Go to Making Light's front page.
Forward to next post: Video links
Subscribe (via RSS) to this post's comment thread. (What does this mean? Here's a quick introduction.)
The latest Republican slam against US troops who decide to get out of the Army rather than re-enlist for another tour or who suggest that the US get out of Iraq is “phony soldier.”
Here’s a “phony” soldier’s response.
Go, read the whole thing.
He’s got pictures. Look at them.
Apparently the only non-phony soldiers are the ones who've died in this Republican war.
I never question the patriotism of any member of our armed forces regardless of their opinions because they've earned the right to speak their minds. Rush Limbaugh, on the other hand, gets to speak him mind only because those past and current members of our armed forces paid for him to do so. One would think that Limbaugh would have a greater appreciation for those who've provided him with so much, including the right to screw up his life with drugs.
Ah, maybe that's what we're hearing. Is it possible that Rush is still using and only vocalizing his hallucinations?
He was a loony right-winger in 1985 when I first heard him, presumably long before he got addicted to Oxycontin and began doctor-shopping to feed the habit.
No, Rush is a typical member of the species called "let's you and him fight."
*sigh* I hope no one is giving this latest slam with any credibility...
Interesting how the transcript goes -- because it's clear to Rush that if you don't support the war, you simply aren't a Republican.
From the last entry here, it's clear we're headed towards having our own SS, and I guess loyalty oaths are coming on, too.
Rush is actually making it worse. He tried, Friday, to "explain" that his remarks had been taking out of context, and referred to one particular soldier, Jesse McBeth. To make his point, he aired a clip of the program in question. Unfortunately for him undoctored tapes of the show exist, indicating he excised over a minute and a half to make his explanation sound plausible.
One might have a tactical disagreement with MoveOn over their recent ads. But, as far as I know, they have never tried to hide the fact that those ads said just what they intended to say, and have not given in to a great deal of pressure and backed down.
Rush's original statement was deeply offensive. This deceptive onair response to critics makes it much worse. In a slightly rational world this would finally cost him his job. (I wan't hold my breath waiting for it.)
Err, - "taken" for "taking". Posting while angry is hazardous to your spelling and grammar.
It takes zero intestinal fortitude for Rush Limbaugh to condemn as phony people who have risked their lives for their country. Indeed, some of the 'phonies' he condemns went on to give their country the last full measure of devotion.
Limbaugh, on the other hand, is the spiritual heir of William Joyce.
Dave, nah, I'm pretty sure he'd be allowed to criticize the regimes enemies regardless of who was in charge.
Yeah, I'm a phony soldier too, and ginmar, and slavetothetink and a whole lot of other fakes, slacker and defeatists I know.
slavetothetink commented that she want's a shirt, "Phony Soldier" on the front, "OIF Veteran" on the back.
I'll buy one of those.
#8: Not William Joyce. Julius Streicher.
Jon Meltzer #11: You're right.
I could see Rush doing movie reviews and nothing else. In fact, I'd imagine he'd probably be quite funny to listen to if he became a sort of anti-Michael Musto. But, when he gets into this world of politics, he's in so far over his head, I can almost imagine his need for self-medicating.
Still, if our legislators are going to condemn MoveOn.org for the Patraeus ad, they certainly have to condemn Rush for this slap in the face to the men and women of our armed forces. It's embarrassing if they don't, and it will only confirm the opinion that the Democrats are truly worthless cowards and hypocrites who don't deserve the positions into which they've been elected.
Terry 10: You shouldn't have to buy that for yourself.
Isn't this the part of Rush's illustrious career where he will be jumping over a pool full of sharks on water skis any day now?
As I understand it all those Democrats in office who keep saying that they were elected to stop the war in Iraq can't do any thing because they need to support the troops. If so, why can't they take the side of those same troops against a slime mold like Limbaugh? Is he the playground bully they're too afraid to go against?
Bruce @ 16
Something like that, I think.
It's that, or believe that they're hypnotized, drugged, or being blackmailed. (Or a combination of those.)
albatross #15: Five quatloos on Shark #3.
"Corporal Klinger, Rush Limbaugh is about the make a 200-foot leap over a pool of sharks, riding a Harley-Davidson motorcycle. Why have you brought a self-propelled anti-aircraft gun to the proceedings?"
"I'm here to protect the audience against airborne terrorists. Say, you're not against the War on Terror, are you?"
Dave Kuzminski @2:
Not picking on you, but...
I never question the patriotism of any member of our armed forces regardless of their opinions because they've earned the right to speak their minds.
I never question anyone's patriotism. It's been used as a cheap shot and a way of discounting good arguments and denigrating good people for too long to be anything else. If someone is right, or principled, or trustworthy, then I don't care if they're patriots. And if they're lying, deceiving, or just plain wrong, then having the Stars and Stripes embroidered on their very souls is no good to anyone.
And we all have the right to speak our minds. It's unearned; it comes with the territory and the passport. When it actually becomes an earned privilege, I will worry.
abi @ 20: I never question anyone's patriotism. It's been used as a cheap shot and a way of discounting good arguments and denigrating good people for too long to be anything else. If someone is right, or principled, or trustworthy, then I don't care if they're patriots.
Well said. In fact, I'd go a step further: if I accused somebody of being a patriot, I'd probably intend it as an insult: i.e., they're ignoring the bigger picture in favour of doing something that helps their country at the expense of something more important. I've never understood what's so damned important about countries.
Jules @21:
I accused somebody of being a patriot, I'd probably intend it as an insult: i.e., they're ignoring the bigger picture in favour of doing something that helps their country at the expense of something more important. I've never understood what's so damned important about countries.
I deduce from your email address that you're in Britain, and from the content of your comment I reckon you're probably culturally British as well.
It's hard to get a gut-level feel, as a Brit, for the American attitude to patriotism. But let's just say that the idea that "patriot" could be an insult wouldn't fly in American discourse.
