Has Rush Limbaugh Dug His Own Grave?
If he really said this, he’s gone.
During the September 26 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh called service members who advocate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq “phony soldiers.” He made the comment while discussing with a caller a conversation he had with a previous caller, “Mike from Chicago,” who said he “used to be military,” and “believe[s] that we should pull out of Iraq.” Limbaugh told the second caller, whom he identified as “Mike, this one from Olympia, Washington,” that “[t]here’s a lot” that people who favor U.S. withdrawal “don’t understand” and that when asked why the United States should pull out, their only answer is, ” ‘Well, we just gotta bring the troops home.’ … ‘Save the — keeps the troops safe’ or whatever,” adding, “[I]t’s not possible, intellectually, to follow these people.” “Mike” from Olympia replied, “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 interjected, “The phony soldiers.” The caller, who had earlier said, “I am a serving American military, in the Army,” agreed, replying, “The phony soldiers.”
41 Responses to “Has Rush Limbaugh Dug His Own Grave?”
Rush Limbaugh can say anything, no matter how hypocritical, no matter how wrong and no matter how deliberate a lie it might be and he’ll never be gone from the airwaves unless there is a sea change in American politics or he dies.
Yes, he can- he’s untouchable- just like Bill’o and his description of his trip to Sylvia’s in Harlem and how the black patrons ate with real knives and forks instead of their hands-it just garners him even higher ratings. Only inconsequential schmucks like Imus have to worry about being pulled off the air.
Holly: Have you ever read what he’s said of black athletes? If that didn’t get him, this won’t come close.
I don’t listen to his show and have not read what he’s said about black athletes.
Two things to always keep in mind whenever Limbaugh perpetrates another outrage:
1. He’s making money for himself, the stations that carry his show and advertisers who pay to keep him on the air.
2. He’s delighting his hard-core right-wing listeners and binding them to his program, because a key motivation for them is sticking it to the opposition by fair means or foul, honestly or dishonestly, the more outrageously the better. They don’t just want power and control, they despise and want to hurt those who have the temerity to disagree with them. Limbaugh is made to order for their purpose.
Unfortunately, this latest slander won’t do him in. More likely, he kicked-off a wave of Right Wing Noise Machine talking points that we’ll be hearing much more of in the coming weeks.
I’ve defended MoveOn’s right to say “Betray Us’ even though I disagree with the ad, so I must defend Limbaugh’s right to say “phony soldiers” too. Of course the case is execrable; only soldiers that agree with the mission full-on are real soldiers? At the end of the day, soldiers are professionals, and barring grossly immoral commands, they follow their superior officers’ directives without letting personal politics get in the way.
But Limbaugh is a right-wing jerk and he has to say idiotic things like this in order to make himself relevant to his mouth-breathing listeners. He has every right to say it and the US Congress should not do what the craven wankers in the GOP did regarding the MoveOn ad: they should NOT issue a vote officially condemning it, even though Congressional Democrats will undoubtedly push for such a bill. Rush Limbaugh is little more than the voice of white trash, a walking poster child for mass lobotomization. But he has also become increasingly irrelevant. His mockery of Michael J. Fox last year probably did more to hand the Missouri Senate seat to Clair McCaskill than anything else. By all means, Democrats should milk Limbaugh’s lecherousness for all its worth. But please, no more Congressional resolutions condemning members of the media. Let him grovel his way into a corner where he can bring the rest of the neanderthalic right into political oblivion. But let free speech be free, and let a free people do with abject thugs what they always do…move on.
[...] Report; digby; Think Progress; Huffington Post; Shakesville; Oliver Willis; Crooks and Liars; The Moderate Voice; The Left [...]
So what makes Limbaugh any better than moveon? As far as he’s concerned only soldiers that share his politics are worthy of respect. Now given that the Republicans called on Democrats to denounce moveon, I’ll be waiting for the GOP to denounce and disassociate themselves from Limbaugh.
I can’t keep up with all the outraages!
In the befinning, I was outraged by the MoveOn ad. Now I’m outraged by the excessive reaction to it.
Rush’s outrages are just blurring together into one big slime ball.
I need a break from the outrages!!
Krit said: “Yes, he can- he’s untouchable…”
I disagree…I think this could do him damage. Mainly because Rush’s audience (full disclosure: I have never listened to him, and in fact avoid him) is comprised of many on the right, who do in fact support the troops. MoveOn caters to the Left, of which many hate the troops, so it could only gain by attacking a general.
