Democrashield.com

I wrote before about Rush Limbaugh’s outrageous, hypocritical “phony soldiers” remark, and a lot has happened since then.

First, Limbaugh claimed that he had been taken out of context. But it turns out he engaged in some selective editing, airing a clip of his show that omitted a full 1 minute and 35 seconds of conversation. By cutting out that part of the segment, Limbaugh altered the context of his remarks and made them seem less outrageous than they actually were.

Then, on his website, Limbaugh edited the transcript of the “phony soldiers” show to mirror the edited clip he aired, taking out a significant portion of the show in order to, again, change the context of his statement.

After that, Limbaugh backpedaled and spinned, claiming that he was referring to a specific “phony soldier–” someone who claimed to have served in the Army and didn’t. Problem is, Limbaugh made no mention of that particular person until a while after he made the initial “phony soldiers” comment. This explains why he repeatedly edited the segment and the transcript–to try to link his “phony soldiers” slander with his remarks on an actual phony soldier.

Of course, all of this back-and-fourth was rendered moot by the fact that Limbaugh, in the same show, calls both Congressman John Murtha (D-PA) and Pvt. Scott Thomas Beauchamp phony. This is perfectly in-line with the allegation that his “phony soldiers” remark was directed at soldiers who opposed the war, since that is exactly what Murtha and Beauchamp are.

What’s the difference between this and the General Betray Us ad? Greg Sargent makes the critical distinction:

MoveOn’s ad on Mighty Scholar-Warrior Petraeus questioned his credibility, not his service. Republicans successfully sprinkled their Deception Dust all over the story and turned it into an attack on the troops. And the media bit — hard.

[...]

By contrast, Rush Limbaugh actually did impugn the service of soldiers who favor withdrawal from Iraq.

In response to all of this, Senate Majority Leader Reid (D-NV) condemned Limbaugh on the floor of the Senate, while Representative Mark Udall (D-CO) wants to sponsor a resolution–similar to the one condemning MoveOn’s Petraeus ad–to condemn Limbaugh’s remarks.

The Limbaugh resolution is certainly warranted. Conservatives went apoplectic over MoveOn’s ad–even though it questioned Petraeus’s credibility, not his service–and Limbaugh’s statement war far, far worse. Since one got condemned by Congress, so should the other.

I think we need to step back and gain some perspective, because I think both the MoveOn ad and the Limbaugh smear raise some serious questions about how our military is perceived, how it is treated, and what exactly it’s role is.

As I’ve said before, I don’t think soldiers should be immune from legitimate criticism just because they’re soldiers. Limbaugh-style smearing is never okay, but legitimate skepticism and scrutiny are sometimes warranted. Being a soldier—even a highly-decorated one—does not inoculate you from making mistakes, nor does it prevent you from doing something wrong. If there is indication a soldier did something wrong, there should be criticism and questioning and scrutiny.

We have to draw a distinction between legitimate criticism and underhanded attacks. We have to recognize that not everyone who criticizes a soldier is attacking his service, or smearing him, or denigrating the military as a whole. If our soldiers kill innocent civilians, or commit another Abu Ghraib, or lie to Congress, we have a right (and a duty) to call them out on it.

There was significant evidence that General Petraeus’ testimony was extremely flawed, that he presented inaccurate, manipulated information to the American people. In light of those accusations and that evidence, it was correct to question Petraeus’ honesty and scrutinize his testimony. In response, conservatives sought to deny Petraeus’ critics the ability to raise serious, legitimate questions. That was both unfortunate and disheartening.

Of course, such occurrences are rare–the vast majority of our soldiers serve with honor and distinction. They should be rewarded, revered, and respected. But that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t go after those few who don’t serve with honor or distinction.

Our military is (rightfully) viewed as honorable and just, but only because we have a system in place to prevent and punish bad behavior. Take away that critical oversight, that ability to prevent good soldiers from turning bad, and people will begin to lose faith in their military. At this point, we can’t afford to let that happen.

So, bring on the Limbaugh resolution. But let’s recognize the line between legitimate criticism and unwarranted smear attacks. Let’s hold our military to the high standard they deserve, and let’s avoid using them for partisan political purposes. American soldiers should not be above scrutiny, but they should be above politics, and they definitely should be above being called phonies by the likes of Rush Limbaugh.