(So sayeth Abi, who is American but lived in Britain for 14 years. I can see both sides of the picture.)
abi: Yeah, we Brits have a long-standing suspicion of patriotism. It's all too often indistinguishable from jingoism and those who bong on the loudest about how patriotic they are tend to be the ones you need to be the most suspicious of. Here are some Samuel Johnson quotes on the matter that sum things up:
"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel."
"Let us take a patriot, where we can meet him; and, that we may not flatter ourselves by false appearances, distinguish those marks which are certain, from those which may deceive; for a man may have the external appearance of a patriot, without the constituent qualities; as false coins have often lustre, though they want weight."
"It is the quality of patriotism to be jealous and watchful, to observe all secret machinations, and to see publick dangers at a distance. The true lover of his country is ready to communicate his fears, and to sound the alarm, whenever he perceives the approach of mischief. But he sounds no alarm, when there is no enemy; he never terrifies his countrymen till he is terrified himself. The patriotism, therefore, may be justly doubted of him, who professes to be disturbed by incredibilities"
"He that wishes to see his country robbed of its rights cannot be a patriot."
"It is unpleasing to represent our affairs to our own disadvantage; yet it is necessary to shew the evils which we desire to be removed."
Fully as offensive as "nappy-headed hoes" but I doubt if Rush will suffer The Fate of Imus.
Abi @ 22... But let's just say that the idea that "patriot" could be an insult wouldn't fly in American discourse. (So sayeth Abi, who is American but lived in Britain for 14 years. I can see both sides of the picture.)
And so sayeth Serge, who became an American by choice. The day he refuses to keep that tiny flag in his office is the day he has conceded that the fascists have conquered America's Soul.
That's one of the most disgusting things I've heard in a while. Rush Limbaugh can bite me.
Dawno's son is about to leave for a tour of duty in the Middle East. May it be a boring tour, Dawno. My best wishes.
Jules, remember also that 'Patriot' is also a term that refers specifically to the people who spearheaded the effort to cast off British domination of this country. This is the sense in which the name 'The New England Patriots' (an American football team) is used.
Patriotism got a bad reputation in this country during the Vietnam war; it became synonymous with that jingoistic philosophy you mentioned. Many of us refused to accept this, or came to reject it.
It became generally acceptable for liberals to self-identify as patriots shortly after September 11, 2001. We wanted to reclaim it the label from the neo-fascists who are in charge of the country we love so much.
Rob Hansen, #23: "we Brits have a long-standing suspicion of patriotism"
Born, to a large extent, of World War I, I think.
If the United States ever loses six and a half million soldiers and another million or so civilians--in a grinding land war fought in, say, Canada--we may come to some understanding of why modern Brits tend to mistrust jingoism. That would roughly equal, proportionately, the damage World War I did to the UK.
I was going to come in and say what Claude Muncey @6 did. I don't have anything to add to that, so I'll just follow up to Dan @13 by observing that Limbaugh is, fundamentally, a failed sportscaster. Precisely the sort who, if we were a civilized people, would have long ago been loaded onto the Gorgafrincham B-ark and sent off to a wonderful libertarian utopia on the other side of the galaxy to live out his days arguing about what the color of fire should be.
The discussion on "patriotism" is drifting off the important topic here, which is that the stab-in-the-back myth that is being created by the propagandists now includes soldiers that are not really soldiers, but agents of the Evil Power (the liberals, not bin Laden) responsible for our glorious country's impending loss. Just like German Jewish WWI veterans who found themselves in the camps despite their war service.
Jon Meltzer #31: The purpose of the original Dolchstoss legend was to discredit democracy as an institution. Is that what you think is intended by the idiots who are calling people who have volunteered to serve phonies?
The next phony war in the queue: Neocons seek to justify action against Teheran
Bruce Reidel, a former CIA Middle East desk officer, said the neo-conservatives realised their influence would wane rapidly when Mr Bush left office in just over 15 months. "Whatever crazy idea they have to try to transform the Middle East, they have to push now. The real hardline neo-conservatives are getting desperate that the door of history is about to close on them with an epitaph of total failure."
Earl @ 34
I hope they fail, because they've earned that epitaph.
Jon@31: The discussion on "patriotism" is drifting off the ... topic here
The original topic was a neocon fathead calling into question the honor and integrity of any military person who declines to continue fighting in a war.
The topic of "patriotism" simply expanded the discussion into calling into question the honor and integrity of any person (military or civilian) who declines to support a war.
Both are equally despicable for the basic fallacy that underlies them both: an infatuation with violence, that force can solve any problem. And it requires the notion that our intentions and the results of our actions will always line up. Any ill effects in the resulting outcome requires someone else to blame.
They hate us for our freedom.
Those pesky insurgents don't get that we're trying to help them.
The different factions in the country are trying to tear the place apart.
The Iraqi government is not working hard enough.
It's their fault, not ours.
The only problem with this basic argument is that everything that has happened was predicted years ago during the first gulf war and is exactly the reason Bush Sr. did NOT push into Iraq.
Whenever possible, the unintended outcomes, no matter how certain we were they would happen before the fact, will be blamed on some outside source.
At the heart of the infatuation of violence is a sense of personal infallibility. Anything that goes wrong as a result of someone's actions must be someone else's fault.
Good intentions, in these people's minds, absolve them of any responsibility for the real outcomes of their actions. They are blameless.
Which means that any viewpoints that shines a light on such a person's fallibility will be met with a withering attack of maximum proportions.
Criticize someone's war who is infatuated with violence and views themself as infallible, and you've just swatted the hornet's nest. They cannot be to blame. if there is something wrong with the war, it must be someone else's fault.
The response, unfailingly, falls into a gross oversimplification of reality, trying to frame the issue into the worldview of someone who is infatuated with violence, someone who wants to believe that their good intentions are enough.