If this story gets legs among that audience, it could do Rush damage.
If so…look for Rush to pull a Clinton and finess his language…saying he was referring to the “phony soldiers” as those Winter Soldier-esque anti-war fake soldiers of which many have cropped up in recent years (one is currently on trial for his fraud in Wash state, I believe).
Domajot said: “In the befinning, I was outraged by the MoveOn ad. Now I’m outraged by the excessive reaction to it. Rush’s outrages are just blurring together into one big slime ball. I need a break from the outrages!!”
Hahahaha…yah, everyone is jumping on the “Shocked and Appalled” bandwagon these days.
In fact, it seems like most of Memorandum is filled with “outrages” – most transparently puffed up by the Left, as with the Bush-Mandela-death biz – but also by the Right as well.
And the election is a long way off…as Bette Davis observed: “Hang on, it’s going to be a bumpy ride!”
I was about to post the same thought that Marlowe had: this smear was different from others that Rush has made because it’s insulting to a large part of his audience (the military, and their families). I don’t know to what extent they’ll take offense and hold him accountable, but IMO they should. If we’re going to compare this to something I hate that happens on the opposite side of the political spectrum, I see his comment as being more similar to left wingers who call conservative blacks “Uncle Tom’s” (the idea being that if a member of a particular group doesn’t hold a certain political view, then his membership in that group is not authentic). Please note, I’m not throwing this into the conversation in order to say “the left does it too”- I’m trying to point out why I think it’s so egregious on either side. I’m not trying to provide cover for Limbaugh here, I’m explaining why I feel he should not get the benefit of the doubt- this was an insult to the troops.
EVeryone would have more credibility on this issue if they did not take the e-mail alert of a far left advocacy group as the absolute truth. The MSM has a long history of failing to identify face veterans from real veterans.
In addition, there are already documented cases of fake veterans being used for anti-war purposes See http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/332642_fakevet22.html?source=mypi)
Also, the context is that Rush gets many liberal activist calling in and claiming to be disgruntled conservatives. See
superdestroyer: I think that does happen and I don’t have a problem with Rush calling people out on it. But from what I understand (I admit I did not hear him or read a FULL transcript), he was agreeing with a caller who implied that all media reporting that shows soldiers who express a negative view of the war are phony implants. There’s still an attempt being made to say that any soldier who holds that viewpoint isn’t a true soldier, because of the underlying assumption that no real soldier could possibly hold that view. In other words, where there’s proof of falsification by the media, point it out with evidence; don’t use, as supposed evidence, the fact that soldiers are saying things that oppose the policy.
Whether you agreed or disagreed with the Moveon ad, most people understand that, politically speaking, it was a really bad move. It distracted from the real debate and allowed the administration and republican party off the hook when it came time to question Petraeus’s stats.
Limbaugh supports only those troops who agree with his position, and has been pretty consistent in this from the very start as has his listenership who have no problem with linking Max Cleland with Bin Laden, McCain with instability brought on by the torture he experienced in Vietnam, and ridiculing the awarding of purple hearts by donning band aids.
When it comes to showing disrespect to those who have served their country. the left isn’t even close to Limbaugh and his audience.
Why were the administration and republican party let off the hook from answering tough questions about Petraeus’ stats, truflo? I didn’t see anyone forcing the reporters to focus only on the outrage over the MoveOn ad, and I didn’t see the Congressional reps being gagged from you know, actually asking Petraeus how he derived the figures.
If you don’t like the tactic of ‘bait and switch’, then don’t take the bait. The Democrats and the media still had the responsibility to ask the tough questions and they chose not to. Is that because it was easier to focus their own outrage on the GOP outrage? Then they’re playing the same game that they’re denouncing.
My goodness.
Nothing is going to happen to Rush Limbaugh.
In fact, as the details fade, he’ll get to make a generalized, denatured claim that he tells it like it is no matter what the consequences.
Wise up!!
