Honoring All Those Who Serve

Someone should tell chicken-hawk Rush Limbaugh that the only phonies are those who choose not to serve and then criticize those who do. I served proudly, so did two of my fellow paratroopers in the 82nd Airborne who spoke out and died just weeks ago. Generations of American veterans have worn the uniform with pride and we know it is no contradiction to serve your country and still disagree with the Bush-civilian leadership that mismanaged this war.

When someone like Rush Limbaugh says that soldiers who disagree with the failed strategies of President Bush, Vice President Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld are "phony soldiers," you have to consider the source.

Rush Limbaugh, who, in January, called Vietnam veteran Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE) "Senator Betrayus" for disagreeing with President Bush, has made no secret of his disdain for those who serve and speak out. Where was Rush Limbaugh when it came time to serve his country?

What's more, where was Limbaugh's outrage when Max Cleland, a Senator who left three of his limbs in Vietnam was smeared on television? Where was Limbaugh when Senator John Kerry's (D-MA) service was called into question in the form of millions of dollars in campaign ads?

My service was questioned last year during my campaign for Congress. Fortunately, the swift-boat attack on me didn't stick because people in my district in Bucks County, Pennsylvania and across America know that if someone wears the uniform and serves their country they've earned our respect regardless of political party.

Sadly, the political debate in this country has devolved into who can be more outraged at the latest smear attempt on those who should be thanked and praised for devoted service. Rush Limbaugh's phony outrage and derisive words call into contrast that which we all must honor: our Armed Forces currently fighting for their lives and our freedom all across the world. We need to be vigilant and speak out against those who question the value of that service -- and that goes for people on the right and the left.

The real issue is how best to quickly, safely and successfully end this war. It's time for Limbaugh, Cheney and Bush to end the partisanship and work with those of us who want a change.

Prior to being elected to Congress, Patrick Murphy served as a Captain in the U.S. Army. He was deployed to Bosnia in 2002 and then to Iraq in 2003 and 2004. In Iraq he served with the 82 nd Airborne where he was awarded the Bronze Star for service. He is a former West Point professor and criminal prosecutor.

Comments

[saxmaniac]

You ain't heard nothin' yet. As soon as the big advertisers get nervous about the hate and venom of Rush and all the right-winger spewers, it will be over. Meanwhile, in every local radio market in the US, right wing hate radio is in the top three, if not the # 1 station. This is because the advertisers want these listeners. When hate and venom stops selling, the talking heads will switch to whatever will sell. Sadly, this is simply the American way.

[ylpatriot]

Lets not dwell on Limbaugh ... He cant speak truth ...his head is full of narcotic thoughts and illusions.


Why waste or breath !!!

[caseyblab]

Limbaugh needs to have the resolution that was just passed applied to his sorry self. He has used his toxic show to poison the public well for years and he should be held accountable. Especially after making such a big (and now transparently phony) fuss about MoveOn's ad.

[JacktheBlogger]

The right wing talking heads on radio and TV are all slowly losing it. As the GOP's political fortunes continue to wane, these chickenhawk blabbermouths are going to get uglier and nastier. In 2008 Willie Horton and Swift Boating will seem like a day the beach compared to the vile and venom these so-called patriots will spout.

"Blood and destruction shall be so in use,
And dreadful objects so familiar,
That mothers shall but smile when they behold
Their infants quartered with the hands of war"

- Shakespeare's "Julius Caesar" Act 3 Scene 1

[pkohan]

Let's face it. Most Republicans and Conservatives honor the patriotism of our troops only when they serve as automatons obeying orders and not behaving as the individuals each soldier is. They line up for the photo ops, wear the flag lapel pins, get the bumper "support our troops" stickers, but when those "supported" troops begin to question their mission based on the reality they see every day in theater, then those outspoken troops are branded as traitors.

In Conservatives' minds, those troops questioning the war might help lead to an end to war, and that might lead to government contractors not being able to fatten their pocketbooks like gluttons, or those contractors being less able to fill the campaign coffers of Republican candidates and officeholders.

It might lead to the National Guard returning home and serving their normal role of helping out before, during, and after natural disasters, thereby limting the opportunities for private firms doing similar duties more shoddily and at a higher cost than the Guard can.

