Bush Sends Nobody to Die-Rush Limbaugh

RUSH: Ladies and gentlemen, what I'm going to do next, I seldom -- I mean seldom -- do if ever. It is a professional, philosophical belief I have to not comment on what others who do what I do, say or do. I know many of you get frustrated by this, because you'll hear things on other programs say, "Rush, you've got to get a tape of that and you've got to nuke it," and I don't, because I've never commented on what other people say or do on similar programs such as this, people who do what I do. It's just a professional, philosophical belief that goes back to when I was 16, and the way the business was conducted then. It's just something I don't do, and there's multitudinous reasons for it and I won't go into it. But I'm going to violate the rule today, because of particular subject matter. I didn't see this, but I read a transcript of it. Apparently Michael Moore appeared on Bill O'Reilly's Fox show, the O'Reilly Factor.

I read the transcript of it and hen I finished reading the transcript, I was um...unsatisfied. I was disappointed, and I was disappointed in the whole flavor of the interview and the way it went. I thought, I mean, if Moore is going to agree to come in then there's an opportunity there to really expose some of the myths and the lies and the distortions and the outright danger that is posed, particularly to young servicemen in this movie. You know, they're showing this movie around the world and 18-, 19-, 20-year-old servicemen are being very dispirited by it, because they don't understand the context, the political context. They're neophytes, they're kids -- but they've joined, which is the point ultimately that I'm going to get to. So what happened instead was that the interview was descended into a false premise, and it was frustrating to me that Mr. O'Reilly accepted a false premise and attempted to argue it.

Now it's easy. One of the reasons I don't review and comment on things, is because it's easy in hindsight to be critical of the way somebody else does something, and that's one of the reasons I have not done it. I mean, a lot of people have probably found disagreement with the way things I've done over the years, and once they're done they're done, and all the criticism in the world isn't going to change what happened. But in this case, the false premise that was put forth that was accepted and thereby shaped the entire interview, was, "Bush sends kids to die." Bush sends no one to die. The Palestinians send their kids to die. The Palestinians strap bombs on their kids and send them into civilian areas in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv with the express purpose of having those explosives blow up and kill not only the kids, but as many innocent civilians as possible nearby. That is "sending your kids off to die."

George Bush sends no one off to die -- kids, adults, anyone. Yet the interview descended into, "Would you die for your country? Would you die for Fallujah?" and that's not at all an acceptable premise to me. Here's why. We have in this country a volunteer army. Since 2000, particularly 2001, everybody joining the Army knows exactly where they're going. The odds are they're going to go to combat. As such, most of them joining do so willingly. This notion that in this day and age, given the present circumstances, that there are people joining the Army simply to get a college education or to escape poor, dire economic circumstances, while it may be true, it denigrates those who are signing up. It denigrates the intentions and honor of those joining. This is not a generation of 1960s, blue-jeaned, tie-dye clad, long-haired, maggot-infested, dope-smoking protesters.

This generation of people joining the U.S. military, you can talk to their parents, are going to defend their country. They're going precisely because of what happened on 9/11. They are making the decision on their own. They are not "being sent to die." They are willingly, and thank God for them, joining various branches of the armed service to go defend their country. It is a lost concept to many on the left who think it's up to the French and the U.N. to defend us. But this really galls me, because what it ultimately is, is a cut and a denigration at those joining. It's making them out to be victims. They are not victims. They are heroic people. They're heroic young people who are doing what they want to do of their own volition, choosing to go, knowing full well the likelihood they'll end up in a combat zone at some point in their service -- and yet they join, and throughout the course of this period since the Iraq war started, I have marveled at the stories they tell when they come back and call this program.

I have marveled at the stories I've heard reading newspapers from local communities about the people who join and why, and I don't hear where anybody's forcing them to because it's a volunteer army. I don't hear where George Bush is rounding people up under cover of darkness in various communities around the country and saying, "Here kid, I'm sending you to die." The whole premise of this interview, therefore, was false. Yet it was accepted and got argued, and it was just disappointing because there was no ground gained in this, and yet the premise was allowed to stand when the debate began, "Would you send your kid to Fallujah? Would you die for Fallujah?"

This is not about Fallujah! This is not about Basra. This is not about Iraq. It's not about one place. It's about the defense of the United States of America. It's about ensuring that another 9/11 doesn't happen. It's about taking whatever steps we can to see to it that there's as peaceful a life, day to day, in this country, as there is -- and there are people, young people, who are willing to risk their lives, signing up for the military, and the last thing we need is for some overweight, bloated bigot moviemaker to start denigrating them, and then have this premise accepted all over the media.

It's even worse when a major political party seeks to denigrate the armed forces and uniform-wearing men and women of this country, by accepting the same false premise and bracing an entire presidential campaign around it. It just offends me to no end. I've also exercised considerable restraint in talking about this stupid, foolish movie. One of the reasons for that is, Why talk about it and give it even more attention? You know, I'm not sitting here with chump change as an audience. You are the largest audience in talk radio in this country. When I talk about it, people who haven't heard about something, hear about it.