Marlowe,
Why the assumption that Limbaugh listeners serve in the military in any great degree? I think that’s an insult to the men and women in uniform (my semi-ironic outrage:) to assume that they listen to such a blathering bigot and moron. Surely some listen to him, but probably no more than any other group. Limbaugh’s supporters are largely racist, lower-middle class white people who really believe that brown people are conspiring with the government and the Democrats to keep them down. His listeners won’t be outraged by his remarks because they hold the same cartoonish image of the soldiers as does Limbaugh. Rush Limbaugh and his lackeys have no more genuine love of the military than MoveOn. In both cases, the armed forces are little more than pawns for them to play culture war games. Of course the only soldiers that count for Limbaugh are ones that support his political position. Because soldiers aren’t real people to him – just tools to make a political point. (I argue the Left does the same thing when they say, “Support the troops, bring them home.” Don’t patronize the soldiers. They join the service for dozens of reasons and current war policy is usually fairly low on the list. If the war policy is bad for America as a whole, and I believe it is, then that’s the reason we should bring the troops home – not because we think we know what the soldiers really want.)
Elrod,
I can’t swear to it, but I’m pretty sure I saw stats proving that there is a pretty high percentage of military who listen to Rush. Seems like I saw that during the controversy over whether or not to air his show on Armed Forces Radio- and the troops were polled as saying they wanted it.
I still have some outrage left, I see, because this pharase really got my goat:
“…Left, of which many hate the troops….”
Just a phrase, casually inserted in a comment, nothing to it, right?
We’re all so morallly superior here, discussing how awful the political atmosphere is.. But it’s dig, dig, dig, in every paragraph. Insert the poison. Raise the temperature. Slur somebody. Disparage somebody.
And then it’s “I’m so HURT” when it’s reffected back, or “I’m only doing it, because the others did it first”
or “okay, my side is bad, but the other side is WORSE”
We don’t need Limbaugh or MorveOn.
Just read the comments, here, where one side is always morally reprehensible and the other’s excesses perfectly excusable.
I give up. I’m choosing sides, too.
.
My quandary about how to vote in ’06 has just been settled. I’m voting NOT REPUBLICAN , even if the only other choice is an elf from ourer space.
For the first time, being smeared by the morally superior Right seems like a badge of honor. It’s also good for clearing up vision.
doma–
Personally, I can’t wait to vote.
Doma,
Why are you affected that way by a right leaning commenter (enough, apparently, to generalize that one comment to an entire party) but when things are inserted that way into comments to besmirch the right, you don’t react?
BTW, it wouldn’t be hard to find commentary on leftist blogs that does show hatred for the troops- however, I’d disagree with Marlowe’s characterization that there are ‘many’ leftists who feel that way.
And maybe ‘disdain’ would be a better word than ‘hatred’.
These pearls of wisdom were uttered by a man who got out of a draft because of a cyst on his tush?!? Speaking of phony …
Like one of the persons above have said, as much as I disagree with Rush on a large variety of subjects, he does have the civil right to express his opinion. But comparing apples to apples, his words are really no different than what Moveon.org had done – and they get tarred and feathered. The relativism is just so sickening.
I gotta agree with Doma- its pretty reprehensible to conclude that many on the left hate the troops, because many on the left hate the war. Its the kind of conflating that we’ve seen a lot of lately- a conscious effort to avoid making important distinctions about motive so that we can impugn the patriotism of others who dissent from the president’s policy.
If you want to condemn Move-on for using the phrase “Betray-us” fine, but then you also should condemn Rush for calling Chuck Hagel- ‘Sen Betrayus’, which he did on a recent show. Where was everyone’s outrage then???
As far as the hearings- the Democrats did challenge Petraeus and the stats he used. Sen Clinton thought they strained credibility, after which the right wing pundits smeared her as an ally of Move-on.
Are we going to pass a resolution every time offensive rhetoric is used? IMO, we should demand that our politicians “Move-on” and debate the substance not the rhetoric.
CS-
One reason I feel that way is that I can understand partisanship when it’s simple preference for a political philosophy.
I can’t forgive the ‘aiding the enemy’ and ‘betray the rroops’ (where do you think MoveOn’s use of the word ‘betray’ came from?) that’s been going on for years and years and years and years.
I’ve tried to be fair and not fall into the trap of repaying in kind.
But thiat phrase was the straw that broke the camel’s back.
I don’t care what justification you find In Daily Kos.
I don’t care what veneer you put on some tactics, while I read comments on other blogs that are far worse, and by the same ‘polite’ people.
I’ve had it!
And I don’t care what you think about it, either.
I finally have a party. It’s the NOT REPUBLCAN party.
krit – Jim Webb was on Hardball and spoke about the variety of political views in the military. While it may lean slightly Right, there is a large number of Liberals in the military, they don’t require a loyalty oath yet, not if Mr Kate O’Bearns(sp) can help it. On Rush, Armed Forces radio tape his show and Hannity’s for replay, Ed Shultz created a contreversy awhile back, because the Pentagon would allow his show on Armed Forces radio.
