[Irgun]

Not content to wait for my book to come out, Senate Democrats are demanding a censure resolution against Rush Limbaugh. Ah, the memories ...

In my experience, having prominent Democrats censure you on the Senate floor is the equivalent of 50 book signings. Or being put on the cover of The New York Times magazine 20 years ago when people still read The New York Times magazine. They should rename Senate censure resolutions "Harry Reid's Book Club."

Liberals are hopping mad because Rush Limbaugh referred to phony soldiers as "phony soldiers." They claim he was accusing all Democrats in the military of being "phony

True, all Democrats in the military are not phony soldiers, but all phony soldiers seem to be Democrats.

If we are to believe the self-descriptions of callers to talk radio and the typical soldier interviewed on MSNBC, the military is fairly bristling with Moveon.org types.

The reality is quite the opposite. While liberals have managed to worm themselves into every important institution in America, from the public schools to the CIA to charitable foundations, they are shamefully absent from the military.

As noted in that great book that came out this week, "If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans":

"According to a Military Times survey taken in September 2004, active-duty military personnel preferred President Bush to Kerry by about 73 percent to 18 percent. Sixty percent describe themselves as Republican and less than 10 percent call themselves Democrat (the same 10 percent that MSNBC has on its speed-dial). Even among the veterans, Republicans outnumber Democrats 46 percent to 22 percent."

So there aren't a lot of anti-war military types for the media to turn into this month's "It Girl." (If conservatives ran the media, there would be a constant stream of government employees admitting to sloth and incompetence, welfare recipients admitting to being welfare cheats and public schoolteachers who support school vouchers.) Sometimes liberals get desperate and have to concoct Tawana Brawley veterans.

In addition to famous fake soldiers promoted by the anti-war crowd, like Jesse MacBeth and "Winter Soldier" Al Hubbard, even liberals with actual military experience are constantly being caught in the middle of some liberal hoax.

Al Gore endlessly bragged to the media about his service in Vietnam. "I took my turn regularly on the perimeter in these little firebases out in the boonies. Something would move, we'd fire first and ask questions later," he told Vanity Fair. And then we found out Gore had a personal bodyguard in Vietnam, the most dangerous weapon he carried was a typewriter, and he left after three months. Although to his credit, Gore did not put in for a Purple Heart for the carpal tunnel syndrome he got from all that typing.

Speaking of which, John Kerry claimed to be a valiant, Purple Heart-deserving Vietnam veteran, who spent Christmas 1968 in Cambodia -- until he ran for president and more than 280 Swift Boat Veterans called him a liar. We've been waiting more than 20 months for Kerry to make good on his "Meet the Press" pledge to sign form 180, which would allow the military to release his records.

Then there was Bill Burkett, who gave CBS the phony National Guard documents; Scott Thomas Beauchamp, The New Republic's fantasist anti-war "Baghdad Diarist"; and Max Cleland, whose injuries were repeatedly and falsely described as a result of enemy fire.

Liberals will even turn a war hero like Pat Tillman into an anti-war cause celebre posthumously -- so he can't disagree. Tillman died in a friendly fire incident that occurred -- unlike Max Cleland's accident -- during actual combat with the enemy.

Because they are screaming, hysterical women, liberals treat friendly fire like a drunk driving accident. But friendly fire has been a part of war from time immemorial.

Liberals have an insane, litigious view of the military: There's been an accident in warfare, let's sue! It's as mad as the line from "Dr. Strangelove": "Gentlemen! No fighting in the War Room!" Golly jeepers, accidents can't happen in a war!

Contrary to the insinuations of his family, we don't know what Pat Tillman would say about the war he volunteered for, but we do know that he was a patriot until death. And we know what other patriots have said about friendly fire during a war.

In his book Faith of My Fathers, John McCain describes how demoralized American prisoners of war in Vietnam were when they didn't hear any bombing for years. Finally, after a long bombing halt, Nixon renewed aerial bombing of North Vietnam in December 1972.

Our bombers couldn't know with precision where the enemy was holding (and torturing) our troops. McCain and the rest of those POWs could easily have been hit and killed by an American bomb.

But the POWs weren't denouncing the U.S. military for risking their lives with "friendly fire." They weren't crying Mommy, investigate this! Get me a trial lawyer! If their camp had been hit by American bombs, it would have been as the POWs were shouting: "God bless President Nixon!"

