Defending Rush
Posted by Lance on 28 Sep 2007 at 8:17 pm | Tagged as: Military Matters, Media, Lance's Page, Domestic Politics
You won’t find me rushing to the barricades to defend Rush Limbaugh very often. We have a very different view of the world, politics, and style (though he did use a post of mine on David Galula as background for a radio segment, and kindly linked.) However, the latest attack on him shows what a silly political mess we have become. From TPM:
As we reported earlier today over at The Horse’s Mouth, Rush Limbaugh said on his radio show that soldiers who favor U.S. withdrawal from Iraq are “phony soldiers.”
The assertion — reminiscent of MoveOn’s attack on Petraeus, which generated enormous controversy when Republicans attacked the group — has the potential to be equally explosive, since some troops who are currently fighting in Iraq, and a handful who have died there, have questioned the war in the media.
Now Dems are stepping forward to blast his remark.
They sure are, and the left blogosphere is cheering them on. Now Rush says some things people can get up in arms about, but at minimum it should matter whether he said what is being claimed. Here is the transcript:
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.
Whatever you think of that exchange, the description of soldiers which “come up out of the blue” and Rush’s use of the word “the” before phony soldiers implies he is speaking of a particular group. We all know who he is talking about, but somehow that is being purposely obscured. Who is he talking about? Why, the Jesse Macbeth’s and Scott Beauchamp’s of the world, a string of fabulists who have lied about, or completely made up stories about their service. One might forgive a bit of careless reading by people desperate to find something to smear their opponents, but no such excuse works at this point. Why? Because Rush later made it clear what he meant for those who somehow managed to miss his point:
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. Now, he was a “corporal.” I say in quotes. Twenty-three years old. What made Jesse Macbeth a hero to the anti-war crowd wasn’t his Purple Heart; it wasn’t his being affiliated with post-traumatic stress disorder from tours in Afghanistan and Iraq. No. What made Jesse Macbeth, Army Ranger, a hero to the left was his courage, in their view, off the battlefield, without regard to consequences. He told the world the abuses he had witnessed in Iraq, American soldiers killing unarmed civilians, hundreds of men, women, even children. In one gruesome account, translated into Arabic and spread widely across the Internet, Army Ranger Jesse Macbeth describes the horrors this way: “We would burn their bodies. We would hang their bodies from the rafters in the mosque.” Now, recently, Jesse Macbeth, poster boy for the anti-war left, had his day in court. And you know what? He was sentenced to five months in jail and three years probation for falsifying a Department of Veterans Affairs claim and his Army discharge record. He was in the Army. Jesse Macbeth was in the Army, folks, briefly. Forty-four days before he washed out of boot camp. Jesse Macbeth isn’t an Army Ranger, never was. He isn’t a corporal, never was. He never won the Purple Heart, and he was never in combat to witness the horrors he claimed to have seen.
You may not like the messenger, but his point is valid. Phony soldiers and fabulists have repeatedly been lauded by the anti war left for “speaking truth to power.” Events which we can know little about are built up and turned into evidence against our military before any real evidence comes to light. Even when the events turn out to reflect negatively, the burning need to convict bespeaks a disregard for the truth and a desire to see our conduct as evil that frankly does call into question what people’s priorities are. Speaking that truth is quite important, and Rush deserves no criticism for pointing out its most egregious manifestation.
Update: Capt. Ed has his own thoughts. Rick Moran doesn’t buy it. I have a great deal of respect for Rick, and there is no doubt whose views I agree with more when it comes to a Rick or Rush, but I ask him what “they never talk to real soldiers” or “out of the blue” and “the phony soldiers” was referring to? Rush made it clear later, but quite clearly they are saying they are talking about those who are not real soldiers. Not metaphorically, but actual fakers in that passage. As for this point:
If he wanted to clarify his point he could have done so immediately.
It is a radio show. It isn’t scripted. Sorry, too high a bar. The language was clear to me, and I am personally (a long standing theme of this blog) of the mind that just because something can be interpreted one way, if just as good (and in this case one that fits the literal text better) an explanation for the comment can be made and the author of the comment says that was what was meant, then that is the end of it in all but the most extraordinary cases. Otherwise people are in a no win situation.