Rudi- I knew the part about Rush and Hannity brainwashing -er “entertaining’ the troops with their propaganda- er commentary, but didn’t know about Schultz- isn’t this a first amendment violation as they are only representing the administration’s pro-Republican viewpoint???
Rudi, I think that was the Pentagon would not allow Schultz’s show on AFR. They said they were going to and then went back on it. AFR’s talk radio is 100% conservative, so far as I know.
Limbaugh was talking about Jesse MacBeth, who is indeed a fake soldier who lied about having been an Army Ranger ordered to commit war crimes.
Jesse MacBeth’s story was used by the far left in a propaganda video until bloggers noticed some obvious discrepencies in his uniform. It turns out he was in the Army for about a month, and didn’t even make it through boot camp. Needless to say, he had never been to Iraq.
Limbaugh was fully justified in calling MacBeth a fake soldier. No moderate should ever defend what MacBeth did.
CS: And maybe ‘disdain’ would be a better word than ‘hatred’.
As an unofficial member of “The Left,” I think my take with regards to the troops and the military is fairly representative.
“The troops” are people. They joined the military for a variety of reasons, and now, many of them, find themselves at risk for their lives. I do not disdain these people. I take exception to the suggestion that I and people like me disdain these people, who are doing the best they can under extremely difficult circumstances.
“The military,” when it isn’t equivalent to “the troops,” is a force, a lifestyle, or an attitude, or some combination thereof. Largely speaking I regard the military as a necessary evil. Some aspects of it are, well, militaristic, and those I dislike.
Still, none of that amounts to disdain, much less hatred, for the troops or even the military in general. But it does seem useful for those on “the right” to continually advance the notion that “The Left” hates, or at least, disdains the troops.
Elrod wrote:
Not exactly. All U.S. military members serve under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. A core UCMJ requirement is that military people must obey all “lawful orders.” Conversely, they must not obey orders that any reasonable person would know to be unlawful.
For example, if an officer orders a soldier to find and kill someone who’s been seen running around with the officer’s wife, the soldier is not only duty bound to ignore the order, he must report it to the proper authorities.
Your larger point about not letting personal or political feelings get in the way of doing one’s duty is exactly right, though.
Stating personal opinion and prejudice as fact, MarloweC wrote:
Or, MarloweC, do you have proof to back that up?
CS- The left does not hate or have disdain for the troops- they hate the war and oppose our role in it. Isn’t this a little like accusing Republicans of being racist? Broad generalizations are cast, which no one can really prove-because they are directed at no one in particular.
By the same token you could make the argument that Bush and the Republicans have disdain for the vets, since they oppose increasing veterans’ benefits in the current appropriations bills. A lot of the increases were to implement changes that Bush’s own commission recommended after the scandal at Walter Reed.
FWIW: An article on “fake soldier” Jesse Macbeth can be found on Wikipedia.
Krit wrote:
New York Times columnist Bob Herbert had some pointed things to say on this very subject in his Tuesday column, “The Ugly Side of the G.O.P.”
If you were to read it, you might come away with the realization it’s not such a broad generalization and certainly isn’t a meaningless abstraction. Herbert names names and gives concrete examples.
SW Anderson,
Thanks for clarifying. By “grossly immoral” I suppose I meant “unlawful” as well.
Randy5 is wrong about what Limbaugh was saying in the part of the broadcast being discussed. Macbeth wasn’t mentioned until later in the broadcast. The caller that Limbaugh was agreeing with never mentioned him. Reading the transcript of the conversation makes it quite clear that the caller is claiming that all real soldiers believe in the war in Iraq.
New York Times columnist Bob Herbert had some pointed things to say on this very subject in his Tuesday column, “The Ugly Side of the G.O.P.â€
If you were to read it, you might come away with the realization it’s not such a broad generalization and certainly isn’t a meaningless abstraction. Herbert names names and gives concrete examples.
SW- If you only knew- I spent the better part of an evening debating the column with a bunch of conservatives on another site. I am all out of comments on that one (the thread reached 201– and it was not a pretty sight, LOL)
I’m done with broad generalizations- though I did say that I thought the piece had some merit.
[...] child of McCarthy, Rush Limbaugh attacked anti-Bush war policy soliders as “fake soliders’” for speaking in contradiction to the current right-wing Neo-Con Xenophobic, imperalistic, profti [...]