Well, in this case everybody's heard about this stupid movie. But I also know that when you start criticizing and ripping something, all you do is generate curiosity about it. Well, the curiosity factor is sated. Everybody who wants to see this movie, has. Everybody who's heard about it, has. So I'm safe to talk about it and not fear that I'm going to unwittingly promote this stupid thing. But the premise that any U.S. president in this day and age is "sending kids off to die" is insulting. It is banal. It is infantile. It is puerile. It is insane. It is lunatic. It is absolutely degenerate -- especially in this day and age. Now, people are free to say what they want to say, free to make a movie, do whatever they want to do, and anybody's free to glom on to it and sign on to it and say whatever they want. But when this kind of thing is taken up by an out-of-power, scared-to-eath, filled-with-fear-and-rage political party that used to once be great, and seeks to build its own identity around the lies and distortions and the efforts to ridicule and impugn fine people, then it's worthy of concern and discussion.

And I just felt like I had eaten a meal but never swallowed anything, after reading the transcript of this interview, because the whole thing took place under a false premise. I know you're saying, "Why don't you get Moore on?" It's not what I do. If I ran into him, it's not what I do -- and that's why it's difficult to comment about this, because I didn't interview him, and it's after the fact. So please don't interpret this as a criticism Mr. O'Reilly. It is not that. It's a criticism of Mr. Moore. It's a criticism of a premise that ends up being accepted, because there is a genuine desire to discredit this man by people who feel he's being grossly inaccurate and unfair to some really honorable people.

So I'm not being critical of Mr. O'Reilly here, and I don't want anybody to think this, but I think it is just a shame. It's just an absolute shame that this kind of whatever you call this -- docudrama, propaganda, whatever it is -- is being accepted and transmitted as some sort of factual, relevant bit of news that people need to shape their lives by or grow up or get up and learn to smell the roses and the coffee, because there's some so-called new profound truth in this movie when it's nothing but distortion and lies -- and this premise that Bush is sending kids off to die, when we have a volunteer force, we have great young people who bear no resemblance to the rabble-rousers of the 1960s, their age then, who are doing this for their genuine desire to defend the country.

I just react in a very negative way when their efforts are besmirched, and when efforts made to impugn their honor, integrity, sense of purpose, and to make them out to be victims, because we are not victims in this country unless we want to be made victims. I think what is happening is the whole Democratic Party is beginning to look itself as a victim. They are the ones that instituted victimology. They're the ones that started making groups and groups of people victims. "You're a victim of this. You're a victim of that. We're going to fix it for you." They now look at themselves as all being victims, and they have no ability, it seems, to understand what is relevant in the country today and what's important to a lot of people.

And instead they want to try to lie to people and use whatever class B actors and directors and people they can to further this charade; this picture of America that is untrue -- only for one reason: to advance their own power in their quest to reacquire it. So that's that. I had to make this brief departure from my policy and philosophy this one time. And there are many of these false premises out there, that are being advanced and discussed as "genuine fact" on the left. It's not the way to argue these things, is to accept the premise. If you're going to do this, don't allow the premise. Dispute it; argue that, rather than accept it -- and move on from there, because there's no gaining at all when you accept the false premise and then begin to argue it. Remember undeniable truths of life. "The purpose of armies is to kill people and break things." The purpose of armies is not to die. Therefore, our United States military is sent by no one "to die." The United States military is sent to kill and win -- and we love them.

I viewed the interview and almost crawled under a rock. Moore took control of the interview right off the bat and O'R never got it back, despite his best efforts. You can never afford to let a cunning and verbose enemy propagandist seize the high ground as you can't get it back in ten minutes.

Bill's problem is that he's not grounded in the basic conservative principles necessary to combat rapid-fire spin. He was outgunned, unprepared, and had not fashioned any prior strategery.

Why? Because we're not shallow populists. We're steeped in up-to-date facts. We're imbued and armed with eternal mores, verities and common sense.

In other words, we know our onions.

Leni

I made a post a few weeks back about Rush maybe loosing his edge. I eat my words with this Rush essay. Good job, Rush.

Unheard of..!! Preposterous..!! Pigs Fly..!! A faceless, nameless internet citizen admits being wrong..!!

If I may say so..."Good job, BP2..!!"

FRegards,

I don't want to appear self-serving on behalf of Free Republic.com, but there's no doubt in my mind that any one of hundreds of long-time, well-seasoned, clever, articulate freepers could have shrunk Moore down to a small cube of lard in minutes.

Why? Because we're not shallow populists. We're steeped in up-to-date facts. We're imbued and armed with eternal mores, verities and common sense.

In other words, we know our onions.

Leni

Agreed and many of us know our strawberries too......LOL

Rush is hanging his hat on an awfully small nail here...

Unless Pres. Bush was under the dillusion that every one of our soldiers would dodge the bullets, HE certainly knew that his orders to go would result in death for some of them.
Pres. Bush would never hide behind the "well, they are all volunteers" excuse that Rush seems to be putting forth.

As Commander-in-Chief that is his burden, and he has made what I consider the hard, but correct calls.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.