That's from their own mouths; that's what's in their hearts. Friendly fire -- to a nation that hasn't lost its wits -- is part of waging war.

If Democrats don't want to hear about "phony soldiers," maybe they should stop trying to edify us with these bathos-laden hoaxes.



Ann Coulter.

 

[MauserboyM48]

Its been a whole distraction from the real issues of the war. Even though I disagree with Rush on the war issue, Rush definitely does not hate the troops and sincerely supports them.

 

[John Sukey In Memoriam]

Seems the ONE phony soldier Rush mentioned was court martialed for lying about his war record and his medals.

But what the heck, Murtha calling our marines thugs and criminals is allright.

 

[montello]

I hope we are not going to a political test to decide who is a real soldier and who isn't. Anybody who goes overseas to a hostile land is a real soldier, compared to...you know.

And Gore did have an M16, there is a semi-famous photo of him resting the muzzle on his foot! (Hope the safety was on).

 

[John Sukey In Memoriam]

Not to mention Kerry's home video's of him playing "rambo".

 

[jjk308 In Memoriam RIP]

Now the Democrat's dirty tricks campaign has some poor brain damaged Iraq vet doing a commercial claiming he's been defamed by Limbaugh's "phony soldiers" remark -which had nothing to do with him. It's on the same level as rolling out James Brady. The poor guy's eyes aren't even tracking in what's probably take 25 of this shoot.

See my post in http://forums.gunboards.com/showthread.php?t=5430
The thread also has the story of the real Phony Soldier - Jesse MacBeth, AKA Jesse Al-Zaid.

 

[ret_marine2003]

A sad state of affairs.

As long as the left is willing to pay for it there will be a desperate person or actor out of work who is willing to take the money.

The politics of whores, pimps, and johns.

 

[Clyde]

I can recall a couple of comments about friendly fire incidents from my long-ago Vietnam days. One was "Friendly fire - ain't". Another was "sh*t happens and then you die". Of course that was the response to many unfortunate and harmful things. You get sort of fatalistic, and just hope it doesn't happen to you.

This not to trivialize losses. Bad enough when the enemy gets through. An "own goal" is especially sad. But - bad and sad things happen in wars - as the saying in the RN apparently went (per Douglas Reeman, who was there) in War Two "If he couldn't take a joke, he shouldn't have joined up"...

 

[ret_marine2003]

Tha Patriot Perspective

Anatomy of a BIG Lie: ‘Phony Soldiers’

Regular readers are aware that, since The Patriot’s founding a decade ago, we’ve included a short section within Friday’s Digest called, “The BIG Lie.” It’s a section we’ve reserved for egregious examples of Leftist disinformation.

There is an old maxim that if one repeats a lie often and loud enough, it will eventually be perceived as the truth.

Adolf Hitler defined that dictum in his 1925 autobiography Mein Kampf, writing that a big lie must be so “colossal” that the public would be confident that no national leaders “could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously.”

After Hitler became the leader of the National Socialist German Workers Party, his chief propagandist, Joseph Goebbels, used the Third Reich’s big-lie apparatus to fortify the Nazi campaign against Jews. Goebbels blamed the Jews for Germany’s inability to recover from World War I, and this big lie led to the Holocaust—the wholesale murder of some six million men, women and children.

After Germany’s WWII defeat, Soviet leader Joseph Stalin and subsequent Communist leaders perfected the big-lie propaganda machine with media “dezinformatsia” campaigns. The primary organ for disseminating this disinformation was the official newspaper of the Central Committee of the Communist Party, Pravda, which in English means “the truth.” Even the name is a big lie.

Here in the U.S. , the organs of Leftist disinformation have assumed equally impressive identities: The New York Times, The Washington Post, CBS, CNN, MSNBC and NPR, and the list goes on. (For a weekly recounting of the MSM’s biggest whoppers, please see the “Dezinformatsia” section of our Wednesday Chronicle.)

Most recently, the Democrats’ dezinformatsia machines were running overtime to discredit Gen. David Petraeus, commander of our Armed Forces in Iraq. In advance of his congressional testimony about the progress of Operation Iraqi Freedom, the Leftmedia gave endless play to those Demo-gogues who have bet their 2008 electoral prospects on failure in and retreat from Iraq.

