LIMBOsevic Agrees That We (Dems/DU/Libs/Progs) Support the Troops

[UTUSN]

El Lardo is back from his payola junket to Afghanistan, where he sez he met with troops four times and missed out on one other. No word as to whether the troops he met with were voluntary, mixed, or just the ones that are dittoheads.

He sez that something he was asked was why there was so much opposition to what "we are doing in Afghanistand and Iraq." Notice that the two places are conflated. He sez that he told them there is "not a LOT of opposition but what there IS tends to get a lot of attention, and mostly it is people who DON'T WANT (Shrub) to succeed, not against what we are doing."

So there you have it. He said he's been asking to go there or Iraq for over a year and finally something or other "made it happen". He said the living conditions for the troops are not what we homebound Americans would tolerate "on a camping trip." He sez that he wants to go to Iraq next "to see what's going on there." Funny, he didn't want to see what was going on in Vietnam.

[liveoaktx]

1. There's the rub-the Support the Troops equates to Agree with what the

troops are doing.

I don't. I don't agree with the troops being stooges in an illegal war carrying out an imperialist agenda.

oops, that makes me one of those that doesn't generally *support the troops*.

[chicagojoe]

4. Are you saying the troops are there by choice? n/t

[Guaranteed]

11. Yes- Bush's choice. nt

[underpants]

2. I heard that he added a "Wink Wink"

and then went on to tell of how shocked the troops were to find out about the Reuters story on lower battlefield deaths due to improved immediate medical care in the field.

yep he is still lying about that story and offered it to the troops as evidence that the media hates them.

[fob]

3. finally something or other "made it happen" - I'll tell you what that

"something" was. It was Al Franken talking about HIS trips over there during this war and other previous trips AND calling rush for sitting on his ass. That must have started a ratings dip or some such and rush realized he needed a bush*co brand secure-as-hell junket to cover his ever-so-wide ass.

[dweller]

5. are you listening?

or is there a link?

that's not the comments i heard he made...checking for link now.

dp

http://febble.dailykos.com/story/2005/2/25/112312/829

http://mediamatters.org/items/200502230009

[UTUSN]

6. I Was Listening and Stand by My Paraphrase

What comments are you specifically referring to?

[dweller]

9. i'm not doubting you

or what you heard. I wanted to know if what he was saying today, matched what he was reported saying last week.

I 'heard' what he said last week on Ed Schultz, didn't get the link to 'read' and make sure Ed wasn't paraphrasing.
From what you've heard from Limbo today, he's not saying the Left 'doesn't support the troops' which is what he surely was saying last week, according to the 2 links i supplied, as i read them.

so, he's lying today, or covering his fatass, or both saying 'he believes we do support the troops'.

dp

[UTUSN]

8. Your First Link Is Dated from Friday

I don't doubt that he said what he said Friday, and I know what I heard today. I also don't doubt that if he were faced with both versions he would stand by both and explain that the 2nd thing is just a PART of the 1st thing.

*******QUOTE*******

by Eloy
Fri Feb 25th, 2005 at 08:23:12 PST

Rush Limbaugh continued this dishonest rhetoric about Democrats in Afghanistan.


LIMBAUGH: And, by the way, folks, if you're wondering, I didn't go politically correct on them. I told them exactly who's saying what about them in an opposition fashion. I told them what I think is the sort of phony-baloney, plastic-banana, good-time rock 'n' roller of some members of the American left saying they support the troops but they don't support their mission --
And I haven't run into anybody who has snickered. They're eager for the truth here.

********UNQUOTE*******

And the 2nd link also quotes his substitute circus manager talking to him on the phone last week.

That said, there was a tongue-in-cheek layer to my original post, the background being the wound that was opened here over the weekend regarding whether or how much DUers "support the troops" or are anti-military. I was taking what he said and doing what he always does, which is to shade things to mean other things.

You might be able to find somebody somewhere who loathes and detests LIMBOsevic AS MUCH as I do, but don't think you'll find somebody who does so MORE. So I don't believe that LIMBOsevic would EVER say ANYTHING positive about us any time.

