|
|
October 2, 2007No “Phoney” Solider: Gang Member to Navy Cross winnerA very interesting column written by Marco Martinez, a former gang member and a Marine who helped bring down Saddam. His biographical book is Hard Corps: From Gangster to Marine Hero, and here he writes about what he saw in Iraq, and why he supports the war:
You’ll want to read the whole thing. People seem to have very short memories. These are the reasons we went to war, and based on the intelligence we had at the time, those reasons were valid. Based on what our soldiers found there, they’re still valid. And if anyone wants to see a Mandela arise from the Iraqi people, we’ll have to give them a chance to form one…because President Bush was quite right - Saddam killed any potential Mandelas. People who have been subjugated for nearly 40 years, terrorized and tyrannized, people who have seen displays of courage met with the gun and the rape room, need some time to trust. That’s happening. Something else is happening that is very troubling. I’m not a Rush Limbaugh fan; we disagree on much, but this nonsense coming from the left and from members of the U.S. Senate is absurd, intellectually dishonest and of a piece with the intelligence-insulting, idiotic narrative promoted by some, that Bush “actually said Saddam had killed Nelson Mandela.” Of COURSE Bush said no such thing. Of COURSE Limbaugh did not insult the troops (transcript here). Both men were less articulate than what one could hope for, but their meanings were not that unclear, and once upon a time people didn’t have to be so very careful with every word they spoke for fear that any misspoken word might be used against them. I recall when Michael Dukakis was running for president (I was a Democrat then) - someone in the opposing campaign misspoke - I don’t remember the details but I remember Dukakis’ response. Asked by the press what he thought of the remark in question, Dukakis responded, [paraphrased] “I don’t think it’s a big deal; we all misspeak sometimes. Sometimes we say one thing and mean something else. I think we should let it go.” I thought, then, that he was correct and had made a classy response meant to keep focus on issues rather than foibles, and I was proud of him and proud to be a Democrat. The “politics of personal destruction” did not seem to exist back then. The world has changed a vast deal, hasn’t it? Imagine our current political leadership saying anything that generous. President Bush would do it; he never returns in kind and certainly knows what it’s like to misspeak. Can you think of any other pol who’d do it? Maybe Joe Lieberman. Maybe. Whether you like President Bush or not, whether you like Rush Limbaugh or not, you have to get a little concerned when members of the press take remarks vastly out of context and actually have the nerve to pretend that context is irrelevant. We’re entering not merely a season of staggering inauthenticity, this is now becoming a season of shame. Or of people having no shame at all. Our soldiers fight and die to protect us from our enemies, insure freedom of speech and the dignity of others halfway around the world…our Senators and Mediafolk seem content to throw it away with both hands, in pursuit of power and dominance. Politicians who will stoop to this sort of dishonest character assassination - and the press that will not call them on it - they’re not only silencing others, they silence themselves. By adhering so strictly to the “damn the truth, just scorch the earth and destroy political enemies to ease the way for the party” script…they are effectively stealing from themselves their own free speech, and their right to individuality, and to dissent. They feed the monster of “party loyalty” and “conformity” that in the end completely devours their own liberty. The very people who say they decry the “waste” of soldier’s lives in Iraq do themselves “waste” every noble military sacrifice, by further eroding free speech, the free exchange of ideas, here in America. Here’s what troubles me. People on the left whom I long-admired, people like Russert, people like Fineman…why do they never, never speak up when a narrative veers off into blatant dishonesty? When did it become the habit of the more credible folks in the press to just duck their heads and ignore distortions made by their own industry associates? What happened to people of character being able to correct their own, once in a while, of being able to say, “wait, that’s silly; President Bush was speaking in metaphor. Wait, that’s not right, you’re taking Limbaugh out of context.” Where is the journalist who loves his profession or the Senator who loves democracy enough to want to protect credibility, enough to say, “ummm…no…I’m sorry but that’s a smear too far…” where is our Lord de l’Isle and Dudley? From Leo Rosten’s out-of-print People I Have Loved, Known or Admired
Where are his journalistic and political counterparts in 21st century America? Jules Crittenden and Don Surber both point out that in going after Limbaugh’s inarticulate flub, they’ve admitted we’re in Iraq for a noble reason:
Amen, Sen. Reid. Let none of us, on any side of the political spectrum, throw away those very freedoms in an effort to silence opposition. http://theanchoressonline.com/2007/10/02/from-gang-member-to-navy-cross-winner/trackback/ 11 Responses to “No “Phoney” Solider: Gang Member to Navy Cross winner” |
October 2nd, 2007 at 11:51 am
[...] No “Phoney” Solider: Gang Member to Navy Cross winner [...]