On the morning of Gen. Petraeus’s testimony, the Democrats’ most effective web-based organ of disinformation, MoveOn.org, was given a deep discount by the Democrats’ most effective print-based organ of disinformation, The New York Times, to run an appalling full-page lie under the heading, “General Petraeus or General Betray Us?”

Democrats and the George Soros-funded MoveOn thought they could, with impunity, brand one of our nation’s most distinguished warriors a traitor. By extension, they branded as traitors all American forces fighting jihadi terrorists in Iraq and around the world. However, Leftist politicos and MoveOn grossly underestimated the new media’s ability to expose such a colossal lie and grossly overestimated the public’s tolerance for such accusations once brought to their attention.

In short, the Left got caught in a big lie and was severely rebuked.

In an effort to offset that rebuke, Democrats and their radical cadre have fabricated another big lie—this one targeting Rush Limbaugh.

Rush, of course, is the arch-nemesis of the Left. He broke ground for conservative perspective on the radio, much as Fox News did for television and The Patriot did for the Web.

To recap: Rush had been responding to an on-air caller who noted that the MSM has continually dredged up a handful of troops—some real, some fake—to provide antiwar statements to support the Demos’ desire for defeat and retreat. Rush agreed, noting that some of these anti-warriors, in particular Jesse MacBeth, have flat-out lied about their military service. He rightly dubbed them “phony soldiers.”

For the record, Jesse MacBeth, the prototypical anti-OIF poster boy, was in fact born Jesse Al-Zaid. Al-Zaid claimed to have served in Iraq, even receiving a Purple Heart after being shot. He claimed to have witnessed atrocities committed by “fellow soldiers.” But it turns out that Al-Zaid never completed boot camp, being discharged after 44 days because of his “entry level performance and conduct.” He was not a Green Beret, never in Special Ops, never in Iraq—though he even attempted to defraud the VA of more than $10,000 for “Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.” Al-Zaid, whose protest diatribes have been circulating for several years, is indeed a phony soldier.

But the truth never deters the Left’s big lies.

Their so-called “watchdog group,” Media Matters for America, removed from context the two words “phony soldiers” and blast-broadcasted the big lie that Rush had branded that label on the handful of anti-OIF protestors who actually served in Iraq. In lock step, that smear was dutifully regurgitated by the MSM and then picked up by opportunistic Demo-gogues in Congress, desperately seeking a reversal of charges after their disastrous attempt to question the patriotism of Gen. Petraeus.

Chief among the most despicable of those propagating this dezinformatsia campaign from their Senate soapboxes are John Kerry and Tom Harkin.

Kerry, like Jesse Al-Zaid, embellished his military record and then used his “hero status” as a platform to falsely accuse ground troops in Vietnam of all manner of atrocities. (He is the target of a national petition to indict him for acts of treason, which now has more than 200,000 signers.)

Kerry’s most notable commentary on Iraq in the past year was his assertion that American service personnel are “stuck in Iraq” because they are too stupid to get a better job.

This week he led the charge against Rush, saying, “In a single moment on his show, Limbaugh managed to question the patriotism of men and women in uniform who have put their lives on the line and many who died for his right to sit safely in his air conditioned studio peddling hate.”

This is the same Jean-Francois Kerry who, back in 2005, accused U.S. forces in Iraq of “going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, uh, uh, uh, you know, women...”

Iowa Demo Sen. Tom Harkin, who also falsified his military record by claiming to have been a Vietnam combat pilot when he actually flew repaired aircraft from Japan to U.S. bases in Vietnam, perpetuated the lie, saying, “I must say that as a veteran, I find it offensive that Rush Limbaugh would attack the patriotism and the dedication of any soldier fighting in Iraq... I also find it disturbing that his offensive comments have not been condemned by our Republican colleagues or by the Commander in Chief, all of whom are so quick to condemn a similar personal attack on General Petraeus several weeks ago.”

Of course, as Limbaugh said in response, “Why should they condemn something that wasn’t said? You know what ought to be condemned here is [the Left’s] wanton inability to find the truth.”

Further perpetuating the big lie—and further wasting the taxpayers’ hard-earned money—Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and his cadre of MoveOn Demos sent a letter to Mark Mays, CEO of Clear Channel Communications, which broadcasts Rush’s program via more than 1,200 stations. The letter demanded that Mays condemn “Limbaugh’s hateful and unpatriotic” remarks.

Further, former Democrat presidential wannabe, General Wesley Clark, who has endorsed Hillary Clinton for President, is demanding that Rush be removed from the Armed Forces Radio network.