Whether a civilian or military person criticizes the war is irrelevant to the response. Their honor and integrity will be called into question, which is nothing more than an ad hominem attack. Make the arugument personal and avoid the real issue of whether or not the war is valid. Call into question the person's "patriotism" or their "courage" or their "honor" or "integrity", rather than looking at the reality that is the war. However, if a military person were to criticize the war, then that would require even harsher responses to maintain a worldview of infallibility.
(I put all those terms into quotes simply because someone who holds an infatuation with violence, who holds a worldview of personal infallibility, really doesn't know what any of those words mean.)
The whole thing is simply despicable, and after years of this comic book, fairy tale, version of reality being the basis for my country's foreign and domestic policy for the last several years, I've fricken had enough.
#31: Will this become the equivalent of McCarthy taking on the Army? When you start accusing the soldiers of stabbing *themselves* in the back it rather reveals the absurdity of your position, doesn't it?
#32: Of course they have to discredit democracy - they've already lost the demos. (And they don't really like it anyway - you want to give orthodontists a say in whether or not their children die thousands of miles from home?) But as long as they can keep their base convinced that the Glorious Leader is Right and will lead us to Victory... well, honestly I don't know what their long term plans are; they can't seriously expect to win elections that way right now, so they must have a plan B.
Bush once said that "you can fool some of the people all of the time, and those are the ones you want to concentrate on." They and the media are pretty much the only constituencies he has left.
#36: It's all a result of a very simple worldview. The actions of Good People produce good results, and the actions of Bad People produce bad results.
Therefore, if you are a Good Person and your actions appear to produce bad results, then some Bad People must have intervened to produce those bad results. So you need to find them and stop them. And violence is the only really effective way to deal with Bad People, because they're bad inherently and eternally.
"Infatuated with violence" is not quite right - they're really infatuated with righteousness. Violence is just a tool to deal with Bad People (and violence against Bad People is by definition Good, so there's no need to restrain yourself or anything). That's what lets them become, effectively, psychopaths: they've already decided that their targets aren't deserving of the rights and protections reserved for Good People.
So of course it's right for Blackwater to get away with murder: they're Good People, so the people they were fighting must have been Bad and deserved it.
pnh@29If the United States ever loses six and a half million soldiers and another million or so civilians--in a grinding land war fought in, say, Canada--we may come to some understanding of why modern Brits tend to mistrust jingoism. That would roughly equal, proportionately, the damage World War I did to the UK.
No kidding. I recently came across this excerpt that makes the point about that damage very eloquently:
'In 1917 the senior Mistress of Bournemouth High School for Girls stood up in front of the assembled sixth form (nearly all dressed in mourning for some member of their family) and announced: "I have come to tell you a terrible fact. Only one out of ten of you girls can ever hope to marry. This is not a guess of mine. It is a statistical fact. Nearly all the men who might have married you have been killed...."
One of her pupils, 17 year-old Rosamund Essex never forgot these words. She herself stayed single, and in her own memoirs, written some 60 years later, she accepted that her teacher's pronouncement had been prophetic: "How right she was. Only one in every ten of my friends has ever married. Quite simply, there was no-one available...."
During WWII, a generation later, US commanders complained of how cautious Montgomery could be when it came to committing troops. He had no choice. Everyone who could be under arms was. Once those troops were gone there was no-one to replace them. He should have had many more young men to call on, but they had never been born. The men who should have fathered them had been cut down in WWI.
So, yeah. We can be very suspicious of patriotism and calls to war.
Rob, you probably know that women began to dance the English Morris for exactly this reason. Morris is traditionally danced by men between the ages of 19 and 25, and the dances have a vigor befitting such men.
After WWI there were no such men (not able-bodied ones, at any rate) in England, and the Morris would have died out had women not taken it up.
When I hear some fathead whining (and yes, I mean that in the most contemptuous possible way) about a women's Morris band, and how they shouldn't be dancing Morris because it isn't traditional, I really want to paste him one...or just stuff his mouth with tiny red poppies.
PNH @29: If the United States ever loses six and a half million soldiers and another million or so civilians--in a grinding land war fought in, say, Canada--we may come to some understanding of why modern Brits tend to mistrust jingoism. That would roughly equal, proportionately, the damage World War I did to the UK.
Based on the stats I'm pulling up from around the web, the UK's military casualties during WWI were approximately 2% of the total population, which is in accord with the above.
However, the American Civil War, the CSA's military casualties seem to've been nearly 3% of its total population, and 4-5% of the free population; one would think this would've made the latter subset particularly wary of flag-waving jingoism. And yet....
Civil wars are different.
Earl Cooley @ 34
the door of history is about to close on them with an epitaph of total failure.
And I hope it hits them in the ass as they exit into the night.
May the door of history catch their scrota, and crush them beyond recognition.
The line is from Chesterton's first book of essaysThe Defendant(1901) from the chapter, "A Defence of Patriotism":
"'My country, right or wrong,' is a thing that no patriot would think of saying. It is like saying, 'My mother, drunk or sober.'"
Xopher #40, I love that song too, "The Ladies Go Dancing at Whitsun," but a minute with Google indicates that it may, I say may, be romantic mythology. The Ladies Go Dancing at Whitsun. Or do they?
Back on topic: It seemed clear to me that Rush was speaking about the media's propensity to interview fakers. I don't think a Blxgspxt link will get through the filter here, so by means of TinyUrl, here is Limbaugh on Solid Ground on 'Phony Soldiers'.
linnen #45, I take it then that you would applaud Chesterton did he not help his mother get home if he found she had had a few too many at the county fair, where she had been dancing with the Morris men?
Patrick, #42: Yes, I think civil wars are different. They leave different scars, suspicions, and resentments, ones that are still visible to the naked eye a century and a half later.
