House of Eratosthenes

Well well well. The donks are trying to make some hay out of Rush Limbaugh’s Phony Soldiers remark. There’s an effort in the House of Representatives to get a resolution going condemning him for his remarks.

Obviously, this is all about equal-time, what with that stupid General Betray Us ad backfiring so impressively. You dare to make “Move On From Some Selected Things And Not Other Things Dot Org” regretful or embarrassed about their ad…which seemed like such a great idea to them at the time…why, they’ve got to be able to do the same thing to Limbaugh, right? They’re entitled to a “freebie,” right?

All in the name of equal time?

Well…let’s take a look at this. Rush Limbaugh is failing to appreciate the service of all the soldiers, is that it? The soldiers he calls “phony soldiers,” are soldiers who disagree with his personal opinions.

I guess the closest parallel I can find to this, is the liberal donk who claims to “support the troops but not their mission.” I specifically brought this issue up with one of them one time. He was trying to start a dialog…snicker…yeah, in that way donks start dialogs. You know. To finish them. He wanted to start a dialog on whether it was possible to support the troops while opposing the mission upon which those troops were sent. Obviously, to bully and intimidate and cudgel anyone within earshot toward believing in the affirmative.

Along came the sound bite — I support the troops, I just oppose what they’ve been sent to do.

I thought it appropriate to pose a simple inquiry. I really wanted to know. Do you support all of the troops? And he was like…well, what do you mean by that? I said, I mean, even the troops who don’t agree with you about the mission. Some of these troops about which I keep hearing — the ones who “re-up” when they don’t have to. The ones who believe so strongly in what they’re doing, that they volunteer. Maybe…the ones who voted for President Bush twice. Do you support those troops? Or when you say “the troops,” do you mean only the ones you happen to like?

He changed the subject.

A year later, here we are…being instructed to hold Rush Limbaugh in some kind of contempt for failing to support all the troops, even the ones who disagree with him.

Rush has often been heard to say he doesn’t need equal time, he is equal time. If that’s true anywhere, seems to me it’s especially true here. From what I’ve been able to figure out, our liberal donks have been selectively picking and choosing which troops to support, since the very first one among them stepped forward and said “I support the troops.”

And I’ve noticed this is true across the board. Anytime a donk says “I support free health care…affordable college tuition…a transparent government…clean air and water…for all” you get back such an interesting deer-in-headlights look when you pose the simple follow-up: “Even folks who vote Republican?”

It brings a smile to my face watching them scramble. But kind of a sad one. With liberals, everything depends on definitions. Even miniscule tidbits with supposedly ironclad non-negotiable meanings…like “all” and “everybody.” And “is.”

Limbaugh’s comment was about the soldier who was actually proved to be phony. I forget the kid’s name, but he washed out of basic training after a few weeks. However, he said he was some sort of special forces guy who had observed all these war crimes – exactly what the left wanted to hear!

You’re right – it’s a feeble attempt to foment the anger we had over the Petraeus ad on their side. The only problem is, on our side, we didn’t have to manufacture it. 🙂
- Daniel | 09/30/2007 @ 23:46
The phony soldier’s name is Jesse MacBeth, who’s supposed to be a Corporal with the Army Rangers but was actually in the Army for all of 44 days before washing out of boot camp.

The remark was taken grossly out of context, and Rush explains exactly how here. It does seem to me, although he’s clearly focused on MacBeth, his comments have meandered to that subject after previously discussing a general epidemic involving other cases. Which he is quite right to discuss, by the way, in my view. MacBeth has not been an isolated case by a long shot. Malkin, doing her own run-down of this sorry spectacle today, produced a list that’s probably going to end up being complete as any other, and is completely accurate so far as I know.

There’s supposed to be a spirit of brotherhood in military service. So if someone wants to burden me, a civilian, with an obligation to regard “all” soldiers as “real” soldiers, even the ones fresh off the stump from slandering their brothers John Kerry style…well, I’m gonna be a little slow climbing aboard on that. Just speaking for myself there.
- mkfreeberg | 10/01/2007 @ 00:18

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

Phony SoldiersSaturday, September 29th, 2007

Phony Soldiers
Saturday, September 29th, 2007