Moreover, and end to this war might lead to troops coming home and spreading the word about what the Iraq War really is: a boondoggle, a waste of precious resources, a meat grinder, a moral black hole. And that word might filter out to those troops families, and into the electorate during the 2008 elections.

So it's an oxymoron to see those who lack the courage of their own convictions, who won't sign up to fight this war themselves, be so adamant that those who have volunteered to serve their country in the military shut up and keep fighting, as if our soldiers were hired guns and not American citizens capable of exercising their right to free speech.

[wingnutslayer]

Rush Limbaugh is just another chickenhawk slob raking in the money with his oppurtunistic divisiveness and "fuel on the fire" comments on whatever push-button issue he deems fit to spew over. It's not enough for this overpaid gasbag to smear anyone who doesn't agree with his rich Republican handlers. Now, he wants to divide the military against the military. Remember, this is the man who two weeks after 9/11, with the country still bound together over that day, saw fit to initiate the first attack on that solidarity by blaming it all on Bill Clinton. The rest is sad history. To paraphrase Bill O'Reilly "anyone who attacks soldiers who are against this war is a bad American." O'Reilly said that about war critics back when Iraq was number one on the hit parade and most Americans were foaming at the mouth over their patriotism and righteousness. My only hope is that people are finally, finally starting to see through this grotesque Americanization of Nazi propaganda techniques and stop listening to the worthless individuals that herd them around like so many sheep. There isn't one of the Rush O'Hannity syndicate that have one toenail's worth of the patriotism of Patrick Murphy. Cowards all.

[Freetoast]

I can't stand Limbaugh but I also would state that this is no War, its a Crime. The real Hero's in this are the service members that have called it what it is and refused to participate. I was wondering, what ever happened to them? I served in the Army for over a decade and I can say that it takes real courage to do what they did. Rep Murphy calls it a mismanaged war. How do you mismanage mass murder. By this logic, I should be able to take gas whenever I choose and shoot the attendants on the way out. So the enemy of my enemy is not my friend, moving on...

[Sundialsvc4]

Rep. Murphy:

"The way to end this war" is to attack the problem at its true root (rot?) cause: war profiteering at the highest levels. The Beltway is sick with it. As "Ike" Eisenhower tried to warn us all in 1961, it can be ruinous to our Republic.

The defense that was designed to counter this is Impeachment, which in fact can apply to "any civil officer." It is the Congress' sole LAW ENFORCEMENT role, corresponding to the "expulsion" authority within each Chamber of Congress. It is carefully designed, and was no doubt intended to be used often.

When any "civil officer" abuses the perogatives of his or her office in the manner that has become de-rigeur, I am of the opinion that the Congress has no less than a positive, compulsory duty to "investigate, indict, and impeach" that officer no matter who or where.

If we truly impose our own laws and principles, we can once more live under them and enjoy their protection.

Congress has been derelict in its duty, to the point of being a co-conspirator: "putting it 'off the table'" is no more of a legitimate option for you as it would be for a grand-jury. (A grand-jury that refused to pursue a crime that it had probable cause for ... would be "aiding and abetting" that crime, as we all know.)

Congress ... has been "aiding and abetting." And profiteering.

And so tens of thousands of our servicemen are dead or ruined. You are lucky yourself to be alive, and here is the cause.

Impeachment is designed to be the solution.

[AcitizenNJ]

Sundialsvc­4.........­.. GREAT RESPONSE !!!!!!!!

To your point congress has become nothing more than political eunuchs.

You can blame this administration for the executive plan presented but it was congress that give it's approval.

[outnow]

Yes, because we do not have a parliamentary system, the frames presupposed that impeachment would be undertaken if tyranny appeared manifest. Likewise treason would punished even if the tyrant attempted to use a presidential pardon to excuse his accomplices in the treason (or commutation as in the case of Scooter Libby).

A "zero tolerance" of treason and other high crimes, even misdemeanors, was considered an affirmative, if not mandatory, duty. It is not a matter of votes to convict in the Senate anymore than a police officer encountering drug, DUI, or Domestic violence may arrest. Most states require that the arrest in certain circumstances, especially the above, is mandatory, meaning that there is no discretion for the officer not to arrest.