One also needs to take into account that in WW I Britain, for all its terrible losses, finally ended up on the winning side. Post-war psychology isn't the same for the losers of a conflict. There is a tendency to want a do-over, and if that's not possible, there's still a long-lasting angry sentiment that is easily turned to war hysteria by opportunist demagogues. This is particularly true if the winners insist on their pound of flesh, as in Reconstruction, or the Treaty of Versailles, or the Unequal Treaties after the Opium Wars.
It is not a coincidence, in my opinion, that in the US the greatest concentration of flag-waving jingoism occurs in the former confederacy.
linnen, I heard the full quote as "My country right or wrong. My country to stand beside when she is right. And my country to make right when she is wrong."
That's what I mean when I call myself a patriot. To let such people as Bush take over and do the things they've done unchallenged would be less than patriotic in my opinion.
The American South romanticized their rebellion to such an unbelievable extent that certain things are conveniently forgotten or at least minimized. OTOH, much of their later abuse of blacks was at least in part amplified by taking out the psychological effects of the heritage of losing on them?
Hector Owen: Welcome.
That out of the way, the link you provided, isn't relevant.
What Limbaugh said was that those who aren't in favor of the war are phony.
That those (like Murtha, whom he specifically mentioned in his, "explanation), who disagree with the policy (even as they carry it out) are, in some way, not real soldiers.
No matter how many actual frauds there are, that's not what Limbaugh was talking about.
Those, like myself, who are veterans of this little debacle resent (and quite rightly) the imputation.
Hector Owen: I forgot to include that, in light of Limbaugh's clarification, your defense only applies if you are, in fact, arguing that people like Murtha didn't actually serve.
Hector 46: I wasn't aware of the song, actually. I was told this by people in a (male, as a matter of fact) Morris band. Since the people who told me that were SCAdians (and Laurels at that), I assumed (perhaps rashly) they'd done their research.
Chris #37: Well, if the regular army turns out to be a broken reed (i.e., if it actually behaves they way it's supposed to) then there's always the nice, private army with it's nice press-hating condotierro in North Carolina.
Xopher #44: A lovely imprecation, but I have to point out that Condoleeza Rice is one of said neo-cons, and she, ahem, lacks a scrotum.
Terry Karney # 50 & 51, here's the quote straight from 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.
It looks to me like the relevant part of that is "come up out of the blue and talk to the media."
You said: "What Limbaugh said was that those who aren't in favor of the war are phony." What I heard was that there are people who falsely claim to have been soldiers ("phony soldiers") who are stating that actual soldiers are committing crimes.
The link that you say is not relevant lists a number of such fakers, Jesse MacBeth among many others, who are willing to slander serving soldiers in exchange for a bit of media attention. I never mentioned Rep. Murtha, and Rush's mention of him (if this is the explanation to which you refer) has only to do with his premature conviction-before-trial of the Marines who were at Haditha: "How about Jack Murtha blanketly accepting the notion that Marines in Haditha engaged in wanton murder of innocent children and civilians?" Since the charges against those men are being dropped as each trial comes up, it seems that Murtha spoke incontinently. He deserves to be slammed for that; I don't see anyone denying the fact of his service.
Hector, I would suggest that you check the link at my previous post, then consider whether that ground really is "solid" if making a plausible defense requires deception.
Hector: Looking at the piece you quote (and I went and listened to the show), doesn't support your claim.
Because you are leaving out the piece before that, where Limbaugh said the previous caller couldn't be a soldier.
******
LIMBAUGH: Mike, you can't possibly be a Republican.
CALLER 1: I am.
LIMBAUGH: You are -- you are --
CALLER 1: I am definitely a Republican.
LIMBAUGH: You can't be a Republican. You are --
CALLER 1: Oh, I am definitely a Republican.
LIMBAUGH: You are tarnishing the reputation, 'cause you sound just like a Democrat.
CALLER 1: No, but --
LIMBAUGH: The answer to your question --
CALLER 1: -- seriously, how long do we have to stay there --
LIMBAUGH: As long as it takes!
CALLER 1: -- to win it? How long?
LIMBAUGH: As long as it takes! It is very serious.
CALLER 1: And that is what?
LIMBAUGH: This is the United States of America at war with Islamofascists. We stay as long -- just like your job. You do everything you have to do, whatever it takes to get it done, if you take it seriously.
CALLER 1: So then you say we need to stay there forever --
LIMBAUGH: I -- it won't --
CALLER 1: -- because that's what it'll take.
LIMBAUGH: No, Bill, or Mike -- I'm sorry. I'm confusing you with the guy from Texas.
CALLER 1: See, I -- I've used to be military, OK? And I am a Republican.
LIMBAUGH: Yeah. Yeah.
CALLER 1: And I do live [inaudible] but --
LIMBAUGH: Right. Right. Right, I know.
CALLER 1: -- you know, really -- I want you to be saying how long it's gonna take.
LIMBAUGH: And I, by the way, used to walk on the moon!
[That's immediatedly followed by saying the soldiers who talk to the media; about Iraq, are all phony; because "real" soldiers all want to be there.]
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.
******
So there you have it: We joined to be in Iraq (never mind that those of us who've been in for 10-15-20-30 years (two of the guys I went to Iraq with were Viet-nam vets, and a third was DQed because of shrapnel in his knee from his trip to SE Asia).
And if we don't think that's a good idea, well we're phony, just like Jack Murtha; whom, as said before, he mentioned in his explantion and Chuck Hagel U.S. Army, two Purple Hearts, Bronze Star whom he talked about in that show.
So he says some actual vets are phony; but you aver he didn't mean what he said but rather was talking about actual frauds; which he hadn't said (though they came up later) and that his talking about people who, "signed up to go to Iraq" weren't what he meant either.
The record is pretty clear, it walk, looks and quacks... Rush Limbaugh called the, not insignificant portion of the Army which thinks Iraq is a bad idea, phony soldiers.
linnen@45: With all respect to Chesterton, I'd never think to impugn Stephen Decatur's patriotism. On the other hand, all Decatur thought he was doing was making a toast at a banquet; no time-travellers were around to warn him that his next utterance would be shortened by more than half its length and made into a slogan for people whom he would, quite possibly, have found despicable.