My own "support for the troops" consists of bringing them home, of never having sent them to Iraq in the first place, of a more strategically limited role in Afghanistan, providing adequate care and disability cash when they're back, and OPPOSING any vets who are WINGNUTS when they express their wingnuttiness.

[Kansas Wyatt]

7. Well there you have it...

Now he can officially claim that he went on a fact finding mission to live among the troops at war.

Never mind that he was probably in a powder-puff safety padded zone in no danger of being in harm's way. But, he can proudly claim that he is no pussy and had his ass in the grass with our fighting forces. See, he's just like one of the warriors now, somebody pat him on the back. Too late, he already did it himself.

Psst... Don't tell anyone that he came back with a lot of the good stuff, so he won't have to doctor shop anymore.

[mwb970]

10. So now Rush has been "in combat".

Just like Bill O'Reilly!

[LdyGuique]

12. It's not only lefties who oppose the war

If Limbo ever got his head out of his ass, he'd hear other voices other than his own and might find that his backpain goes away.

Soldiers for the Truth has had some REAL pointed things to say about the wars -- and David Hackworth is hardly a lefty.

Buchanan has become anti-war -- and errrmmm, I do believe he'd take exception to being classified as a lefty

Paul Craig Roberts is hardly a lefty and he posts reguarly on Lew Rockwell, a libertarian site

From the WaPo "It is this view that has made the columns of George Will, my conservative colleague, so powerful over the past few months. Will in no way sounds like a liberal in criticizing Bush's war in Iraq. "Conservatives are not supposed to be especially nice," he wrote recently. "They are bleak, flinty people given to looking facts in the face; hence, they are prone to pessimism." In this telling, the Iraq venture looks more like exporting the Great Society's community action program to Tikrit than a policy rooted in conservative realism."

Conservatives for Peace

Last October, a blog ran "Conservatives speak out against Bush"

Bill Flanagan, a conservative who voted for George W. Bush in 2004 now says, "The combination of lies and boys coming home in body bags is just too awful... I could vote for Kerry. I could vote for any Democrat unless he's a real dummy."

Brian Youmans, a Republican, writes, "I feel that Republicans should speak out against Bush, not only because of the damage which Bush is doing to our country and its international reputation, but because of the damage he is doing to the Republican party. The Republican party is not the party of warmongering, fascism, and stupidity - it is known for its defence of civil liberties, its good management, and its prudent conduct of foreign affairs. By not standing up to Bush, we risk a generation of election losses when the American people wake up from their obsession with safety after the 9/11 attacks. We should demand changes in Bush administration policy, and a new standard-bearer for 2004."

Jim Rego, a Republican manager at Xerox, says, "I won't be voting for Bush in the fall. I think he's destroyed the economy... I'm interested in anybody who actually will bring the deficit back down. I think George Bush has bungled the economy. I think Iraq was a mistake... I would vote for either one of the Democratic candidates right now."

John Scarnado, a good Texas Republican, says, "I'm upset about Iraq and the vice president and his affiliation with Halliburton. I think the Bush administration is coming out to look like old boy politics, and I don't have a good feel about that."

In Beachwood, Ohio, a conservative Republican judge comments, "I feel like a complete traitor, and if you'd asked me four months ago, the answer would have been different, but we are really disgusted. It's the lies, the war, the economy. We have very good friends who are staunch Republicans, who don't even want to hear the name George Bush anymore."

Republican George Meagher, founder of the American Military Museum, comments, "Given the outcome and how dissatisfied I am with the administration, it's hard to think about now... People like me, we're all choking a bit at not supporting the president. But when I think about 500 people killed and what we've done to Iraq, and what we've done to our country, I mean, we're already $2 trillion in debt again."

Republican Tom Pelikan says,

"It's painful for me... and for many other Republicans to oppose our President. But loyalty has to be earned, not just expected."

Even Republican Senator Chuck Hagel, a good, loyal conservative, has said, "I do think that this administration did a miserable job of planning in a post-Saddam Iraq." He's also referred to the out-of-control budgets from the Bush Administration by saying, "Republicans used to believe in balanced budgets. Republicans used to believe in fiscal responsibility, limited international entanglements and limited government. We have lost our way. We have come loose from our moorings."