The Constitution states that the President "shall" be impeached. Those who go along with treason are treasonous. Our Congress is treasonous and that is the reason that their ratings are so low.

[DoctorL]

YES!!! Why would we not begin the investigation?
Near as I can tell, Democrats are choosing career over constitution. And, Republicans don't yet realize that Bush 2's crimes against the Constitution have set precedent for an imperial presidency: Queen Hillary!

[Tennessean]

Amen, Rep. Murphy.

As a veteran from a family who has a tradition of military service, including Iraq and Afghanistan, I know intimately the sacrifices made by active-duty member, reserve and guard members and their families when they swear an oath to defend and protect the CONSTITUTION of the UNITED STATES.

Ironically, that Constitution includes a First Amendment; that means they above all earn the right to express their political opinions, as long as they do it within the bounds of the military regulations which guide them.

To malign service members, active-duty or retired--to engage in their Constitutional rights of free speech, is unconscionable. They are the very people who served their country to protect those rights.

Rush Limbaugh and others in the GOP who would attack them, malign and impugn their motives, are fascists, who don't believe in the Constitution of the United States. Their top priority is silencing freedom of speech so they can better propagandize and persuade ignorant rubes who listen to them.

They are really just "phony patriots."

[ClevelandTom]

I, for one, hope for a day (that I won't live long enough to see) when the US has managed to stay out of war for a long enough period that no political candidate or talk show host can have "combat veteran" on their resume. That will mean that the US and the rest of the world has figured out how to use its diplomatic, economic, law enforcement and moral power to resolve issues.

Is this an unattainable goal? Perhaps. But if we do not pursue it we will never know. And we owe it to our children and grandchildren to find out. The Bush administration clearly abandoned this goal and seems happy to condemn those children to never-ending war.

[Andydp]

The disgust I feel against chicken hawks like O'Reilly and Limbaugh is basically unprintable. I Retired from the Army after 28 years of Active and Reserve Service. Its MY right to say yea or nay on the war or plans to get out. BTW I don't agree with the "get out immediately people".
To question the patriotism of those who are fighting right now, while living at home with your kids safe and sound is almost immoral. I don't see a big backlash against Limbaugh a la Move on ad but its sorely needed. The wavering wimps on both sides will do nothing because some swift boating group will use that as ammo later on.

[DemandTruth]

Actually, there are no "get out immediatlely" people. Everyone acknowledges that Bush has made such a mess of this war and that country that we will need to maintain some sort of presence there. What we want is a responsible withdrawl of troops to coincide with an "attack" of diplomacy and human rights efforts to help the people of Iraq get back on their feet and start repairing their country.

When you talk about the "get out immediately" crowd, you're buying into the regressive right's propaganda straw-man argument. That "crowd" doesn't really exist except in the talking points of the MSM and the Administration.

[Marlyn]

"Actually, there are no get out immediatlely, people."

WRONG ... Cheney's plan all along was to occupy Iraq and never leave, and you support his plan.

USA is the problem. OUT of IRAQ NOW!!!!

[TXfemmom]

First of all, ANdydp, thank you for your service and sacrifice.

Secondly, how is it that Limbaugh wasn't CENSURED BY THE CONGRESS FOR SAYING THAT ABOUT HAGEL, when the right wingers went nuts about MoveOn.org?

The hypocrisy and total FANATICISM, and manipulation of the right wing is threatening the very fiber of what it was and is supposed to be Free Speech and democracy in America.

[AcitizenNJ]

Andydp,

as for the moveon ad the outrage should be why did they put the general out front as a politican. i just don't think it was right and the reasons for it was obvious.

[escobar]