Claude Muncey #57, I read that the first time you posted it, and having looked at it again, don't see the relevance, unless you want to claim that "Caller 2," in the elided segment, from your link, is lying about the chemical weapons:
CALLER 2: Exactly, sir. And, and my other comment was -- and the reason I was calling for -- was to report to Jill about the fact that we didn't, didn't find any weapons of mass destruction. Actually, we have found weapons of mass destruction in chemical agents that [inaudible] been using against us for awhile now.
I've done two tours in Iraq. I just got back in June and there were many instances of -- since [inaudible] not know what they're using in their IEDs [improvised explosive devices]. They're using mustard artillery rounds. The VX artillery rounds in their IEDs.
(Emphasis added.) Which has nothing to do with whether Rush Limbaugh slandered serving soldiers. What's the deception?
Yeah, all my relatives, male and female, in the Guard, in the Reserve, who have been serving one tour after another, are phony soldiers too.
Some of them are dead. Others are maimed. Some haven't seen their kids for a very long time.
Are they phony too?
Terry Karney #58, "Rush Limbaugh called the, not insignificant portion of the Army which thinks Iraq is a bad idea, phony soldiers." I don't think so. And I'll have to leave it at that, as I must arise with the lark in the morning.
Xopher #52, it's a lovely song. I couldn't find a free mp3 of it, but words and sheet music are here.
Hector, #56: Just because charges were dropped, that doesn't mean the Marines didn't engage in wanton murder at Haditha. Those 24 Iraqi civilians were still shot to death, and the bodies still included women and infants.
The US military has a nasty and shameful habit of "investigating" its own misdeeds only when absolutely forced to by some outside publicity, and then--as soon as the spotlight of attention moves elsewhere--dropping or reducing charges, and letting even war criminals off with a slap on the wrist or no penalty at all.
From My Lai to Abu Ghraib, it's a pattern, and it's not in any way a secret. The whole world knows they do this.
Interesting. I'm in intel. The first units designed to look for the WMD caches were from my Bn (different Co., compiled for just this purpose) and I'd not heard, before this, that the most effective, and lethal, of the chem agents had been used.
Since VX is a contact lethal agent (and the prime reason for the suits, Sarin, Mustard, Phosgene, GB and all the rest are inhaled agents; their effect (even for Mustard and Sarin) as contact irritants is there, but for lethality they have to get into the body), one would think it would make the news.
Esp. since that would justify either the war, or attacks on Syria/Iran/whoever supplied it.
And the handling requirements for them are serious. The shelf-life, in ideal conditions is 10 years. Hussien hasn't had the means to manufacture for longer than that; so someone else had to make it for him.
But it's not even come up in briefings on the present condition. No TTP have been promulgated, no increase in MOPP training... in short a total blackout of one of the most significant changes in the battlespace.
And some random caller to Rush knows all about it.
What has happened (That I know of) is some attempts to weaponise pure chlorine. Which is a piss-poor weapon, without some serious work; which so far, seems to have not happend.
Some old shells, with traces of Mustard Gas (that weaponised chlorine) were found, but they were just that, traces; and old... probably leftovers from the Iran/Iraq war.
So, while I don't know what Carl Muncey thinks, I am willing to say Caller 2 is lying.
Civil wars are different because the "we are right, they are wrong" mentality doesn't quite work so nice in a civil war when "we" are "they" and "they" are "us". Which means the stock, cardboard character version of "patriotism" can't apply. Some more weird and twisted version must be applied, and it's generally easier to propagandize a civil war using other methods.
The non-propaganda version of patriotism is, to me, like being married, except you're married to your country. At some point, you say "I do" to love and honor your country, the way you love and honor your spouse. And you may not agree with everything your country does the way you may not agree with everything your spouse does, but that doesn't mean you leave them. Which always makes me shake my head when I see the "love it or leave it" arguments.
I love my wife. And when we disagree, I am obliged to tell her my side of the story so we can find some agreement going forward. I love her. I'm not leaving her. And we disagree.
If anyone thinks disagreement is a lack of love, then they're in a seriously messed up relationship. They're either walking on eggshells all the time, or they think they're in charge of their marriage and their spouse should obey them in every way.
That is seriously messed up.
Hmmm... in this context, should the American Revolutionary War be considered to've been a civil war, or do wars of colonial independence fall into a different category? ...though there are probably also important distinctions to be made along a sliding scale of the colonies' population ratio between emigrants and indigenous peoples, and for that matter the emigrants' degree of volition about emigrating in the first place.
Hector@46: It seemed clear to me that Rush was speaking about the media's propensity to interview fakers.
Say what? So, you're saying that every person who ever got on a camera to say that he was in the military (or had been in), and that he had served in Iraq, and that he now thought that the war didn't make sense and we should pull out, that every person who ever said that was a faker? That they weren't really in the military and never actually served in Iraq?
Because, the transcript says:
CALLER 2: 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.
Because the only way your argument flys at all is if every military person who talks to the media against the Iraq war was actually never in the military. Otherwise, you've got a whole bunch of people who did serve, do not support the Iraq war or occupation, and are being called "phony" by this fathead.
Hector, I say to thee: red herring. Whether or not Caller #2 was lying is irrelevant. Nice try though.
The point is that Rush engaged in deceptive editing. I say that as I spent some years working as a radio news director and edited many, many hours of tape, in my case using razorblade and splicing tape. There is no problem cutting out the odd burp or cough -- that's routine. But if, for clarity's sake, you want to elide say, a minute and a half of sound, you do it like this:
[ACTUALITY #1: Conversation with Caller #1]That's how you elide a minute and a half, if you want to accurately present what was said. Just slamming the two cuts together to create the impression that they were part of one continuous presentation is deceptive. If I had been caught pulling something like this, especially if it concerned my own words on air, I would have been fired so hard my butt would not have touched down for a block and a half. And I would have deserved it.After that I briefly discussed weapons of mass destruction with another caller before returning to the issue.
