Harry and Rush Have a Spat

The other day on the US Senate floor, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) denounced conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh for impugning the honor of our soldiers in Iraq by referring to the ones who happened to be critical of the President’s war policies there as being “phony soldiers”. There was even a move for an official resolution to condemn Limbaugh for his comments! Limbaugh, for his part, has rejected the accusation, saying that he was only referring to a specific individual when he made his “phony soldier” remark.

Although I believe that public servant Reid is taking his criticism of private citizen Limbaugh a bit over the line, he is correct in his general strategy. One, to show that those in our professional fighting forces are not monolithic in their political beliefs and in their support of the Iraq War (which is the way that Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and the like would like to have one believe). Two, being critical of the war does not detract from a soldier’s patriotism or devotion to duty.

I’m still trying to get over the political sleight-of-hand that President Bush used, first in tying the events of 9/11/01 to Iraq, and then making the decision to stay in Iraq a part of the never-ending War on Terror. Here is how the chain of reasoning seems to have gone:

1-(before the invasion)-Saddam Hussein is connected (falsely) to the 9/11 attack, so it’s supposedly morally justified to fight him as part of the War on Terror.

2-(after the occupation started)-The ever-increasing presence of Al-Qaeda in Iraq was attributed to the presence of occupying “infidel” US and Coalition forces there. But since the terrorists were now in Iraq (after the invasion), that meant we had to hang around and continue to fight the War on Terror there (for a different reason than before), even though we had accomplished our goal of deposing Hussein.

3-(considering troop drawback)-The scenario now being presented is that, although it was our presence in the first place that drew Al-Qaeda prominently to Iraq, our absence will even “embolden” them more (and if we stay, that will also embolden them).

I find the above lines of reasoning maddening!

As for soldiers on duty in Iraq speaking out on their support (or criticism) for the war, consider the following. If somebody were to walk into any workplace with a microphone and camera crew and start interviewing people on the spot, the natural response on the part of the employees there would be to try to present a positive public image of the organization that they work for, along with their perception of its goodness for society, even if they have their own private gripes with their employer. That’s the same with those in our Armed Forces who are serving so diligently and bravely in Iraq: whether or not they approve of the Commander-in-Chief and his decisions, they must work AS IF they believe in the mission. That doesn’t mean that they should be used as propaganda material for the Republicans and their mouthpieces.

The criticism from the Democrats in Congress of Limbaugh apparently is a tit-for-tat response to the Republicans pushing through a resolution criticizing MoveOn.org for its statements regarding General Petraeus. Regardless of what one thinks about the propriety of what these private individuals and organizations are expressing, passing resolutions that judge them is completely out-of-line. This sort of thing is more appropriate, at least in my opinion, on the floor of Congress during “morning business”, when speakers can use the podium as a bully pulpit to vent their criticisms. Or better yet, save it for press conferences!

So, Senate Majority Leader Reid and his like-minded colleagues over in the House of Representatives would be completely off-base if they were to attempt any official admonition of Rush Limbaugh. Reid and Limbaugh are NOT on the same level playing field: Reid and the other members of Congress are official members of the State, and should be very careful not to do anything that would even remotely appear to infringe upon the First Amendment rights of citizens. And after all, isn’t our First Amendment designed to protect those espousing unpopular views?! Believe me, it really pains me to have to defend someone with whom I tend to disagree like Mr. Limbaugh (both in terms of his views and the overbearing style that he uses to ridicule those with whom he differs).