Taylor Marsh – TaylorMarsh.com – News, Opinion and Weblog on Progressive Politics

Where’s the GOP outrage?

Hypocrisy is a Republican party trademark. First Republicans used the Senate to condemn a newspaper ad. Next they ignore when conservatives take out after the same person, General David Petraeus. So it’s really
not all that shocking that the party of Richard Nixon and experts
at tape doctoring would be using Rush’s
“phony soldier” slur to cash in. That’s right. The GOP is trying to raise money off of Rush’s “phony soldiers” slur via a mass emailing.

Now just imagine the faux
outrage if Democrats pulled this stunt? That Rush
even admitted he cut
1 minute and 35 seconds from the tape because he was “vamping”
makes this all the more outrageous. Republicans have no shame when it comes
to cash and considering they’re trailing Democrats by a mile for ‘08 they’ll
use any opportunity they can to con their fellow conservatives. Trouble is,
some major conservatives actually sided with MoveOn.org recently. The GOP can
ignore that inconvenient truth as long as they can make a buck.

Via
Greg Sargent:

Here’s an amusing postscript to the whole Rush Limbaugh flap: Far from conceding that there’s anything wrong with Rush’s remark that troops who don’t agree with Bush are “phony soldiers,” Republicans in D.C. are now raising money off of Rush’s sliming of antiwar troops. The National Republican Congressional Committee has just sent out a blast email to supporters asking them to sign a petition protesting the Dem persecution of Rush. At the top of the email is a link back to the NRCC’s donations page where you can contribute money. The petition — sent our way by a D.C. pal — was written by GOP Rep. Eric Cantor, a leading Rush defender. It says, in part: It is at moments like these when we need to band together as conservatives and fight back. This issue is bigger than you or me, it is bigger than Rush Limbaugh. With the recent liberal effort to resurrect the “fairness doctrine,” we have to recognize that free speech — conservative free speech is under direct attack. These are issues that speak directly to the core of the modern conservative movement – are we going to allow ourselves to be pushed around by liberal extremists, or are we going to fight back? I want to send Washington Democrats a message that their attempts to distract aren’t working – I stand with Rush Limbaugh against liberal attacks. .. … NRCC Raising Money Off Rush’s “Phony Soldiers” Remark

This from a crew who castigated MoveOn.org for a newspaper ad? Put on your
hip boots, because the hypocrisy is about to get deeper.

They’ve even got a website trying to sucker
people into supporting Rush. They’re finally up to 12,000 signatures,
likely all from Bubbaland. Considering Rush has well over 15 million listeners
and all the wingnut talk radio hosts in America (plus Fox “News” & friends) are jumping in to encourage people
to help save his sorry butt, this is hardly an impressive number. Rush’s power just isn’t
what it used to be. (Just mentioning this will likely bring out the wingnut
hoards to save Rush from this low support embarrassment.) Evidently it doesn’t
bother Republicans or wingnut radio listeners that Rush pulled a mini Nixon while simultaneously smearing U.S. soldiers.

Republicans
railed against MoveOn.org for their Petraeus ad, while giving Rush
a pass on calling veterans “phony soldiers.” He’s gotten away with
this for years, slandering Max Cleland, Paul
Hackett, John Kerry, Jack Murtha and John Kerry, especially, over and over
again. As for the MoveOn.org
ad targeting General Petraeus, it’s mild compared to what conservatives
have offered up. But where’s the outrage? Nowhere, because they can’t do a fundraising
drive over conservative outrage over General Petraeus being used as a politician.

From Military.com,
(h/t TM reader, though I’ve lost the comment of who gave me the heads up
on this one Borg Warner!):

I thought MoveOn.org’s full page “Petraeus or Betray Us” ad in Monday’s New York Times was a bit more incendiary than it needed to be, but it was pabulum compared to the propaganda shenanigans the Bush administration and its echo chamberlains have pulled over the years to promote their woebegone war in Iraq. And the concern congressional Democrats have regarding Petraeus was aptly summarized by Senator Dianne Feinstein when she said, “I don’t think he’s an independent evaluator.” That statement was more than fair, more than balanced, because Petraeus is not an independent evaluator. He’s not even close. (snip) More important to note, though, is that Petraeus’s testimony before the House on Monday was in lockstep with standard administration rhetoric. - He deliberately overstated the role of al Qaeda in Mesopotamia in the civil and sectarian violence taking place in Iraq, and perpetuated the ubiquitous inference that al Qaeda in Iraq is the same al Qaeda that executed the 9/11 attacks. When challenged on that line of argument by Congressman Gary Ackerman (D-New York), Petraeus shifted into the full evasion mode. - He conspicuously highlighted what he considers to be military “victories” while steadfastly avoiding any mention of the fact that none of these tactical “successes” have led to one iota of progress in Iraq’s political structure. In war–especially at this particular point in this particular war–tactical victories that do not lead to political gains are merely organized but meaningless violence. Petraeus knows that darn good and well, and for him to pretend otherwise in front of a congressional committee is nothing short of world-class mendacity. - Petraeus’s most outrageous piece of hocus-pocus on Monday was his talk of troop pullbacks. The front page of Tuesday morning’s Virginian-Pilot read “TIME TO BRING SOME HOME, TOP GENERAL IN IRAQ SAYS.” Newspapers and TV talking heads throughout the country were saying much the same, and it’s a bunch of bunk. The pullbacks Petraeus is talking about aren’t, as he claims, something he can agree to because of the success of the surge so far. They’re a fait accompli. Back in January 2007, when the surge began, high-level military officials–including Petraeus’s number two man in Iraq Lieutenant General Ray Odierno–agreed that it could only be sustained through April 2008. Now, Petraeus is not only talking about sticking with the surge as planned, he’s talking about extending it another three months into next summer. But he knows just how to frame his intentions so the folks in Peoria think he’s pushing to bring troops home early. Petraeus is nothing if not a master of public relations and media manipulation. A Petraeus By Any Other Name

The American Conservative magazine is currently running a cover story entitled:
Sycophant
Savior. What did Republicans say about this? Absolutely nothing.

In common parlance, the phrase “political general” is an epithet, the inverse of the warrior or frontline soldier. In any serious war, with big issues at stake, to assign command to a political general is to court disaster—so at least most Americans believe. But in fact, at the highest levels, successful command requires a sophisticated grasp of politics. At the summit, war and politics merge and become inextricably intertwined. A general in chief not fully attuned to the latter will not master the former. George Washington, U.S. Grant, and Dwight D. Eisenhower were all “political generals” in the very best sense of the term. Their claims to immortality rest not on their battlefield exploits—Washington actually won few battles, and Grant achieved his victories through brute force rather than finesse, while Ike hardly qualifies as a field commander at all—but on the skill they demonstrated in translating military power into political advantage. Each of these three genuinely great soldiers possessed a sophisticated appreciation for war’s political dimension. David Petraeus is a political general. Yet in presenting his recent assessment of the Iraq War and in describing the “way forward,” Petraeus demonstrated that he is a political general of the worst kind—one who indulges in the politics of accommodation that is Washington’s bread and butter but has thereby deferred a far more urgent political imperative, namely, bringing our military policies into harmony with our political purposes. … .. Sycophant Savior, by Andrew J. Bacevich General Petraeus wins a battle in Washington—if not in Baghdad.

As many of you know, Mr. Bacevich lost his son in Iraq. No doubt Rush and the
Republicans will soon call him a phony father.