[ACTUALITY #2: Discussion of soldier impersonation cases]
(BTW, Terry, I agree that Caller #2 was lying at best.)
Fragano 54: If the Lords of Karma put me in charge of Condi's fate, I will think of something...appropriate.
Greg: I'd say he was misinformed at best; but then again looking at the comments in "Lying in the Name of God", that's a poor defense; given the weight of evidence.
So I commented on the T-Shirt (which I misrepresented, it was "Proud to be a Phoney Soldier"
Here's slavetothetink's comment about it.
Julie, #41: Notice where the highest concentration of red states -- and, by extension, of Bushite war-supporters -- is on a US map. It maps very well to the old Confederate states.
The culture in those states... well, if you haven't lived there, it's hard to describe it adequately. They have yet to let go of a war they fought, AND LOST, 150 years ago. There are simultaneous currents of "valiant underdog" and "defeat = emasculization" that crop up over and over in the rhetoric. At one point, I had to call a moratorium on discussion of the Civil War in my house, at a party because it was getting nasty and I didn't want to have to eject either combatant -- they were both people I liked.
Now add racism. For most of the 100 years after the Civil War, racism in the Deep South was embodied by the Democratic Party -- the "yellow-dog Democrats" -- who were also the corrupt big-money, big-business party. Enter the Civil Rights Movement, and Strom Thurmond's infamous defense of segregation on the grounds of "states' rights" (one of the arguments which was used to fuel the secessionist movement in the first place), at the same time that the national Democratic Party was starting to court the labor unions, which meant reaching out to minority and low-income citizens. Faster than you could say wham-bam-thank-you-ma'am, all those rich, corrupt, racist Democrats changed parties... and they've been running the Republicans ever since.
I am convinced (which means I have no proof to offer beyond an opinion gleaned from living in the Deep South for over 30 years and hearing a lot of casual street-corner and water-cooler conversation) that one of the reasons the rank-and-file Southern Republicans are so hot to pursue this war is to make up for having lost the Civil War, to defeat a "n****r country" and make themselves feel like REAL MEN again.
I grew up in the Virginia-side suburbs of Washington DC; these blue counties are generally disowned by the rest of the state as not being "really" part of the South, and so my main regional legacy is having my vowels go slightly floppy when I'm tired (with an occasional eruption of "y'all").
IIRC I've seen the Red States mapped onto the former CSA before, possibly at Dave Neiwert's Orcinus. During the past month, his co-blogger Sara Robinson posted some interesting material there based on the book Albion's Seed, which traces the effects of four distinct groups of British settlers in the American Colonies; all of them had specific localized regional origins/subcultures which they brought with them across the Atlantic. Among other things, she points out that the two dominant groups in the South were the aristocratic Cavaliers and the rowdy Borderers; in this context, it seems perhaps significant that in both of those cases, one of their strongest motives for emigration may have been that they'd been on the losing side of a civil war back home.
Julie L. #73: "Y'all" is a heck of a lot more efficient than "youse guys".
Just a point of possible clarification regarding "my country, right or wrong": Bartlett's gives the full quote from Decatur as "Our country! In her intercourse with foreign nations may she always be in the right; but our country, right or wrong." It also quotes Carl Schurz, much later, thus: "Our country, right or wrong. When right, to be kept right; when wrong, to be put right."
P J Evans #55: It would certainly be non-standard equipment.
Xopher #69: I expect you will!
Fragano 77: I'm hoping for an appointment to the BOLOK (Board of Lords of Karma) when I die. My sense of poetry is a helpful line on my resume, but ultimately Rhadamanthos will appoint whom he chooses.
This almost has the feel of a "no true Scotsman" argument.
Person 1: No Scotsman puts two tsp of sugar in his tea.
Person 2: I'm a Scotsman, and I do.
Person 1: Yes, but no *true* Scotsman does.
It's restricting the definition of some category to make a misleading statement look true. Like "no patriot opposes this war" based on defining patriot as someone who never opposes the war his country is in. Or "no scientist disputes human caused global warming" based on defining anyone who doesn't buy human-caused global warming as not a scientist*.
I'm becoming more and more convinced that the main value of propoganda and a lot of argument is to hand people excuses (often unsound but plausible arguments or made-up but plausible data points) to keep believing what they really want to believe. There's no way I'm going to convince someone who's looking honestly at the evidence that, say, there are no US soldiers opposed to the war. But if I can spin the right kind of story, maybe I can provide people who *want* to believe that the soldiers all support the war an argument with which to convince themselves.
Does this make sense?
* Consensus != unanimity.
As I type this, Channel 25, Boston's local Fox station, is running live a homecoming ceremony for an Army medical unit. My bitter and cynical mind wonders why they have chosen this particular week to do this. It can't have anything to do with Rush's remarks, can it?
At least they didn't cut away from John Kerry's welcoming remarks, or the applause he got from the crowd.
Xopher #78: I'm certain you'd be a fine addition to the board, and may it be a long, long time before you qualify to serve on it.
'Rushwatch' aka Media Matters, has the whole gory story.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200709280009?f=h_top
This is the man who thought we should imprison drug addicts and traffickers, before, of course, he became one.
Why are we surprised?
There's always the story about Rush Limbaugh's military career: "Full Dinner Jacket".
(OK, so the joke is recycled from 20 years ago. It still works.)
I'll let G. Lightfoot speak for me:
The patriot's dream is as old as the sky
It lives in the lust of a cold careless lie
Let's drink to the men who got caught by the chill
Of the patriotic fever and the cold steel that kills...
Rush still supports prison for the "real" druggies. He was just a victim of circumstance, he didn't "choose" to have a problem. He, you see, was hooked by a doctor.
