Wednesday, October 17, 2007

Veteran Presence

The Boston Globe has a story about the many ways in which veterans of the Iraq War are helping 2008 candidates for both parties. Naturally one of the main memes of the campaign will be an attempt to claim to be the most patriotic and pro-troops of all. While this story does not purport to be scientific or even representative, it does indicate that claims to speak for what veterans think will likely be a farce, as all of the candidates have drawn support, ranging from the ardently anti-war candidates to those who claim that only victory, as long as it takes, is acceptable.

11 comments:

Marshall said...

It should be mentioned that Dr. Ron Paul is leading all candidates republican or democrat in military donations (For whatever that is worth).

Thunderstick said...

You know what veteran presence I love?? KG and Ray Allen with Paul Pierce on the C's. That's a veteran presence.

dcat said...

Marshall --
Paul is doing really well on a number of measurements even if he has not yet gained traction as a "serious" candidate in the minds of opinionmakers. What stands out to me is simply the number of military veterans covering the entire ideological swath with regard to the war. I think that's especially important for when people inevitably try to proclaim that they are the true voice of "the troops" and is worth keeping in mind when unconscionable gasbags like Limbaugh try to decide which soldiers count and which do not.

thunderstick --
You got that right.

dcat

Paul said...

c'mon Derek, you can do better than that. Limbaugh used "phony soldiers" to describe guys like Jesse MacBeth (Al-Zaid) who never made it out of boot camp, then smeared the troops and became a darling of the anti-war left. So, no he does not count.
One of your sources, TNR, has its own debacle regarding the troops with the Scott Beauchamp situation.

And by the way, Ron Paul's candidacy is a joke. How does he manage to win every online survey asking the question "who won the republican debate?"

dcat said...

I want you to be clear: If Limbaugh uses the plural: "False Soldiers," and if he does not actually ONLY reference the soldier to which you refer, am I actually being unfair? I'm sure you're aware that the use of plural = more than one. I'm sure that you grasp that there was a clear political implication to what Rush said.

I'm also sure you clearly grasp that the TNR situation is clearly unresolved.

In other words, let's not come in here and assume that you are some authority on this issue. I'm sure you are well aware that soldiers support candidates ranging from the ardently pro-war to the ardently anti-war. Or are you not aware of that fact?

Again, I'm just crazy enough to believe that the use of the word "soldiers" means that Limbaugh was speaking in the plural. But maybe I'M the one who doesn't understand the way the English language works.

Paul -- use complete evidence. The other option is simply unethical. If you support calling actual US soldiers "false soldiers" please say so. It seems a bit pussy to argue otherwise. Or maybe you do speak for the entire US military and I just missed the memo.

dcat

Marshall said...

Paul, you are a jackass. First, you are defending Rush Limbaugh do I need any more evidence Dcat. Take on oxycontin and go to bed sir.

Second, "Ron Paul's candidacy is a joke" maybe in the fact that the two party system is set up so that he cannot win. But he wins these surveys because his supporters are actively involved in every single debate that Dr. Paul is allowed to be in.

Go sox (should have started Beckett in game 4)

Paul said...

Wow, I guess it was too much to expect a civil discussion of this issue. I should've expected name-calling, hyperbole and personal insults when I stepped into a liberal blog. Unconscionable gasbag, jackass= "I disagree with you!"

Point by point:
Don't really know where you got "false soldiers." It's "phony soldiers." You do know how to read, don't you? (I can play the insult your intelligence game, too)

The TNR situation is resolved. Beauchamp recanted under oath. What more do you want?

I realize that the soldiers are of differing political stripes, but the vast majority of them want to finish the mission in Iraq and also vote Republican.

I'm partially willing to grant you the premise that Rush probably screwed up by using the plural, but I'll put his comments about the troops up against ANYTHING that Kennedy, Durbin, Murtha, or Reid has said over the last few years.

Rush is also on the verge of raising over $4 million for the children of fallen Marines. I think he's putting his money where his mouth is.

Marshall- I know you are, but what am I? And Ron Paul is a Republican last time I checked; so he's not outside the evil two-party establishment.

Derek
Unless you know who Marshall is personally, I'm guessing he is one of Ron Paul's web trollers who visits blogs to try to stir up support for "Dr. Paul." The formality of his first post and the way he sucked up to you in his second post arouses suspicion. If I'm wrong, I apologize in advance.

Marshall said...

Paul- First, Ron Paul is not a Republican but is forced to run as a Republican because of the "evil two-party establishment." Dr. Paul ran for President in 1988 as a Libertarian.

Second, I do not know Catsam personally but I can assure you that I am not searching for supporters by commenting in blogs, so your apology is accecpted.

