Dean's World

1. I don't think that Aziz was trying to state that 7 soldiers against the war expresses the consensus of over a 100k force. And they do present a relevant, high profile counterpoint to the idea that all "real" soldiers must believe that the policy will work.

2. There are indeed soldiers who believe in withdrawal in Iraq, though I would not by any means call them the majority. I will say that what often separates many of them from Aziz is the fact that they fully realize the slaughter that such a withdrawal would presage, but they just don't give a **** at this point.

3. It is not 100% clear from the clip that Limbaugh is referring to soldiers who don't want to continue the Iraq War as "phony soldiers," (maybe it's 70% certain) or if he is referring to the blog, radio, etc. practice of people calling up pretending to be something to emphasize their point. This is common on blogs where someone claims to be "a lifelong republican" before calling Bush "the chimperor" and other such DKos talking points. That said, it's not an out of this world interpretation of Limbaugh's comments. And the caller in question seemed perfectly rational.

4. Limbaugh is naive and/or calculating, as there exists a diversity of opinion in the military, though just about everyone does their job, regardless.

5. Media Matters knowingly publishes lies (see Bill O'Reilly flap, where his quotes were completely ripped out of context and he actually meant the opposite of what MM claimed). Regardless of whether they are correct 6 times out of 10, I would not use them to cite a damn thing. Ever.

You'd probably have to listen to the next 3 minutes of audio to confirm their premise.

I listen to Limbaugh on and off again, not regularly by any stretch, and if asked I'm sure he'd say in any war it wouldn't be a surprise to find soldiers that didn't want to be there.

But listening to Rush, on the whole, you can't help but come away with the opinion that he cares about the troops, and believes that the majority of them want to see this thing through.

For as much air time Rush spends on this topic, talking to as many people he does about it, and taking into consideration his... animated nature, I'm not surprised you could find an unflattering quote or two from him. He puts out so much it's not surprising at all.

Couple this with the fact that the MSM has trotted out plenty of real phony soldiers, people that straight up lie about what they experienced in Iraq, or, worse still, never actially served at all, and it's easy to see why one might feel real soldiers want to stay and get the job done.

Congrats, Aziz. You found a quote from Rush to backup your dislike of the man. All you needed to do was ignore everything else the man had to say about the topic for years, and the numerious false-soldiers (and I throw the men and women that lied about what they did in Iraq in that catagory) the MSM put up as proof the common soldier didn't want to get the job done.

You sure you'd rather not work as a reporter? Ignoring as much fact as you do would seem to make the job fairly simple. And I hear it pays well when you work like that too.

Bill, I heard the audio, and the entire context makes it pretty clear that Limbaugh believes that no "genuine" soldier coudl possibly be for withdrawal.

I think that's reasonable. But I've heard so many radio pieces gone over so many times, and the meaning has been unclear, that I tend to suspect all "gotcha!" campaigns like this, especially from Media Matters.

I will concede outright that Limbaugh was flummoxed by the first caller possibly being a soldier and being for withdrawal. Which buttresses your point, whether or not he specifically suspected the caller of being a fraud or was making the larger point that all soldiers who find Iraq unwinnable are frauds.

Without opining on the issue at hand, I'd just like to post a quick note of thanks to those who serve (and have served) faithfully, despite personally disagreeing with those who command them. For these two soldiers in particular: thank you for serving.

Kevin,

I just mean it as an acknowledgement that it's harder to serve when you disagree with your orders (as being unwise or counter-productive, rather than illegal or immoral). This takes absolutely nothing away from those who do agree with their commanders, but merely (in my view) reflects well on those who are a "loyal opposition."

Aziz, I was listening to Rush Limbaugh on Wednesday and what you have done in this post is among the most dishonest things I have yet seen. It makes sense since you are using Media Matters as your source. If you read the entire transcript and have listened to Rush rather than rely upon Goebbels-like propagandists, you would see that the "phony soldier" reference was made in the context of a discussion of people like Jesse Macbeth. As you may remember, Mr. Macbeth was the wash-out soldier that claimed to have witnessed and participated in atrocities in Iraq even though he was never there. Rush had been talking about Mr. Macbeth for a few days in light of the fact that he has recently faced some sort of criminal proceeding.

Besides taking the Rush Limbaugh statement out of context, your post makes it seem as if Rush was calling the New York Times Op-ed writers "phony soldiers". This is so brutally dishonest. Rush made NO REFERENCE WHATSOEVER to those soldiers.

Your post is B.S. and you should know it. What follows is a relevant portion of the real transcript, not Media Matters hack job.

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. We gotta get beyond that. We're there. We all know they were there, and Mahmoud even admitted it in one of his speeches here talking about Saddam using the poison mustard gas or whatever it is on his own people. But that's moot. What's more important is all this is taking place now in the midst of the surge working, and all of these anti-war Democrats are getting even more hell-bent on pulling out of there, which means that success on the part of you and your colleagues over there is a great threat to them. It's frustrating and maddening, and why they must be kept in the minority. I want to thank you, Mike, for calling. I appreciate it very much.

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 probably haven't even heard about this. And, if you have, you haven't heard much about it. This doesn't fit the narrative and the template in the Drive-By Media and the Democrat Party as to who is a genuine war hero. Don't look for any retractions, by the way. Not from the anti-war left, the anti-military Drive-By Media, or the Arabic websites that spread Jesse Macbeth's lies about our troops, because the truth for the left is fiction that serves their purpose. They have to lie about such atrocities because they can't find any that fit the template of the way they see the US military. In other words, for the American anti-war left, the greatest inconvenience they face is the truth.

Considering the respective proclivities of both Rush Limbaugh and Media Matters, I find myself endeavoring not to comment on either, lest I find myself saying something exceedingly unkind.

--|PW|--

Aziz -

This is why I voiced skepticism in my initial comment:

It makes sense since you are using Media Matters as your source. If you read the entire transcript and have listened to Rush rather than rely upon Goebbels-like propagandists, you would see that the "phony soldier" reference was made in the context of a discussion of people like Jesse Macbeth. As you may remember, Mr. Macbeth was the wash-out soldier that claimed to have witnessed and participated in atrocities in Iraq even though he was never there. Rush had been talking about Mr. Macbeth for a few days in light of the fact that he has recently faced some sort of criminal proceeding.

He was indeed talking about phony soldiers. That said, him bringing it up after a caller disgreed with him, and his flummoxed disbelief at the caller's opinion on the war, says something.

You've got to be extra skeptical with media matters, and radio gotchas in general. Take this in the context that I'm not a fan of Limbaugh.

So, to try and create "context" for the part where Limbaugh actually explicitly suggests that any soldier who disagrees with the mission in Iraq is a phony, we go back to way earlier in the program and try to invoke Jesse Macbeth? That there's some fine mindreadin'. I think the context of Limbaghs remarks is better described by the *immediately preceding* audio to the part I quoted, in which Limbaugh makes his equation clear - that zero Republicans - zero - disagree with the war.

Yes, being for and against withdrawal is apparently the litmus test for party affiliation! Now, I know we live in a polarized nation, but that very suggestion, that not a single person who is a Republican (ie, a "real" Republican") is against the war, is so massively Orwellian that it should boggle the mind. Except that this is Rush Limbaugh, who while living in Houston I listened to for 9 years from 1998 to 2007, one hour every weekday on the way home from work or via podcast, until I moved to Wisconsin this past June. So actually it isn't Orwellian at all, it's just typical Rush, who is trying to create a new conventional wisdom out of sheer force of will as he always does - because he can.

I know Limbaugh well, and I will even admit that most of the time, the man is a charmer, and entertaining, and even right about the direction he aims his critique. But about 40% of the time, he veers off into absolutely insanity - and people follow him right along. I guarantee you that a lot of the good, honest men and women I lived and worked alongside with in Houston, who I honorably disagreed with on pretty much everything except whether to stay in Iraq now that we are there, find the idea that any - ANY - soldier who dares disagree with the mission is probably a phone in some way. They certainly don't know about the soldiers op-ed in the NYT, which is very appropriate because (ahem, Scott) highlighting the fact that the opinion of serving military members who do disagree from conventional wisdom and stereotype is critical to fostering the required atmosphere of intellectual and honest debate about an issue, even one as sacred as a war in which your kin (and the kin of some of my closest friends, too) are serving.

So actually it is really, really important to highlight the ways in which reality disagree with Limbaugh's conventional wisdom - issued from on high from the golden EIB tower, designed to win nothing more than opinion and political clout rather than actually make an honest attempt at discussing the extremely important issue of whether the continued cost of blood and sweat and blood and blood in Iraq on our part is the right, honorable and neccessary thing to do (as I continue to believe, despite being "not fit to lick the mud off the boots" or writing the "most dishonest post ever" or whatever else nonsense the spposedly enlightened and filtered erudite commentors at Dean's World like to trot out as they engage in "civil debate" - Orwell smiles).

And that is why when Limbaugh excretes his bile, we shoudl make no excuses for him, but we should slam reality in his face, and say look - there are men and women who are not phony, who are even Republican, who might have a marginally more accurate idea of whats happening in Iraq than Limbaugh does, who still despite the progress in Anbar and the painted schools, have grave misgivings about whether the mission does more good than harm - and then having said their piece, go back to fucking work, and die for their nation. Yeah, that takes BALLS - but it takes more, it takes MIND. And that's something that Limbaugh prefers his audience lack, but which a lot of people who listen to him possess regardless - and the reason I posted this was because I know just how intelligent people who listen to Limbaugh, and believe what he says, are - and those people arent here in this thread it seems, but they are back home, and I've sent them this link, and it won't change their mind, but it will soften their attitude and judgement, which is the prerequisite towards having a real discussion rather than the braying of asses that passes for such around here.

PS, Limbaugh: A lot more ordinary folk think that the Iraq war was a mistake, or not worth continuing, than are registered Republicans on paper. The fault lies with you and your ilk, because rather than make teh honest, principled case for war, you'd rather slime the honor of everyone who strays from teh line. Well, we as a nation will ultimately reap what you have sowed, asshole.

Someday - SOMEDAY - democracy promotion will be rehabilitated as a foreign policy objective for the United States. But not soon enough to prevent another 9-11, I fear.

Weak post, Aziz.

Your are a critic of the Iraq war. That is a fair position. I salute that position.

But, instead, of reading the BEST of your opponents, you seek out and cherry-pick the WORST.

Nobody here cares what Limbaugh is talking about.

On this issue, you should be reading and critiquing Michael Totten, Michael Yon and the 2 Daves here -- not some blow-hard, talk-radio guy.

HankB

Limbaugh actually explicitly suggests that any soldier who disagrees with the mission in Iraq is a phony

You mean like how you explicitly said Odierno either didn't know what he was talking about or was spinning for the WH? Please, go on, oh great defender of our soldiers' honor.

That there's some fine mindreadin'.

It's not mindreading to cite an earlier portion of the program he later makes reference to, it's mere common sense.

Yes, being for and against withdrawal is apparently the litmus test for party affiliation!

I don't know about litmus test, but it is probably the biggest difference between the two parties.

that not a single person who is a Republican (ie, a "real" Republican") is against the war, is so massively Orwellian that it should boggle the mind.

Yes, yes, we can all argue against universalisms and hyperbole. They're trivially easy to knock down.

Frankly, I can't believe I'm even defending Rush. I've heard maybe five minutes of his show in the last five years. But this controversy is a crock.

Also, you keep referring to Orwell in ways that don't make sense. Rush engages in hyperbole? Orwellian! Someone doesn't like your post? Orwell smiles! Free speech by individuals is not Orwellian; that term refers to government sloganism and repression of free speech, the emblems of totalitarianism.

We can mind-read all day about whether Rush was talking about Jesse Macbeth

No, zach, that's not true at all. You can read the rest of the transcript, like someone provided right here in this thread, and see Rush explain exactly who he was talking about.

No mind-reading at all, just reading, and not allowing bias to filter out things we don't want to see, because they conflict with our prejudices.

You know, I'm willing to debate with honest people with differing viewpoints. Lately, there haven't been any.

I once thought Aziz simply saw things differently than I on the Iraq war and other things in general. Now I see the truth.

Aziz is a liar.

This is sickening.

On a related note, I just came in from lunch and I flipped on Rush. Apparently he's being condemned on the floor of Congress by Democrats. What's interesting, according to Rush, he's not been contacted by a single member of COngress or media outlet to get his side of the story or to verify with him what is being reported by Media Matters is what he actually said.

Not one. Not a single one.

How is that right? It's obvious Aziz only needs one source for his marching orders but you'd hope our elected officials would aspire to a higher level of conduct.

But, this stunt by Aziz seals it for me. I can no longer seriously consider anything he has to say from this point forward.

He used one source for his post and when confronted with information that this source lied he, rather than looking into it, continued his course. He now share's the guilt.

Aziz is a liar and, in my opinion, should no longer be a front page contributor.

We all disagee with one another from time to time. Hell, you may think one or more front page posters are complete idiots. I know some people feel that way about me and I'm okay with that. But I cannot ever say anyone has lied or deliberately misrepresented the facts to fit their own bias - until now.

Aziz should have his front page rights stripped until he comes to a point where he can once again be trusted to post honestly.

On this issue, you should be reading and critiquing Michael Totten, Michael Yon and the 2 Daves here -- not some blow-hard, talk-radio guy.

Yep.

They certainly don't know about the soldiers op-ed in the NYT, which is very appropriate because (ahem, Scott) highlighting the fact that the opinion of serving military members who do disagree from conventional wisdom and stereotype is critical to fostering the required atmosphere of intellectual and honest debate about an issue, even one as sacred as a war in which your kin (and the kin of some of my closest friends, too) are serving.

Like I said, Aziz, show me the NYT Oped from soldiers like my stepson supporting our efforts in Iraq. The NYT/LAT/Boston Globe and lesser degree Washington Post have all aired numerous opeds critical of the war there; show me the one from the soldiers supporting it.

The conventional wisdom and stereotype is that these news outlets are biased against the war. They are not "fostering the required atmosphere of intellectual and honest debate about an issue" because if they were they'd be printing pieces supporting the war.

Think they aren't getting any? Ask me for a list.

This is akin to the debate at Columbia over Ahmadhinajad. The university administration stressed how open minded it was by inviting him to speak, yet failed to mention that they've disinvited the head of the Minutemen Project and refused to offer other speakers on the Right the same courtesy.

And you keep on editing your post so that now I'm not sure WTF you are arguing about. Is it Limbaugh 's comments, or are you trying to argue against the War yourself?

John,

I don't think the transcript is as exculpatory as you seem to think. He more seems to be simply changing the subject or moving on in my reading. Sort of "thanks caller. now, speaking of fake soldiers..."

Dave,

Where do Rush or his caller say soldiers think Iraq is "a good idea?"

RUSH: They joined to be in Iraq.

And you keep on editing your post so that now I'm not sure WTF you are arguing about. Is it Limbaugh 's comments, or are you trying to argue against the War yourself?

No kidding! I just got a whiplash injury from the change of subj...er, ummm, update that Aziz provided.

There are people out there claiming these things, and other people who agree with them, because they lack the mental tools and discipline to discern truth.

Dave
Just say their stupid. I know it's politically incorrect, but these people are plain dumb as a bag of blocks. They've got the brains, they're just too lazy to use them.

zach, if that's your interpretation, then I'll know better than to trust your judgement on anything important.

As for Aziz, he seems to have shifted course to turning Dean's World into Dean's Daily Kos.

Dave,
I don't think Aziz is a liar, but I do think he is relying on a faulty dataset and not critically examining the data.

I'm not sure "delusional" is a more charitable view than "liar."

Either way, he's not worth reading anymore.

"Hearing only what you want to hear, and knowing only what you've heard."

My Friend of Misery
Metallica

Just seemed appropriate for some reason.

This is my drive-by comment of the day

John I.,

okay.

Aziz: Looking at the earlier part of that show is part of what the context of later comments is.

Because, you see, people doing shows often refer to earlier parts of the show, since they're doing a show, not making a series of unconnected blog posts.

Also, what does that graph of poll results have to do with anything? (And also, it now shows about 39% "worth it" vs 54% "not"; quite a change for later in the same day, ain't it?)

Limbaugh wasn't claiming anything about the mass of public opinion at the moment, was he? Since he was not, what possible relevance does that poll snapshot have?

(Does the nearly 10% drop in "not worth it" since your snapshot to my looking at the chart just now mean that there are "more genuine Republicans" than earlier today, even if we ignore that Limbaugh wasn't talking about that anyway?)

I cannot suggest any course of action more useful than ceasing the use of Media Matters as your viewpoint filter of choice.

(Last parenthetical: What's not intellectually honest about Limbaugh's question ("Why should we pull — what is the imperative for pulling out? What's in it for the United States to pull out?")?

That might not be an idealistic reason to stay in Iraq, but it sure as heck is an intellectually honest one; thinking it's in America's best interest as a world power to do so, as appears to be Limbaugh's opinion.)

Aziz
Thanks for the links, and glad to hear your taking your opinion "on the road."

So am I off base to believe that the NYT/BG/LAT and WaPo are biased since you found these examples? Fox News often has Bob Beckle, Susan Estrich, and Allan Colmes. So would you believe that it is similarly non-biased?

Just wondering...

I'm dropping off this discussion because honestly, I'm more motivated by what's happening in Burma and similarly, in Darfur.

Just say their stupid.

But they're not, in fact many are quite intelligent. Charles Stross, for instance, is a genius sci-fi writer, yet he argued to me that not only should U.S. troops leave, Bush should be tried for war crimes for invading Iraq.

"Delusional" is a bit unfair, too. They're not claiming pink elephants are roaming the streets, they just aren't processing information properly.

It's very very difficult to overcome the many hidden biases in information as presented and arrive at actual truth on complex issues. It requires accessing contradictory sources regularly, real dedication to intellectual honesty, and an ability to avoid emotional attachment. I'm not sure how often I succeed myself.

Dave,

For that last comment, you are my hero.

Yours,
Wince

"Real men don't eat quiche."

I eat quiche. It's tasty.

Though, it occurs to me now it usually has bacon in it. Which means I shouldn't eat it.

Kevin D. sad now. Thanks Tom.

Though, it occurs to me now it usually has bacon in it. Which means I shouldn't eat it.

I thought you were a Christian. What's wrong with sweet, sweet bacon?

I thought you were a Christian. What's wrong with sweet, sweet bacon?

I am but Christians are supposed to keep kosher too. Yeshua did. The Apostles did. The church of Acts did. Christians, as citizens of the nation of Israel, are supposed to keep the exact same Laws as Jews. Yeshua is the Messiah of Israel and no one else. And if Gentiles want in, they gotta obey the laws of the land. That means kosher. And the Saturday Sabbath. And the festivals.

Now, just you wait for someone to tell me I'm wrong and quote Paul. Just wait. Of course, they completely ignore the fact that Yeshua specifically said He did not come to sweep the Law aside. Indeed, He made it heavier. Why would He do that if He was going to set it aside? They'll also ignore Peter's warnings about Paul's teachings. How they could be easily misunderstood. How so? Because if you don't properly understand Torah you'll think Paul was teaching against it.

Look in the Book of Acts. It was the enemies of Paul that said he was teaching against Torah. Funny how the Christian Church agree with them, huh?

If you'd like to talk more about this feel free to shoot me an e-mail. I'd love to talk about it. Even if you object to what I'm saying. That's fine. I'm just not gonna debate the point on this thread. It's not the place.

I am but Christians are supposed to keep kosher too. Yeshua did. The Apostles did.

Okay, first Jesus was a Jew. As were most of the apostles.

Second, Paul explicitly said gentiles do not have to follow the mosaic law. That is, gentiles were never required to sacrifice at the temple, to eat or not eat anything, etc.

Yeshua is the Messiah of Israel and no one else.

If you mean messiah as the Jews define him, certainly. I am not Jewish, however, he is MY savior, and will be MY King in Heaven. His Sacrifice was for the World, not just national Israel.