If they can’t clarify something with some sense that the clarification will be accepted given that the plain reading of the text supports them, then what they mean is fully in the hands of those who wish to discredit them. If something can be interpreted in an embarrassing manner then they have no defense, they are just backtracking. Once again, the caller said literally, “they never talk to real soldiers.” He never says all anti war soldiers are not real soldiers. They “come out of the blue” as in they have no real history. Rush then confirms his remark by saying they are speaking of “the phony soldiers.” Literalism fits, and nowhere does a remark along the lines of “all anti-war soldiers are phony soldiers” appear.
Maybe in Rush’s heart of hearts he meant that, but that isn’t what he actually said, and he is adamant that is not what he meant. Reading between the lines may be necessary at times, but if a person didn’t mean what is being claimed what is his recourse if someone’s interpretation becomes dispositive despite the plain text and the adamant denials of its author? I have no idea, and frankly I don’t want to be held to that standard. I have been accused too many times of saying something I didn’t because someone “knew” what I meant. It is bad enough when I put something in a way that the plain text was unclear, it is beyond infuriating when it goes directly against the plain meaning of my words.
10 Responses to “Defending Rush”
Trackback URI | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed
Just because you’re capable of coming up with a logical alternative meaning to Rush’s statement, does that make it likely to be true?
Scott Beauchamp was a real soldier. So Rush’s vast database of ‘fake solider’ incidents to fuel this courageous outrage consists of.. what? One mental headcase from several years ago?
Specifically what about Rush SOP makes you think he wasn’t calling them what the plain language would suggest? Why would he avoid it? You think he actually respects the service of anti-war soldiers?
If Rush had called anti-war soldiers, “little faggots”, would you propose the theory that he was calling them crude ingots of metal?
Perhaps all the supposed outrage from the liberals is a matter of projection…
Wouldn’t that go just as well for the leap of logic being performed by Media Matters?
So when ABC referred to “phony heroes” they were channeling Rush … before Rush ever said anything?
Can you point to the place in the transcript where Rush referred to “anti-war soldiers” at all?
Except both before and afterward he was discussing Jesse Macbeth. Nor is Macbeth the only one. There have been many. The plain language suggests what I said, not you, by the way. He said phony soldiers, not dishonorable soldiers. In context it is clear who he was speaking of. Finally he said what he said. He has told us what he meant. You can believe otherwise all you want, but even if that is what he meant at the time, he now says he doesn’t. Unlike people such as MoveOn who did, and still claim, to mean what they said and how we read it. No comparison.
Rush never called anti-war soldiers anything. He might at some other time, we’ll see. His caller said that the anti war groups never talk to real soldiers to press their case. Now never is untrue, but I think we can all agree that it is a talk show, and it is being used colloquially. Rush could have qualified it for the caller, but it is a talk show where over categorical statements are the norm, and Rush hardly minds such overstatement anyway. Which is a fair criticism. There are lots of fair criticism’s of Rush. This just isn’t one of them.
I really have to wonder if all their efforts are misplaced.
Do they really believe Ditto-heads are going to care what liberal/leftist/democratic/progressives are going to say about Rush? Who else listens, and cares about what Rush says?
Malkin has this to say:
She details some of the “phony soldiers” from the past several years. Either those who served and made up stuff, or those that never served and made up stuff.
Jimmy Massey, Jesse MacBeth, Micah Wright, Josh Lansdale, and Amorita Randall are the names mentioned.
Glenn has the best take on it…
Uh, it’s your side that’s coming up with the alternate meaning.
It’s more than one. And Beauchamp was still a fake, in that his story was a lie. IIRC, Mcbeth was a “real” soldier too, just not what he claimed.
The bigger point, however, is how much press these fakes get. If you read the Rush transcripts, they are talking about the press talking to fakes, and Rush is dead on on that point.
Plain language doesn’t support you.
You might want to base your argument on what Rush said, rather than what you imagine he believes.
The symmetry is interesting. I’m thinking forged CBS memos vs Swiftboat vets, Rush vs MoveOn, etc. There is a superficial symmetry, but significant fundamental differences.