Finally, I am astonised that a Republican that defends Limbaugh is upset about name calling. Rush and O'Reilly have made their living by insulting and degrading those that disagree with them.

Hook 'em

dcat said...

Let’s address Paul’s comments one-by-one. I’ll place his words in quotation marks and will precede mine with “***”:

“Wow, I guess it was too much to expect a civil discussion of this issue. I should've expected name-calling, hyperbole and personal insults when I stepped into a liberal blog. Unconscionable gasbag, jackass= "I disagree with you!"”

*** Cut the self-righteous crap, Paul. First off, if you’re going to feign being wounded because mean words make you cry, you cannot then turn around and make an attack against all liberals. You cannot have it both ways. Pretend that you are an aggrieved party and play it to the hilt, or use attacks of your own. Don’t whine and then return fire.

”Don't really know where you got "false soldiers." It's "phony soldiers." You do know how to read, don't you? (I can play the insult your intelligence game, too)”

*** First off, see my point above. Second, name the metric for intelligence and I’ll take that little Pepsi challenge against you any day of the week. But you got me—the meme has been repeated as “false soldiers” in some circles,but I should have gone to the transcript. More on this transcript matter in a bit, as it makes hash of the idea that Rush was merely referring to specific soldiers and not only to those who disagree with him.

”The TNR situation is resolved. Beauchamp recanted under oath. What more do you want?”

*** I find it amazing that you’ll contort yourself to justify Rush by any means possible, but then you’ll follow a narrative in which you believe Beauchamp is lying, but once he recants he must be telling the truth. I guess skepticism is only warranted when it bolsters your own views. What actually happened is that with one exception (not a minor one) Beauchamp continued to maintain that what he wrote was true. Then suddenly he disappeared. Even friends and family could not access him by phone or email. Then it comes out that the army announces that he recanted under oath. Surely there is at least the possibility that some pressure was applied to him? Beyond that, TNR engaged in an independent investigation in which it maintained that most of Beauchamp’s story held up. Then the Army directed soldiers not to talk about anything related to Beauchamp. TNR promised follow-up, which they have not yet done, and which is very disappointing, but when I say the issue is unresolved it’s because it is not yet resolved. I have no interest in bolstering Beauchamp or in decrying him. I just wish the complete story would emerge. To pretend that it has, and that the case is closed is to be willfully, and ideologically blind.

”I realize that the soldiers are of differing political stripes, but the vast majority of them want to finish the mission in Iraq and also vote Republican.”

*** I realize many have voted GOP in the past. I also recognize that many want to continue the mission, though how many feel precisely what is far from certain, as is how they will vote in 2008. (Hey, hotshot – when have I ever I opposed continuing the mission? In fact, I believe I have written op-eds that I damned well know you’ve read, including one with arguably the most conservative member of Big Tent, asserting that this will be a long struggle. In sum, in far more public places than you I have been far more willing to reach over the aisle than you. So how about cutting the crap about this idea that I am somehow an irredeemable liberal mouthpiece? Because frankly I have a demonstrable record of more sophisticated political views than you, and yours consist mostly of bleating on other peoples’ blogs.)

”I'm partially willing to grant you the premise that Rush probably screwed up by using the plural, but I'll put his comments about the troops up against ANYTHING that Kennedy, Durbin, Murtha, or Reid has said over the last few years.”

*** These are two remarkable assertions. The first is simply factually bankrupt, the second bizarre and nonsensical and nothing more than pure partisan hackery. First let’s address your continuing belief that Rush only spoke in response to the fraudulent soldiers. This is, to put it politely, a crap rationalization that utterly ignores both the chronology of the conversation, the transcript as we now have it, and the basic laws of argumentation. He claims now only to have been referring to scum like Jesse McBeth. But in fact McBeth does not appear in his conversations and monologues until well later in that discussion, long after his invocation of “phony soldiers,” and no sentient person could assert in context that he was referring to McBeth – it is clear, crystal clear, that he is referring to anti-war soldiers – to those who disagree with his political views. From Greg Sargent’s media watch blog “The Horse’s Mouth”:

"Limbaugh's actual explanation for what happened, of course, is also thoroughly bogus. As the transcript clearly shows, he used the phrase "phony soldiers" in direct response to his caller's complaint in general that we "never" hear from "real soldiers" who oppose the war, only troops who "spout" against the war "in the media."
What's more, even Limbaugh's caller took Limbaugh to be referring to antiwar troops in general. After Limbaugh used the phrase, the caller responded: "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." The caller himself understood Limbaugh's meaning perfectly: You're not a real soldier if you oppose the war; "any" real soldier "wants" to be in Iraq.