October 2nd, 2007 at 1:58 pm
I am not a Rush fan either, but this stuff is just silliness.
I am not a liberal like Juan Williams either, but I will say one thing for Juan, he will speak up.
October 2nd, 2007 at 2:05 pm
This is the weirdest thing. Rush Limbaugh used the term “phony soldier” to refer to someone who claimed to be a soldier involved in atrocities committed by U.S. soldiers in Iraq. So how does “phony soldier” apply to all soldiers?
October 2nd, 2007 at 6:23 pm
Jean: It doesn’t. Welcome to the world of out-of-context quoting. Probably been going on for decades, but internet access to transcripts makes it more obvious if you look.
October 2nd, 2007 at 11:13 pm
Thank you again, Ma’am.
I think I’ve mentioned this before, but you help me believe that not everyone on the web is nuts!
October 3rd, 2007 at 2:34 am
Here’s the entire exchange in context. Color me biased, but when I read it i don’t think Rush or the Caller was talking about specific soldiers. I think Rush misspoke and labeled every soldier whose personal opinion about the fight in Iraq differs from his is a “phony soldier.”
RUSH: There’s a lot more than that that they don’t understand. The next guy that calls here I’m going to ask them, “What is the imperative of pulling out? What’s in it for the United States to pull out?” I don’t think they have an answer for that other than, “When’s he going to bring the troops home? Keep the troops safe,” whatever.
CALLER: Yeah.
RUSH: It’s not possible intellectually to follow these people.
CALLER: No, it’s not. And what’s really funny is they never talk to real soldiers. They pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and spout to the media.
RUSH: The phony soldiers.
CALLER: Phony soldiers. If you talk to any real soldier and they’re proud to serve, they want to be over in Iraq, they understand their sacrifice and they’re willing to sacrifice for the country.
RUSH: They joined to be in Iraq.
CALLER: A lot of people.
RUSH: You know where you’re going these days, the last four years, if you sign up. The odds are you’re going there or Afghanistan, or somewhere.
CALLER: Exactly, sir. My other comment, my original comment, was a retort to Jill about the fact we didn’t find any weapons of mass destruction. Actually, we have found weapons of mass destruction in chemical agents that terrorists have been using against us for a while now. I’ve done two tours in Iraq, I just got back in June, and there are many instances of insurgents not knowing what they’re using in their IEDs. They’re using mustard artillery rounds, VX artillery rounds in their IEDs. Because they didn’t know what they were using, they didn’t do it right, and so it didn’t really hurt anybody. But those munitions are over there. It’s a huge desert. If they bury it somewhere, we’re never going to find it.
RUSH: Well, that’s a moot point for me right now.
CALLER: Right.
RUSH: The weapons of mass destruction.
Rush said something unbelievably partisan, and normally no one would be amazed by it. But Rush and other conservatives have spent the last month shouting down curses on Move-on.org for saying something remarkably similar. Live by the Gotcha! Die by the Gotcha!
October 3rd, 2007 at 5:28 am
Right-Of-Center Bloggers Select Their Favorite People On The Right (2007 Edition)…
Right Wing News emailed more than 225 right-of-center bloggers and asked them to send us a list of whom they considered to be their “Favorite People On The Right.” Representatives from the following 50 blogs responded… Likelihood of Success Townhal…
October 3rd, 2007 at 8:25 am
I am no fan of the Rush Limbaugh show or a follower of his particular idea of conservative philosophy. Frankly, I find his worldview downright dangerous. I am therefore terribly irked when the drive-by media (as Rush aptly calls it) and politicians manipulate the meaning of Limbaugh’s words to create a fiction to counter and critique. This abuse of language is absurd, illogical, disingenuous, and distracting.