All those meth/crack/pot/coke heads were using illegal drugs, which is different.
They aren't Republicans (well maybe the cokeheads, look at the difference between powder and crack when it comes to usage vs. punishment).
Greg, way up @26: That's one of the most disgusting things I've heard in a while. Rush Limbaugh can bite me.
Greg, I have to recommend against letting Rush Limbaugh bite you. Whatever it is he's got, I'm worried it may be contagious. ;)
Dulce Et Decorum Est
Bent double, like old beggars under sacks,
Knock-kneed, coughing like hags, we cursed through sludge,
Till on the haunting flares we turned our backs
And towards our distant rest began to trudge.
Men marched asleep. Many had lost their boots
But limped on, blood-shod. All went lame; all blind;
Drunk with fatigue; deaf even to the hoots
Of disappointed shells that dropped behind.
GAS! Gas! Quick, boys!-- An ecstasy of fumbling,
Fitting the clumsy helmets just in time;
But someone still was yelling out and stumbling
And floundering like a man in fire or lime.--
Dim, through the misty panes and thick green light
As under a green sea, I saw him drowning.
In all my dreams, before my helpless sight,
He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning.
If in some smothering dreams you too could pace
Behind the wagon that we flung him in,
And watch the white eyes writhing in his face,
His hanging face, like a devil's sick of sin;
If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,
Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud
Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,--
My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est
Pro patria mori.
Apologia pro Poemate Meo
I, too, saw God through mud —
The mud that cracked on cheeks when wretches smiled.
War brought more glory to their eyes than blood,
And gave their laughs more glee than shakes a child.
Merry it was to laugh there —
Where death becomes absurd and life absurder.
For power was on us as we slashed bones bare
Not to feel sickness or remorse of murder.
I, too, have dropped off fear —
Behind the barrage, dead as my platoon,
And sailed my spirit surging, light and clear
Past the entanglement where hopes lay strewn;
And witnessed exultation —
Faces that used to curse me, scowl for scowl,
Shine and lift up with passion of oblation,
Seraphic for an hour; though they were foul.
I have made fellowships —
Untold of happy lovers in old song.
For love is not the binding of fair lips
With the soft silk of eyes that look and long,
By Joy, whose ribbon slips, —
But wound with war's hard wire whose stakes are strong;
Bound with the bandage of the arm that drips;
Knit in the welding of the rifle-thong.
I have perceived much beauty
In the hoarse oaths that kept our courage straight;
Heard music in the silentness of duty;
Found peace where shell-storms spouted reddest spate.
Nevertheless, except you share
With them in hell the sorrowful dark of hell,
Whose world is but the trembling of a flare,
And heaven but as the highway for a shell,
You shall not hear their mirth:
You shall not come to think them well content
By any jest of mine. These men are worth
Your tears: You are not worth their merriment.
November 1917.
(It's amazing to me how apposite this poem is, to so many topics)
Another thing to remember about WW1 was that a generation later we had WW2.
Making a few assumptions, from the starting point of total population. those schoolgirls may have been given an exaggerated figure. Then again, a sixth form at a girls' school of the time would be quite high-ststus, and their idea of an eligioble male might have selected for casualties.
Anyway, the number of dead is about half the number of men in the 20-25 age group, and the stats show about twice as many wounded. So the age-group engaged in combat is obviously much wider.
However, high-status young men were the junior officers in the front line, at high risk. Maybe less at riskmin the Royal Navy, but the RN did test for competence in a way the Army didn't.
The WW2 deaths for the UK were about half the WW1 deaths, though there were far more civilian deaths. As a percentage of population, the total was about three times the US figure. In absolute terms the UK total was slightly higher than that for the USA.
Incidentally, the three British non-nursing corps for women, the ATS, WAAF, and WRNS, had a combined peak recruitment of over 450,000, about a hundred thousand more than the US equivalents.
TPM is reporting Harry Reid is moving for the condemnation of Limbaugh. Whether it will go any farther than the letter he's trying to get the other senators to sign is another question.
WRT Senate condemnation of Limbaugh -- you might want to ask your Senators to do something a little more solid: Have Limbaugh's program removed from the Armed Forces Radio Network...FWIW.
Complaining to Limbaugh's commercial sponsors might help as well (some have responded positively to this in the past). Hmmm, the boycott Rush sites I've found so far have advertiser lists that are years out of date.
Earl: Go to my my blog post on the subject.
It has a, fairly, recent list.
Terry Karney @ 85
They aren't Republicans (well maybe the cokeheads, look at the difference between powder and crack when it comes to usage vs. punishment).
According to Nina Totenberg on NPR this morning the Supremes are have scheduled a case for this term that questions the constitutionality of that discrepancy in sentencing. We'll see if true conservatism wins over neo-conservatism and racism.
Come to think of it, does this blamelessness make Rush a phony druggie?
Go Harry, and the Republicans can piss up a rope.
Compare and contrast:
Via Digby
Harry Reid speaks on the Senate floor:
If we take the Republican side at their word that last week’s vote on another controversial statement related to the war was truly about patriotism, not politics, then I have no doubt that they will stand with us against Limbaugh’s comments with equal fervor.
I am confident we will see Republicans join with us in overwhelming numbers. Anything less would betray a double standard that has no place in the United States Senate.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
OCTOBER 1, 2007
Mr. KINGSTON submitted the following resolution
RESOLUTION
Commending Rush Hudson Limbaugh III for his ongoing public support of American troops serving both here and abroad. Recognizing Mr. Limbaugh for his relentless efforts to build and maintain troop morale through worldwide radio broadcasts and personal visits to conflict regions.
+++++
Typical.
How many personal visits has Limbaugh made to 'conflict regions'?
Has he gone by himself, or as part of a group tour with, say, the USO?
Did he go to Iraq or Afghanistan, and if so, did he get out of a well-guarded location?
Inquiring minds would like to know if that claim is real or just more BS.