As for the assertion “put his comments about the troops up against ANYTHING that Kennedy, Durbin, Murtha, or Reid has said over the last few years,” well, this almost literally makes no sense. But beyond that, it shows that it is you who does not care about an honest discussion, but rather partisan talking points. We have a specific case of Limbaugh saying something unacceptable. You rationalize it away and then refer to anything said by politicians with whom you agree (I love how every time a conservative knee jerks Ted Kennedy’s name comes up, by the way. And I’d bet that in terms of personal charity, Kennedy is far more generous than Limbaugh, but again, beside the point.). How about specifics? If you have specific utterances you want to address, we can do that. But it will still have nothing whatsoever to do with what Limbaugh has said. Stay on point.

“Rush is also on the verge of raising over $4 million for the children of fallen Marines. I think he's putting his money where his mouth is.”

*** This is both good and admirable. And it has nothing whatsoever to do with this discussion. One does not earn exemption from criticism by doing other good works. Nice use of the red herring, though.

”Marshall- I know you are, but what am I? And Ron Paul is a Republican last time I checked; so he's not outside the evil two-party establishment.”

*** Not my fight.

”Derek
Unless you know who Marshall is personally, I'm guessing he is one of Ron Paul's web trollers who visits blogs to try to stir up support for "Dr. Paul." The formality of his first post and the way he sucked up to you in his second post arouses suspicion. If I'm wrong, I apologize in advance.”

*** I’ve no idea about any of this. In a way it does not matter. Even if Marshall, who I do now know, works for the Paul campaign or is a plant of some sort, I welcome his views and opinions as I welcome yours. I would welcome a teacher’s views on teaching, a baseball player’s views on baseball playing, and so forth. Having an interest in a discussion is, to my mind, not illegitimate, and that person still has to be able to face criticism and address arguments.

By the way, I don’t think you’re evil because your conservative, or a Republican. And I have a hard time seeing how anyone who has read my blog regularly could honestly conclude that this is simply “a liberal blog” and leave it at that.

Paul said...

Hey Marshall, you jackass, check this out:
http://hotair.com/archives/2007/11/02/ron-paul-on-iranian-nukes-i-wouldnt-do-that-much-about-it/

Also, Ron Paul is leading in contributions made by military personnel who specify their occupation. So your original post is somewhat misleading. But what else would I expect from a "Ron Paul" revolutionary?


Derek
You know I respect you; don't really know why you got so defensive.

"First off, if you’re going to feign being wounded because mean words make you cry, you cannot then turn around and make an attack against all liberals."

I don't really remember crying, but, hey, if you say so. The two most publicized liberal blogs today are democraticunderground.com and dailykos.com, both of which deal in hyperbole, personal insults and namecalling. I apologize for comparing your blog to those. You do make good points on some issues (even if I disagree with them) and I enjoy reading your blog.

"Second, name the metric for intelligence and I’ll take that little Pepsi challenge against you any day of the week. But you got me—the meme has been repeated as “false soldiers” in some circles,but I should have gone to the transcript."

You insulted my intelligence first and I was just returning fire. As for the "pepsi challenge" comment, dude, that was like 20 years ago. And what would a game of mental tug-of-war prove, anyway? We disagree on some issues, why do you feel the need to prove you're smarter than I am?

"(Hey, hotshot – when have I ever I opposed continuing the mission? In fact, I believe I have written op-eds that I damned well know you’ve read, including one with arguably the most conservative member of Big Tent, asserting that this will be a long struggle. In sum, in far more public places than you I have been far more willing to reach over the aisle than you. So how about cutting the crap about this idea that I am somehow an irredeemable liberal mouthpiece? Because frankly I have a demonstrable record of more sophisticated political views than you, and yours consist mostly of bleating on other peoples’ blogs.)"

Uhh...I didn't accuse you of not wanting to finish the mission. Which renders your bragging about your record of accomplishments as they compare to mine irrelevant.

"'I'll put his comments about the troops up against ANYTHING that Kennedy, Durbin, Murtha, or Reid has said over the last few years.'”

Do you really need to be reminded of what these ELECTED OFFICIALS have said about our troops? I find that hard to believe.

"By the way, I don’t think you’re evil because your conservative, or a Republican. And I have a hard time seeing how anyone who has read my blog regularly could honestly conclude that this is simply “a liberal blog” and leave it at that."

If a person who is a liberal has a blog where they discuss politics, what should we call this? A liberal blog sounds like a good place to start. I know you are more ideologically complex than that, but...
Again, sorry if you were insulted by this.

And, congrats on the Sox and the Patriots, but tonight belongs to the SEMINOLES!!!

Paul said...

http://hotair.com/archives/2007/
11/02/ron-paul-on-iranian-nukes-
i-wouldnt-do-that-much-about-it/