People will still suck up to this propagandist.
His show is a beer garden.
Followers, as though half drunk, too lazy to think thngs through for themselves become Dittto heads.
They fall for his routine of describing some outrage anyone would agree with, even if the outrage isn't entirely true. After a series of half truths and misdirected blame come he comes up with some simplistic conclusion. Straw man arguments abound. His conclusions are generally based upon facts that are not true. Mostly based upon silly stereotypes and smoke, lies his followers WANT to accept.
The overall theme is that anyone who isn't a neo-con is a fool and traitor so dummy up and be part of the program.
Rush the coward, has now become so arrogant he has widened his scope to include many of his own followers.
Will they still take him seriously? I'd bet they will.
The most dificult thing in life is to admit one has been wrong. Many veterans follow Rush as one of their advocates against some imagined target. An imaginary anti-war weakling, intellectual type, or just the catch all label, Liberal.
No matter the war record of his target.
A child will instinctively try to please an abusive parent in the vain hope of finding acceptance and validity. It is human nature.
One need only listen to his coaching and admonishment of callers who start to stray from his propaganda point of the day, to notice his patterns.
After all, he is mostly takling with unprepared people. They only want to give their, "Here Here", trying to salute him to feel the acceptance of a verbal pat on the head in public.
Others may call out of outrage. They may even be shills..part of the show...paid to keep things moving. Their problem is that people are dumb enough to take his forum as legitimate.
He supports the business of war, not people or the Constitution.
He will praise troops so long as he can pretend to speak for them.
He has no respect for any of them though.

[Aramingo]

Thanks you Patrick. I am proud to have you represent me in Congress. I really think that you should take up CriminallySane's idea.

Meanwhile, our Commander in Chief has branded the MoveOn ad "disgusting". You might want to ask him his opinion on Rush's comments, the Swift Boat Veterans, and John McCain's illegitimate child.

[mikelartist]

Thank you Rep. Murphy for your unselfish sacrifice. I can never repay you suffiently. I hope our great country does.

Limbaugh is a pampered, tantrum throwing, clown that thinks only of himself first. By stumbing into a radio market that feeds on the ignorant, his string of life failures ceased. He considers this an accomplishment. To stoop so low as to impune the integrity of soldiers that put their lives on the line on and off the battlefield, he must be desperate to raise his ratings. His goal in life? To sell more coffee mugs and t-shirts and newsletters.
A weak, cream puff like Limbaugh has never had to face anything more daunting than a hangnail or an assboil.
He isn't soldier material. Would you want a coward like him next to you in a foxhole? His ignorance is palpable.

[timber]

When you voted to condemn MoveOn, are you saying we should believe Gen Petreus statistics on Iraq's casualty rate and his assessments on the progress of the war?

Perhaps you did not see the MoveOn Ad--it is well referenced.

I was disappointed with Democrats for being wimps against GOP bullying.

[BonnieJW]

Also, since when is it Congress's duty to condemn free speech? I must have missed that day in American History class.

[laocoon]

Duty??? what shred of a basis is there to permit such an act of congress. If it is an act with legal effect it is prohibitted by the clear words of the 1st amendment. If it supposedly has no legal effect the only other purpose must be to discourage similar ads and similar speech. Congress also may not do things to chill our right to free speech. It may become impossible to ever run such a similar ad in a major paper after such an act by congress. This is entirely improper. Too many are making light of this but it is a horrible precedent to set and is truly unamerican.

[Aramingo]

Next week, the Republicans are going to introduce a resolution stating that the Democrats must give them their lunch money.

[Ranta]

Early in Slaughterhouse Five, the wife of one of Kurt Vonnegut's war buddies confronts him when she hears he's writing about the war. "You'll pretend you were men instead of babies, and you'll be played in the movies by Frank Sinatra and John Wayne or some of those other glamorous, war-loving dirty old men. And war will look just wonderful, so we'll have a lot more of them. And they'll be fought by babies like the babies upstairs."
-- part of review of Ken Burns documentary "The War" Nation Magazine sept27 07

There's nothing glorious about being any one's soldier, phony or not. It's just part of our tribal instinct. As they say , "It's all about property".

[freebrew]

Yes, Hollywood glorified war all through the 50's and early 60's. That probably is why we have so many wars now and citizens signing up to fight the bogeyman.
Truth is, since WWII, there has been no threat to our freedoms. While I am a left-liberal and do very much appreciate the fact that so many sign up to serve, the ruling class in this country has mis-used the military for their own greed and power-hungry goals. The military is NOT protecting NOR are they defending my rights and freedoms. They are currently involved in a grand theft of a sovereign nation's resources that big oil business doesn't want to pay for. Face it. We, the US citizens, are now on the hook to pay the costs for sports stadiums, convention halls, shopping malls and now served up to pay for the oil grab in Iraq and quite possibly Iran and a very serious WWIII possibilty.