In the House, Lefty Mark Udall introduced a big-lie resolution condemning Limbaugh, and 26 Democrats have signed on as co-sponsors.

And what of Media Matters, the propaganda organ that launched the lie?

My colleague, National Review essayist Byron York, offered this analysis: “Media Matters is much more than a traditional media-watchdog group. Indeed, it is probably more accurate to view Media Matters as part of the constellation of groups that have come together on the left in the last year or so, all aimed at electing a Democratic President. Their [donors list] reads like a Who’s Who of those who have financed the new activist Left.”

“Constellation of groups”? In other words, a Socialist propaganda network that would make even Goebbels blush with pride!
On cross-examination

“All Democrats in the military are not phony soldiers, but all phony soldiers seem to be Democrats... In addition to famous fake soldiers promoted by the anti-war crowd, like Jesse MacBeth and ‘Winter Soldier’ Al Hubbard, even liberals with actual military experience are constantly being caught in the middle of some liberal hoax... John Kerry claimed to be a valiant, Purple Heart-deserving Vietnam veteran, who spent Christmas 1968 in Cambodia—until he ran for President and more than 280 Swift Boat Veterans called him a liar. We’ve been waiting more than 20 months for Kerry to make good on his ‘Meet the Press’ pledge to sign form 180, which would allow the military to release his records.” —Ann Coulter
Open query

“Congressional Democrats are trying to divert attention from insulting our military leader in Iraq and pandering to the loony left by attacking Rush Limbaugh. He is one of the strongest supporters of our troops. Yet Democrats claim he’s not being strong enough. I wonder who General [David] Petraeus and his troops think is most supportive?” —Fred Thompson
The BIG lie

“Apparently this week Rush Limbaugh used the phrase ‘phony soldiers’ to describe American troops who opposed the Iraq war. Given that the President has commented, uh, last week, uh, on the MoveOn ad, uh, on General Petraeus, and called it ‘disgusting,’ is this something that the President would, you know, feel compelled to comment on?” —CNN Reporter to White House spokesperson Dana Perino—typical of the propagation of the latest “BIG lie”

 

[Irgun]

The Democrats’ fight against Rush Limbaugh is not exactly going as planned. Last week, Rush Limbaugh called out the Left’s using “phony soldiers” to attack the war effort -- soldiers who had claimed to have been in Iraq participating in war crimes when they had not in fact set foot in the country. George Soros’ Media Matters organization blasted out notices to the media that Rush had labeled all anti-war soldiers “phony.” The facts quickly became irrelevant as the Democrats sought to use the controversy to bounce back against Republicans who had been hammering them over attacks on General Petraeus’s character.

Democrats in Congress ran to the floors of the House and Senate to denounce Rush and offer resolutions of condemnation. Hillary Clinton saw no irony in her failure to denounce Rush while she defended MoveOn.org’s attack against Petraeus. Richest of all, however, was Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) denouncing Rush from the floor of the Senate and accusing Rush of being under the influence of narcotics. Harkin, of course, saw his hopes for the Presidency sink in 1992, when it was revealed he had lied about his own war record.

If the Democrats really though Republicans would run away from Rush Limbaugh, they were sorely mistaken. Not only did the Republicans go on defense for Limbaugh, they seized the opportunity to again attack the Democrats over the Fairness Doctrine. Blogging at RedState, Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA) wrote, “The Left has long targeted conservative talk radio. They have tried everything from regulation to launching their own liberal network. . . .Faced with such defeat, they are now looking to revive the Fairness Doctrine. And with Media Matters leading the way, it seems they are attempting to take their first step.” He also pointed out that ABC News Correspondent Brian Ross, in a story about Jesse MacBeth (one of Limbaugh’s phony soldiers) called MacBeth and those like him “phony heroes.”

Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) echoed Kingston, writing, “I believe these attacks on talk radio are a precursor for returning censorship to the airwaves of America in the form of the Fairness Doctrine.”

Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), who herself suffered an attempted political assassination by MSNBC and MoveOn.org last week, also raced to blog at RedState. She wrote, “This is the second time in as many weeks that the MoveOn.org crowd has attacked conservatives without checking their facts. There is a saying in the mainstream, drive-by media: "Why let the truth get in the way of a good story?"

