Like me, Rush Limbaugh has always been outspoken about his appreciation for our service men and women. 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.If Garrett really wrote this, he has just defended and participated in the sort of character assassination against our skeptical but loyal soldiers he condemned MoveOn.org for using against Gen. Petreaus.
If Garrett really wrote this, Staff Sgt. Yance T. Gray and Sgt. Omar Mora of the 82nd Airborne both are seen by Limbaugh and Garrett as being a "phony soldier". Each was listed as co-authors of "The War As We Saw It", an Op-Ed critical of the Iraq War published back in August. Each died serving our country in Iraq a month later. Garrett's attacking their patriotism and validity of their sacrifice?
If Garrett really wrote this, the hypocrisy of this is of epic proportions. Garrett calls the ad attacking Gen. Petreaus disgusting; The New York Times has a daily circulation of 1.1 million. Garrett defends Rush Limbaugh's comments made to his average daily audience of 12.7 million.
I did read the transcript, here it is again:
I really hope Garrett didn't write that piece. To try and defend Limbaugh's comment as freedom of speech would have been one thing, but to join in on attacking skeptical soldiers is another. I'm as angry about this little clip supposedly written by Garrett as I was about the MoveOn thing and when I heard about the Rush Limbaugh thing.LIMBAUGH: There's a lot more than that that they don't understand. They can't even -- if -- the next guy that calls here, I'm gonna ask him: Why should we pull -- what is the imperative for pulling out? What's in it for the United States to pull out? They can't -- I don't think they have an answer for that other than, "Well, we just gotta bring the troops home."
CALLER 2: Yeah, and, you know what --
LIMBAUGH: "Save the -- keep the troops safe" or whatever. I -- it's not possible, intellectually, to follow these people.
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.
Say it ain't so, Scott. Say it ain't so.
2 comments:
I guess, for Rush and Scott, "support the troops" means supporting only those who happen to agree with you politically. No matter who the hero is, no matter how heroic his/her service, no matter how much the sacrifice for our nation--unless the soldier cheers on Bush and Garrett, and their disastrous adventure in Iraq, to them, that soldier is a phony soldier. With views like these, I just don’t understand how Rush and Scott can sleep at night.
Sam Seder had a caller on last Sunday who was trying to explain that the generals who had turned on the war were "phony soldiers" too and only Petraeus the Great is the One True Soldier.
Post a Comment