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:03 am
Unbeliever - good post. As you say, Rush misspoke, as people do, and yes, he was very partisan. I think your argument is weakened though when you bring up the Moveon.org ad only because Rush clearly was speaking spontaneously and off the cuff, “misspeaking” as you admit. The Moveon ad was not a stupid but spontaneous mistake of speech, it was a planned and calculated defamation. There is a distinction, and one that I think takes credibility away from the whole “live by the ‘gotcha’ thing.” Thanks for jumping in!
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:07 am
The leftwing of the Democratic Party has become a pack of unapologetic BULLIES. They have virtually no respect for the Constitution of the United States of America - a document they have sworn to preserve, protect and defend - but they immediately SHOUT DOWN or silence or intimidate anyone who dares disagree with them. A tee-shirt manufacturer who had the temerity to produce tee-shirts criticizing MoveOn.org was instantly threatened with all manner of legal action. What the heck?! Is this America?
Whatever happened to honest debate? Whatever happened to the country in which I grew up?
And they don’t just bully with their target’s own words, they LIE OUTRIGHT about the reality of what was actually spoken. We are sliding down a slippery slope into totalitarianism at a rate I would have thought impossible.
I still have faith in the good sense of the American people, however. I think, ultimately, this nonsense will be seen clearly for what it is and rejected. But in the meantime, what is the cost to this nation?
October 5th, 2007 at 11:42 am
I’d like to change my ID to my name, Alfred J. Lemire. I’ve also just managed to lose a long riposte to “Unbeliever.” This writer differs with Rush on some issues; he’s not well-educated and does not have a supple policy mind. But he never said what Media Matters and Unbeliever claim.
This former newspaper reporter was directed to the relevant Media Matters URL by someone who shares its view on “phony soldiers.” An MM intern provided the pertinent transcript. It did not support, not even in the slightest, the intern’s conclusion that “phony soldiers” referred to military opponents of U.S. military policy in Iraq. The intern boldfaced the area where “phony soldiers” was said. It is not clear, however, whom Rush was talking about when he said “phony soldiers.”
Rush was talking to a caller. He chose to clarify and amplify on what he was thinking about “phony soldiers” later on, by talking about someone allegedly named Jesse MacBeth. (I doubt that surname,) MacBeth had falsely alleged soldierly atrocities while falsely claiming Iraq service.
A few news organizations, especially MsNBC, carried the Media Matters claim as though true. One doubts they tried to discover whether the actual words supported the conclusion. I believe that CNN and the NBC TODAY show also parroted the Media Matters line.
Several senators and representatives in Congress denounced what Rush had not said. I believe 41 Democratic senators tried to pressure Rush’s syndicator. I have seen an ad from a serviceman protesting what Rush did not say.
Here is a classic straw man fallacy. People construct what they claim to be what someone else said. People in the news business accept that construction as true. Denunciations, promotions, and at least one ad follow.
Many on the left, including Democratic politicians, likely are still smarting over the hurt caused them by the moveon.org ad in the New York Time about “General Betray Us.” Many politicians did not dissociate themselves from it, perhaps out of fear of moveon.org and others on the left. Here’s a chance to strike back and to give our side badly needed cred re: the troops! Too bad they latched onto a thoroughly unsupported allegation.
One further surmises that many on the left desperately want to get Rush. One reads and hears of him spreading hate, which is false. He can rant, but his rhetoric is notably missing in hate-inspiring words. If he’s fomenting hate, what is it that MoDo and Bob Herbert, and a ton of other people on the left do? People not only want to weaken Rush, they’d prefer to shut him up, and likely other conservative radio talkers. While conservative Web sites are gaining some power, and a few conservative print publications exist, right now, talk radio provides a conservative perspective that millions hear.
Time was when The New York Times, The Washington Post, the AP and other news services that lean left provided the news. Interpreted it, too. And ABC, CBS, and NBC staffers reading the Times and getting the news for the day. No backtalk. No Rush. No Laura. No Bill. Ah, those were the days.
I have omitted transcript detail included in my first posting here and included in several postings at powerlineblog.com and newsbusters.org. I have, however, included surmises omitted from those posts, which were mostly concerned with reporting what happened. This will be an interesting year; we live in an interesting time. And I know of the Chinese saying . . .