Congressman Vito Fossella (R-NY) joined in the blogfest writing, “Rush Limbaugh is a favorite target for the left, but his support of our men and women in uniform is unquestioned,” and Scott Garrett (R-NJ) blogged, “This recent allegation that Limbaugh was bashing a war veteran is ludicrous. It’s clear to anyone that read the transcript that Limbaugh was just stating that he is sick and tired of Democrats using soldiers with phony stories to attack the Iraq war and discredit the hard work our men and women in uniform are doing.”

Within one week of Rush stating the obvious and the Democrats launching their attack, Rush had been publicly defended by numerous House and Senate Republicans, including the third ranking Republican in the House, Eric Cantor (R-VA) who started a petition of support at www.standwithrush.com.

Not to be outdone, even the Republican Presidential candidates sought to get into with Fred Thompson going to RedState and then his own website to write, “Congressional Democrats are trying to divert attention from insulting our military leader in Iraq and pandering to the loony left by attacking Rush Limbaugh. He is one of the strongest supporters of our troops, yet Democrats claim he is not being strong enough. I wonder who General Petraeus and his troops think is most supportive?”

The Democrats continue to orchestrate a media blitz over their misrepresentation of Rush Limbaugh’s statement, but so far only Republican Congressman Walter Jones (R-NC) is falling for it. Jones’s primary challenger, Joe McLaughlin, is already on the air attacking Jones for his failure to stand with Limbaugh.

The Republican attacks on the MoveOn.org ad successfully caused the Democrats to buckle. Thus far, it seems the Republicans are holding to Margaret Thatcher’s advice to not go wobbly on this issue.


Erick Erickson, from RedState.com

 

[Irgun]

They tried it in 1996, in 2000 and again in 2004. Liberals who fear conservative talk radio -- and most of all its commander in chief, Rush Limbaugh -- tried to discredit and silence Rush. They failed, and now -- given the fragility of their all-but-certain nominee, Hillary Clinton -- they’re desperate to take another shot at getting Limbaugh out of the way.

Last week, replying to a caller about soldiers who were not what they claimed to be, Limbaugh called them “phony.”

Reasonably read, Rush wasn’t talking about all our troops: just those such as Scott Thomas Beuachamp who became tools of the liberal media by willingly making up stories of atrocities and failure, and others who never served in Iraq but pretended they had..

Reacting quickly, the hyperlib smear merchants of Media Matters launched a hit job on Limbaugh claiming he used the term “phony soldiers” to describe military members opposing the war.

Shortly after the on-air exchange, Limbaugh made reference to exactly the kind of people he was talking about. The transcript reads, “Here is a Morning Update that we did recently, talking about fake soldiers. This is a story of who the left props up as heroes. They have their celebrities and one of them was Army Ranger Jesse Macbeth.”

Media Matters, of course, didn’t bother to include that in their attack.

Now the House and Senate have weighed in. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev) and Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin have demanded Limbaugh apologize. But who are these stalwart soldiers of Democracy who are so quick to stand up for the troops? They are the selfsame senators who have, ever since the Iraq invasion, missed no opportunity to trash the troops.

Reports last week that 204 troops were mistreated at Oakland Airport in the Bay Area have prompted no statements from these Limbaugh critics. The troops -- who these politicians claim to care so much about -- only count when they can be used for the Democrats’ purposes. And what the Dems -- Reid, Kerry, Durbin, Murtha, Harkin and the rest -- have said and done is a matter of record.

Let’s start with one of the real “phony soldiers”, Limbaugh critic Tom Harkin who said in September, “The simple fact is that asking General Petraeus to evaluate the surge he has overseen in Iraq is like asking a college student to grade his own term paper.”

According to the book "Stolen Valor: How the Vietnam Generation Was Robbed of Its Heroes and Its History":

“During a 1992 bid for the presidency, Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa claimed that he had served as a pilot in Vietnam…Harkin finally admitted he had not seen combat…When pressed by reporters to explain how much time he really spent in Vietnam Harkin estimated that over a year he flew in and out of Vietnam a dozen or so times. But Harkin’s military record showed no Vietnam service decorations. He finally conceded he had not flown combat air patrols in Vietnam and began describing himself as a Vietnam era vet.”

Harkin called Limbaugh’s comment “despicable” and “provocative” but his own lies about military service leave Harkin in no position to criticize Limbaugh. .

The fact is that Limbaugh has been an avid supporter of the war and of American troops from the beginning.

He has said, “Patriotism is rallying behind the country, regardless of party affiliation, to defeat Islamo-Fascism. Patriotism is supporting our troops on the battlefield, not undermining the mission and morale.”

Reid has never expressed this kind of support for the troops. In fact, he is famous for saying the war was “lost” earlier this year and claiming he would not believe a positive report on the surge from Army Commander General David Petraeus.

While Limbaugh was referring to actual -- and political -- “phony soldiers,” (such as Jesse Macbeth) Reid and his cohort have attacked the troops directly, as well as defaming and disrespecting their commander, Gen. Petraeus. Here’s a small sampling:

John Kerry has accused US troops of terrorizing Iraqi women and children: “"[T]here is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children ..." (CBS' "Face The Nation," 12/4/05)

Speaking about the alleged killing of Iraqi civilians by US Marines, Rep. Jack Murtha said the Marines had, killed “. . . innocent civilians in cold blood" and further accused the Marines’ superior officers of a coverup.

Kerry, as we all recall, was so derisive of the troops he once told a college audience, “You know education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don’t you get stuck in Iraq.”

That was after Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Il) compared US troops to Nazis: "If I ... did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners [at Guantanamo] in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their Gulags, or some mad regime, Pol Pot, or others that had no concern for human beings. Sadly, that is not the case. This was the action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners." (Sen. Richard Durbin, Congressional Record, 6/14/05 p. S6594)

But it was before Barack Obama (D-Il) said, “We've got to get the job done there and that requires us to have enough troops so that we're not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous pressure over there.” (“Obama: U.S. Troops In Afghanistan Must Do More Than Kill Civilians,” FoxNews.com, 08/14/07)

Reid, Kerry and Harkin sided with MoveOn.org by voting against the Senate resolution offered by Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) that criticized the MoveOn ad and took the side of the troops by supporting the character of their commander, Gen. Petraeus. (Yes, gentlemen: that’s “Petraeus” with a “P”, not a “B”)

Reid and the rest who are going after Rush don’t have the troops’ interest in mind. Just like the phony soldiers Rush was criticizing, the Democrats are phony critics, trying to take one of Rush’s comments out of context, distort it and try to discredit him with it.

But like their tries at Limbaugh in every election year since his show went national, this one will fail, too.

Limbaugh has traveled to Afghanistan to visit the troops and has supported President Bush’s objectives and the military mission in Iraq all along. He has said, “I’ll be damned if I believe that the country wants to lose and wants the military defunded and dragged out of there in humiliation -- and that’s what the defeat would be.”

The GOP is standing behind Limbaugh proposing a resolution that commends him for his support, having “consistently used his broadcast time to praise American troops and support them during their ongoing efforts to secure peace in a troubled world…” The Dems will vote against this one just like they voted against the condemnation of the MoveOn.org ad. They’ll always stick up for the MoveOn.org crowd, but never for the troops.

These are the only Democrats who have not condemned Rush:

Evan Bayh
Jeff Bingaman
Maria Cantwell
Russ Feingold
Tim Johnson
Herb Kohl
Joe Lieberman
Claire McCaskill
Ben Nelson
Mark Pryor



Ericka Andersen.

 

[ret_marine2003]

These are some of the only real Democrats left:

Evan Bayh
Jeff Bingaman
Maria Cantwell
Russ Feingold
Tim Johnson
Herb Kohl
Joe Lieberman
Claire McCaskill
Ben Nelson
Mark Pryor

The rest are leftist who have taken the proud traditions that founded their party and traded them for political contributions and blood money.

 

[DirtyThirty]

What Rush got wrong

Paul Mulshine

http://www.nj.com/columns/ledger/mulshine/index.ssf?/base/columns-0/1191731189155570.xml&coll=1


Sunday, October 07, 2007

The Democrats are all worked up about Rush Limbaugh's remark about "phony soldiers" who oppose the Iraq War.

They miss the point. Limbaugh's attack was not di rected at Democrats. It was directed at Republicans.

This became obvious when I listened to the clip that started the controversy. The incident began when Limbaugh received a call from a guy who identified himself as "Mike from Chicago." Mike said he was a Republican and a former soldier who wanted to pull American troops out of Iraq. Mike said that in this regard he had the same views as many other Republicans.

"Well, who are these Republicans?" Limbaugh asked. "I can think of Chuck Hagel, and I can think of Gordon Smith, two Republican senators. Who are the Republicans in the antiwar movement?"