This place is even more depressing than usual, because - to give you guys credit - sometimes you’re right about factual details and I’m not. So when you said, “why don’t you look at the transcript”, I actually went back and looked, actually contemplating the idea that Rush’s show wasn’t in fact generally smearing any soldier who opposes the war.
And, of course, he was, in a plain reading. So why you made me wade through the filth is beyond me.
Lance:
Rush never called anti-war soldiers anything.
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.
So. What do we have here? We have a caller who says that “anti war folks never talk to real soldiers”. They talk to… soldiers who talk to the media… who aren’t real soldiers. A popular delusion. Thus, the caller has already set the frame: “real soldiers” vs. “anti-war soliders on TV”.
Of course, the vast majority of the antiwar soldiers on TV are, in fact, real soliders: like the 10 Iraq veterans who ran for Congress as Democrats.
And what does Rush do? He says, “The Phony Soldiers”. You really think that was changing the subject to Jesse Macbeth? really? That’s plain-language bullsh*t. That’s not how one phrases the changing of a subject.
I’m madder about the obvious sublimation of logic to reflexive anti-anti-left dogma than I was when you started having me examine the evidence. Great work.
IT’S NOT A “SMEAR” — it’s better understood as “battlespace preparation.” And the target is the traditional media; the intent is to limit the ability of people like Limbaugh or O’Reilly to drive stories in the mainstream news as we get closer to the election. Expect more of this, with more targets.
There’s almost certainly an element of truth to this. So what was the anti-Move-On campaign? Morally purist outrage expressing shock and a betrayal of values at the very idea of calling the credibility of a general into question with not nice language?
Or was it battlespace preparation?
Keith?
An incredibly cynical way of thinking that leads to the dogmatic inability to consider whatever genuine intellectual exchange of idea might otherwise be occuring within the communication, isn’t it? If all communication is war, then why are we sharing a country? F*ck that.
Perhaps–I wouldn’t know. I haven’t seen these antiwar Iraq veterans on tv.
The ones you are are like Macbeth and the other fakes.
No, I think the subject was Macbeth and the other phony soldiers, even before Rush said “phony”. You know, the phony soldiers the media and antiwar left like to quote.
No, that is you. The entire show was in reference to the phony soldiers segment he had already done. About soldiers who come out of the blue. The word phony means phony, not people one disagrees with.
True, but if you are going to get caught up in stuff like that on a call in show, well sorry, that is ridiculous. People use terms like never, when they mean too often all the time. It is hyperbole. Here when I see hyperbole that might obscure an issue I call it. Poor Joshua has to deal with me picking those nits on a regular basis. I don’t however claim the hyperbole is his real view when he or anyone else agrees. But this is a blog where we are trying to get beyond such stuff. It isn’t an unscripted call in show. I am no fan of Rush, but in fairness to him it would be a real boring show if he spent the whole time making everybody qualify everything they say in such a literal manner. I am sure many people find our blog boring because I do it so damn much. I ain’t trying to make a living at it. His show is entertainment. They throw red meat, including erasing all the grey areas and exaggerating their opponents views. Not my thing, but whatever the caller meant Rush said phony which has a specific meaning. He had a story preceding this called “phony soldiers.” His listeners knew exactly what he was talking about, that story.
No, it wasn’t changing the subject, that was the subject. “phony soldiers” was the title of the show they had done the morning before. At best you can say it was ambiguous in isolation. In context it isn’t, but fine. He then later made it clear what he meant. Maybe he is lying, but it is exactly what he had been talking about earlier, and later. So frankly, honest people have to allow him to say what his words meant given all the evidence that shows it is a reasonable and legitimate possibility. There is zero evidence that he has ever said anything along the lines of all soldiers who oppose the war in Iraq are phony. Media Matters certainly would have alerted us to such a statement in the past had it been uttered. There is evidence that he has used the term phony soldiers to refer to fabulists such as Macbeth, Beauchamp and Micah Wright. So even if one grants that it was ambiguous, further investigation shows not one scintilla of evidence that that was what he meant and plenty that shows what he means by the term phony soldiers.