to the age of 25, whose families make up to 300% over the poverty line, liberals scream how about Bush wants poor children to die instead of defending the specific policy proposal that they want to enact into law.

Posted by Chicounsel | October 5, 2007 5:00 PM

I wouldn't read too much in Rush Limbaugh. He's an entertainer. I don't think he thinks about political arguments beyond what he believes will resonate with a certain kind of neanderthal - the kind of people who inhabit Little Green Footballs or Red State - likes to hear. It's purely a radio program based around validating certain beliefs.

Posted by Joe Strummer | October 5, 2007 5:13 PM

y81, I assume you're being sarcastic. I suppose to you criticizing a general for intentionally giving misleading testimony for political purposes is the same thing as accusing a wounded vet of lying and faking his affliction on the basis of no evidence whatsoever.

Posted by mpowell | October 5, 2007 5:14 PM

Re: Bede

It's disturbing that some conservatives feel the way to turn on the war without losing face is blaming it on a Jewish conspiracy. I wish he was the only one, but there is are some people who are allowed in polite society saying similar things.

I'm scared about how conservatives are going to decide on their narrative on this war. There are few hippies to blame this time. Rush is blaming phony soldiers, others blame Jews. In any case, its going to be bad news.

Posted by Space Monkey | October 5, 2007 5:22 PM

It shouldn't be necessary to state this, but since adherence to truth and facts is a concept as little understood here as it is by Krugman...Limbaugh did neither of the two things quoted from Krugman's screed. Listen very carefully to the radio recording and you will come to that same conclusion.

Posted by Abner | October 5, 2007 5:37 PM

no no no. He's LYING.

He doesn't believe that it's impossible an actually wounded actual soldier would disagree with him - he's just attacking attacking attacking, and it's not about what he believes or doesn't believe.

Remember when he said he was tired of "carrying water" for an administration he disagreed with on certain issues? Once the popularity of that administration dipped below a certain level, that is, even with his listenership. He was basically admitting to having been insincere [lying] in his previous support. That, or, his "carrying water" comment itself was insincere, as he never gave a rat's ass about anything but what was popular to say at any given moment.

Posted by Phoebe | October 5, 2007 5:42 PM

No Ryan, the common denominator is liberals' use such people to shield themselves from any criticism of their policy proposals.

Chicounsel, I do believe you just equated adult combat veterans and soldiers with 12-year-old children in terms of their role in Democractic messaging. Interesting.

I agree, putting words in the mouths of kids and sticking them on camera for political propaganda is wrong. But adult actors, soldiers and veterans, including U.S. senators, who speak out against government policy in their own voice and with their own words are not being used by anyone. Pretty remarkable that you would infantilize them by pretending otherwise.

Posted by Ryan | October 5, 2007 5:50 PM

Oh, and P.S. Chicounsel, if it's using such people as shields against criticism that you object to, you're targeting the wrong political party. See under Petraeus, David, for instance.

Posted by Ryan | October 5, 2007 5:54 PM

"displaying the same style he exhibited in his recent claim that members of the military who oppose the Iraq war are “phony soldiers”"

Abner's right: What Rush claimed was that there were people who oppose the Iraq war who were pretending to be members of the military, IOW, phony soldiers.

Which is a significantly different claim, and I believe you know this.

In short, contrary to Phobe, you're the one who's LYING.

Posted by Brett Bellmore | October 5, 2007 7:39 PM

Rush's blather on the radio is simple to explain. He must assume that everyone is like him when they make statements. HE therefore feels that most people in the public discourse are like him, fakes and phonies.

Its like the old childhood taunt: "It takes one to know one."

Why else would he feel the need to constantly remind us of his integrity (EIB Network). He wouldn't need to point it out so much if he really believed it existed.

Posted by Indie Prof | October 6, 2007 12:34 AM