Hmm. We can start with Pat Buchanan, who predicted with amazing accuracy before the war began that American troops would still be bogged down in Iraq four years later. Then there's William F. Buckley, who has termed the war "a failure." Then there was the approximately 50 percent of the audience at the recent GOP presidential debate in New Hampshire who applauded candidate Ron Paul's call for a pullout from Iraq.

Limbaugh, who is a politics junkie, couldn't have missed that moment, though he might have missed that recent report out of the Center for Responsive Politics, which monitors campaign contributions. That report stated that Paul received more contributions from members of the military than any other GOP candidate. That's a clear indication that something's up, said Massie Ritsch, a spokesman for the center.

"I can't think of any major indi cator where Ron Paul is one of the top recipients," said Ritsch. "So that seems to indicate there's something appealing about him to people serving in the military."

What's appealing is his call for the Republican Party to return to its traditional position as regards the military. And that position is that the military should be used to fight wars and not to engage in social experiments. This position is hardly unique to Paul. George W. Bush announced his opposition to nation-building over and over again in his 2000 campaign. And a few years before that, Limbaugh made the exact same point in his opposi tion to Bill Clinton's nation-building exercises in the Balkans.

And it's a good thing Limbaugh wasn't on the air back in 1965 when Richard Nixon said of Vietnam, "We are losing the war" and in 1968 when Nixon said, "The war must be ended." He'd have called Nixon a commie.

If he even knows what a commie is. Both Limbaugh and his listeners would be shocked if they looked into the ideological roots of the movement that has us bogged down in Iraq. The thought of such neoconservative deep thinkers as Irving Kristol and Norman Podhoretz is rooted in the left, the far left -- way, way, way out there past Bill and Hillary. In fact Podhoretz, who is foreign-policy adviser to Rudy Giuliani, set a 21st-century standard for left-wing looniness when he said of the Iraq War in a recent debate with Buckley, "It couldn't have gone better."

It's going so well, at least in the eyes of the neocons, that we need to take on Iran and then perhaps Syria. So it's no mystery why traditional conservatism is coming back into fashion among the military. At least it's no mystery to traditional conservative George Will.

"Ron Paul says to a lot of people eager to hear this message, 'You can be antiwar and be a conservative,'" Will said the other day in an ABC news piece on Paul's amazing fund-raising success. "In fact, he says, 'If you are a real small-government conservative you have to be anti-war.'"

It is the pro-war types like Limbaugh, I would submit, who are the real phonies here. Consider this quote from that radio clip:

"I don't know a single Republican or conservative, Mike, who wants to pull out of Iraq in defeat."

This is a curious formulation. The United States military has accomplished everything it set out to do in Iraq. Depose Saddam Hussein? Check. Eliminate any weapons that could threaten America? Check. Enable free elections? Check.

A more complete victory could not be imagined. Yet Limbaugh and the neoconservatives characterize the withdrawal of the victorious troops as a defeat.

Now that would make a fitting topic for debate. If this is a defeat, just what would the neocons consider a victory? I recommend Republicans get started on that one right away.

But as for Limbaugh's comment about "phony soldiers," it should be taken in the same spirit as his endorsement the other day of a homeopathic remedy that is guaranteed to cure the common cold.

 

[MauserboyM48]

Hmm. We can start with Pat Buchanan, who predicted with amazing accuracy before the war began that American troops would still be bogged down in Iraq four years later. Then there's William F. Buckley, who has termed the war "a failure." Then there was the approximately 50 percent of the audience at the recent GOP presidential debate in New Hampshire who applauded candidate Ron Paul's call for a pullout from Iraq.

Hasn't George Will been against the Iraq War? Oh wait I shouldn't mention anymore, other wise Republicans will return to their roots.

 

[ret_marine2003]

LOL

 

[John Sukey In Memoriam]

Anything Pat Buchanan has to say is drivel. AND just WHAT has this to do with the phony who falsified his service record and claimed he was wounded in action when he never graduated basic training???

 

[jjk308 In Memoriam RIP]

“I think the Iranians are going to be at war this year ... either with us or the Israelis. And the United States could be at war with Syria.”

—Pat Buchanan,December 30, 2005

"Conservative votes, liberal victories: Why the right has failed"

Title of book by Patrick Buchanan - written in 1975, 5 years before the election of Ronald Reagan.

Infallible - NOT!