I don't know, but if he want's to visit me, he'll definitely be able to say he's been to one.
:)
I hope I never meet Mr. Lying Douchebagcomediandrugaddict in person. If I do I'll have to make the decision that my gut response to his idiocy is to kick him in the .... urm, no thanks, I don't want to steam clean my foot or my shoes. (I'm short enough that trying punch him would be a fruitless effort because I'd bounce off the stomach-shield).
He's a contemptable sack of shi!t, beneath my consideration actually.
I don't find that I derive any benefit from attempting to parse the utterings of El Rushbo or exactly what he meant. We're not talking about Holy Scripture here.
I suppose Elvis Presley shows the problems there can be with famous people in the military.
But, after getting a deferment to finish shooting a movie, he went, and served in a tank battalion in Germany.
That puts him several steps ahead of a lot of people.
Harry Reid: If we take the Republican side at their word that last week’s vote on another controversial statement related to the war was truly about patriotism, not politics, then I have no doubt that they will stand with us against Limbaugh’s comments with equal fervor.
Ooh, nice strategic move. (1) admit your MoveOn actions last week were simply petty political nonsense, or (2) condemn similar comments by Rush Limbaugh, or (3) show the world you're a bunch of hypocrits.
PJ @96
How many personal visits has Limbaugh made to 'conflict regions'?
My understanding is that he did travel to Afghanistan in 2005 but could not get permission to visit Iraq.
Greg London @ 101
Or door # 4, the one they'll probably take: ignore Reid completely and blather on as before, assuming their "base" will follow them through the gates of Hell as long as they get someone else to shine their shoes.
Dave Bell @ 89... The WW2 deaths for the UK were about half the WW1 deaths
Was it because, by WW2, surgery and medicine had vastly improved?
For Rob at #23 (hi, Rob!)
"In Dr. Johnson's famous dictionary patriotism is defined as the last resort of a scoundrel. With all due respect to an enlightened but inferior lexicographer I beg to submit that it is the first." (Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary)
Serge@104 : UK deaths in WWII were lower than in WWI because the "dying horribly" part in WWII was mostly handled by the Soviets. THEY lost... well, there isn't a good count, but the estimates I've seen run between twenty and thirty million dead.
There were a lot of other reasons, but that's the big one. England only really got all of Germany's attention for about a year, before the eastern front opened up.
A student came to my office this morning to tell me he's been deployed. No more college for a while. Damn, damn, damn.
Even as someone often accused of being conservative, I loathe Rush. Political discourse was already stupid enough without him lowering the bar; now the US is filled with dittohead blather where nobody has to interact with anyone who doesn't already agree with them. It makes me long for the days where in my home state (Md.) Connie Morella was one of congress's most liberal Republicans and Beverly Byron was one of the most conservative Democrats. Of course, both seats have since been lost to the other party.
No. Virginia combines southern efficiency and northern charm. I've never understood the attraction of the place.
106 mfgates:
And yet, the odd thing is, if you look at the starting points of the countries and the endpoints after the war, it seems like:
a. The USSR suffered horrifying losses, and emerged as a first-tier world power.
b. Germany and Japan were smashed.
c. The UK was on the winning side, and suffered fewer losses than in WW1, but *lost*, judging from their power and wealth from before WW1 to after WW2.
I remember, visiting Switzerland, wondering if this was what all of Europe would look like, if they hadn't spent half their wealth and some godawful number of lives murdering one another and blowing up one anothers' stuff.
Bruce@103: Or door # 4, the one they'll probably take: ignore Reid completely and blather on as before
Yeah. Life isn't a sequential game. It's simultaneous. And it's pretty hard to make a strategic move in the real world that eliminates all the other options, including doing nothing.
Oh well. After reading a whole bunch of dittohead comments the last few days on various other blogs, I am reminded once again that there is a certain segment of the population who are impervious to reality. They have their narratives of how the world works, and to hell with any real world data that conflicts.
Dave@89: Is it not also possible that the speaker was referring to their particular area? I've read in various places that the British army tended to put everyone from a single community into the same unit (reasons given vary), which meant that one "Over the top!" could lead to the situation described by Laurie King in The Beekeeper's Apprentice: -"villages in which there was not a whole man between the ages of sixteen and forty-six."- Or would a girls' school have drawn from too large an area for that to hold?
albatross (#109) Germany and Japan had the Marshall Plan, putting people & money into changing their culture & rebuilding their society.
The UK had to pay for much of the aid sent it by the USA (deferred to peacetime by Lend Lease), and continued to do so for decades, as well as losing income from quite a few overseas holdings. It possibly didn't get some support from the USA because of the turn towards Labour and 'socialism' in the UK elections after the end of the war.
There are probably quite a few other issues, maybe like getting involved in arms races again — which left chunks of inland Australia still radioactive (search Maralinga, for instance (and Emu)). The parts of the Quatermass series about a British/Australian space effort weren't completely fiction, either (look for Woomera, "Blue Streak" or "Black Knight", for instance).
The other thing about high casualty rates is that the people who know just how bad war is are mostly not around to say so. I can't find the quote, but Shelby Foote tells the story of a former CSA officer who encountered an eager young Southern patriot on a train and assured the young man that, yes, the South had been well and truly whipped.
The first time I ever saw a Confederate flag, it was in the window of a pickup truck in northern Pennsylvania. The owner clearly didn't understand the irony of glorifying a cause that his ancestors died to suppress. There, and in the Sun Belt migrations, you have pseudonostalgia for the glorious Lost Cause, without the actual experience of defeat. (Hmmm, sounds remarkably like the neocon understanding of Vietnam.)
C. Wingate, #108: ...combines southern efficiency and northern charm
While I appreciate the snark level of that aphorism, I have to say that (having lived in various parts of the Deep South for over half of my life) frankly, my dear, I've never seen the charm.
Comments on The Phony Soldiers: