Daniel Cody - “Left on the Lake” » Real Soldiers Respond to “Phony Soldiers” Smear Campaign

Oct 02 2007

Real Soldiers Respond to “Phony Soldiers” Smear Campaign

Published by Daniel Cody at 10:48 pm under Politics

From VoteVets.org :

12 Responses to “Real Soldiers Respond to “Phony Soldiers” Smear Campaign”

# Seanon 03 Oct 2007 at 10:31 am

Dan,

Can you explain to me why you chose to put this on your weblog, decrying Rush Limbaugh’s comments, but not moveon.org’s despicable $77,000 ad (of which they got a nice price break from the NY Times)?

I am of the opinion, regardless of what someone says, that every person that serves our country, especially in time of war, deserves my respect. I don’t have to agree with what votevets.org’s people are saying, but they are soldiers and they did fight for our freedoms. I believe that Rush Limbaugh’s comments were stupid, counterproductive and unnecessary, but I also believe that moveon.org’s comments (ad) was equally as stupid, counterproductive, and unnecessary. To post one and not the other…..well, it shows a biased that doesn’t help anybody.
# Daniel Codyon 03 Oct 2007 at 10:56 pm

Hi Sean,

I don’t think you can compare one group calling into question one persons credibility and another person calling into question the service of members of the military.

Maybe the better question is why people like the President had plenty to say about the moveon.org ad, but haven’t (to my knowledge at least) had the same harsh words for Rush?

Why are they rushing to the defense of a political general towing the administration line and not the men and women on the ground who have actually served in combat?

As for why I don’t always discuss issue X or Y, I’ve covered that before. My George Soros checks are late sometimes and don’t always keep the lights on around here! :)

Dan
# Seanon 04 Oct 2007 at 12:06 pm

Dan,

This may be looking a larger view of this specific incident(s), but I believe people on both sides need to listen to what the mouthpieces of their respective parties say, and denounce them, when what they are saying is counterproductive. This falls directly on the people that have weblogs, campaign workers, or those that are generally interested in galvanizing this country instead of pulling it apart.

Politicians, whether they be George Bush or Hillary Clinton, are interested in their “careers”, where people like you, the people that read and respond to your weblog, and I, need to look at things and judge right and wrong. In my opinion what moveon.org and Rush Limbaugh said is wrong, and should be called out as such. To chastise one and not the other looks disingenuous and perpetuates the politics of the fringe.

You ask the question, “Why are they rushing to the defense of a political general towing the administration line and not the men and women on the ground who have actually served in combat?”, and my response to that is 1) they agree with the General’s analysis and 2) they feel that by supporting the General, they are supporting the troops on the ground. I do take issue with you, assuming that the General is “towing the administrative line”, just because his analysis is the same as the Commander-in-Chief. He is the head of the military in Iraq and has a DUTY to win this war, and I believe he understands and appreciates the men and women who are putting their lives on the line for their country.

What we need to do is be supportive of our men and women in the military. Not by constantly sounding the bell to leave, not by besmirching the military commander in Iraq, and not by referring to any service person as “phony” (regardless of their opinion on the policy). If we continue on this road of defeatism, it will prove that the U.S., it’s citizens, activists, and politicians, have learned nothing from Korea and Vietnam……
# Yeah Boyon 04 Oct 2007 at 3:12 pm

Good post here.

Sean - Dan is biased. No doubt about it .. do not try to understand or pretend he is objective because he simply is not. Great guy, but certainly a supporter and apologist for the left. I have tried to get him to understand what being objective is, but there is always the same answer .. “[insert topic A here] is different than [insert topic B here]“.

As for the Rush Limbaugh crap .. I didn’t hear the show, but read the transcript. I believe he was referring to the MacBeth incident, where the left had this guy who pretended he went to Iraq and said all kinds of stuff, only to be repudiated by actual FACTS (ie he never served in Iraq).

Maybe that’s what he was referring to, maybe it wasn’t. Regardless, I sure am glad this Congress, with it’s 11% approval rating (Notice Dan hasn’t posted on that, but has on several occasions posted about Bush’s dismal [35%] approval ratings) has focused on condemning Rush and moveon.org’s statements. What a bunch of crap. How about they focus on real issues?
# Daniel Codyon 04 Oct 2007 at 11:17 pm

First and foremost, my support of the men and women in the military isn’t what’s in question here, nor is my support for ending this war in contradiction with that, which is something I and many many others have been trying to point out for years.

You can “support the troops” and not support the war, and in fact, I think the ultimate expression of support is getting them out of harms way to begin with, and giving them the time they need between deployments and good medical care when they’re back. Both things that the Republican party has fought against at every turn.

@yeahboy: if you read the transcript, you’d know he wasn’t talking about anything other than what he meant to say: any soldier who served in Iraq/Afghanistan and comes back here and speaks out against it is a “phony”. This isn’t new either. See the Max Cleland campaign or the “purple bandaid” gimmick from 2004. And as for the question of my “bias” - yes, I’m biased against this President because at every turn and every chance he’s run our County into the ground with such speed and veracity you’d think it was planned.

So I’m not going to apologize for taking him or the GOP to task for that, and if that makes me “subjective”, well so be it. I’ll stand with the overwhelming majority of Americans who are “subjective” along with me! :)
# Leson 05 Oct 2007 at 1:29 pm

“…this Congress, with itâ€™s 11% approval rating…”

Of course, that very approval rating is most likely a reflection of Congress’ REMARKABLE inability to end the war. People are pissed, and Congress isn’t taking the necessary, if not unpopular, steps required to achieve that very goal. It’s a no win for them. They can either cut funding and get painted as anti-troop, or they can continue approving new war budgets while publicly bemoaning the lack of votes they need to override their opposition. Sucks to be them.
# Yeah Boyon 05 Oct 2007 at 3:25 pm

Les - I wasn’t commenting on Congress’ approval rating, but rather Dan’s unwillingness to comment on it.

Dan - I hope you weren’t inferring I was questioning your support for the men and women in the military. I do not question your character, Dan, as I believe you are a good, genuine man.

Dan - as for the phony soldier debate … it has become habit for the left to trudge out some able bodied “actor” (for lack of a better term) who tells the horrors of Iraq, only to be exposed as someone who has not actually even BEEN to Iraq. There are numerous examples. The right has commented on this ad nauseam and I am sure that’s what Rush was referring to when he spoke. For examples of this, search on Micah Wright, Jimmy Massey, Jesse MacBeth, Josh Lansdale and, OH YEAH, Amorita Randall. These people are whom Rush was referring.
# Leson 05 Oct 2007 at 3:57 pm

Really? Perhaps I misread the context of your comment. Let’s take another look:

“Maybe thatâ€™s what he was referring to, maybe it wasnâ€™t. Regardless, I sure am glad this Congress, with itâ€™s 11% approval rating (Notice Dan hasnâ€™t posted on that, but has on several occasions posted about Bushâ€™s dismal [35%] approval ratings) has focused on condemning Rush and moveon.orgâ€™s statements. What a bunch of crap. How about they focus on real issues?”

If your complaint was merely about Congress condemning Rush and moveon.org, then why the need to throw in the rhetorical approval rating comment? Seems to me the stab at Dan’s lack of commentary on Congress’ approval ratings was nothing more than a sidenote, as evidenced by the usage of parentheses. To be quite honest, the reason I posted my previous comment was to illustrate the irrelevancy of those low ratings to your particular comparison. Namely, I believe Congress’ low ratings are simply indicative of the public’s frustration with their elected leadership’s failure to stop the administration’s hawkish mentality - NOT a reflection of their dissatisfaction with the Congressional majority’s social or political platform, per se. The same can’t be said of the president. HIS approval ratings suffer because people are unhappy with his agenda. Therefore, comparing the two is a bit disingenuous, because it’s essentially an apples and oranges type of thing. I think this blog tends to criticize POLICY Dan disagrees with as opposed to criticizing the OPPOSITION of said policy, which happens to be the category Congress’ declining approval ratings would occupy. See the distinction?

If I did, indeed, misinterpret your comment, please explain further.
# Yeah Boyon 05 Oct 2007 at 4:55 pm

Dan hasnâ€™t posted on that (congress’ 11% approval rating), but has on several occasions posted about Bushâ€™s dismal (35%) approval ratings

And I didn’t read your second paragraph.
# Daniel Codyon 05 Oct 2007 at 10:39 pm

I also haven’t posted about Larry Craig. Or Blackwater USA. Or torture memos from the DOJ. Or Mark Foley. Or Senator Ted Stevens. Or Senator Vitter and his prostitute. Or Rudy and his penchant for drag. Or Kevin Federline for that matter. What’s your point?

By the way, how about that Republican National Committee sending out a fundraising email asking them to sign a petition protesting the Demoracts “persecution” of Rush?

From the email:

I want to send Washington Democrats a message that their attempts to distract aren’t working â€“ I stand with Rush Limbaugh against liberal attacks.

…along with a link to contribute to the RNCC. Rush Limbaugh is the victim here you guys! So send money to the RNCC. MSM and biased liberals are the real issue! It’s OK to morph Max Cleland into Bin Laden, but how dare anyone question RUSH!?

Once again, this is why I’m wrong in comparing the two events, right? I don’t recall the Democrats sending out emails asking for contributions to stop the “attacks” against moveon.org.

But what the heck. I’m subjective! :)
# Leson 06 Oct 2007 at 12:26 pm

“And I didnâ€™t read your second paragraph.”

Huh?
# Yeah Boyon 08 Oct 2007 at 4:15 pm

I also havenâ€™t posted about Larry Craig. Or Blackwater USA. Or torture memos from the DOJ. Or Mark Foley. Or Senator Ted Stevens. Or Senator Vitter and his prostitute. Or Rudy and his penchant for drag. Or Kevin Federline for that matter. Whatâ€™s your point?

I started to chuckle when I got to the Rudy part and then fell off my chair laughing when you went to K. Fed. Excellent reponse, Dan. :)