Congress is preparing to consider a funding bill for nearly $200 billion for Bush's War in Iraq. Some of that money may go to fund Rush Limbaugh's radio show on Armed Services Radio. Should taxpayer funds go towards subsidizing domestic propaganda? Should taxpayer funds go towards subsidizing someone who calls any of our serving troops "phony soldiers"?
Here's the exchange that got Rush Limbaugh into trouble:
CALLER 2: Hi Rush, thanks for taking my call.
LIMBAUGH: You bet.
CALLER 2: I have a retort to Mike in Chicago, because I am a serving American military, in the Army. I've been serving for 14 years, very proudly.
LIMBAUGH: Thank you, sir.
CALLER 2: And, you know, I'm one of the few that joined the Army to serve my country, I'm proud to say, not for the money or anything like that. What I would like to retort to is that, if we pull -- what these people don't understand is if we pull out of Iraq right now, which is about impossible because of all the stuff that's over there, it'd take us at least a year to pull everything back out of Iraq, then Iraq itself would collapse, and we'd have to go right back over there within a year or so. And --
LIMBAUGH: There's a lot more than that that they don't understand. They can't even -- if -- the next guy that calls here, I'm gonna ask him: Why should we pull -- what is the imperative for pulling out? What's in it for the United States to pull out? They can't -- I don't think they have an answer for that other than, "Well, we just gotta bring the troops home."
CALLER 2: Yeah, and, you know what --
LIMBAUGH: "Save the -- keep the troops safe" or whatever. I -- it's not possible, intellectually, to follow these people.
CALLER 2: No, it's not, and what's really funny is, they never talk to real soldiers. They like to pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and talk to the media.
LIMBAUGH: The phony soldiers.
CALLER 2: The phony soldiers. If you talk to a real soldier, they are proud to serve. They want to be over in Iraq. They understand their sacrifice, and they're willing to sacrifice for their country.
Republican talking heads are spinning like mad, trying to claim that Limbaugh was referring to an actual phony soldier named Jesse MacBeth. It's clear from this transcript that Limbaugh no where mentions MacBeth's name: it is clear that Limbaugh's remarks were directed towards men like the seven non-commissioned officers of the 82d Airborne division who called for a withdrawal from Iraq in a New York Times Op-Ed. Since the publication of their Op-Ed, three of the seven men Limbaugh attacked as "phony soldiers" have died serving their country in Iraq.
I submit that forcing the intemperate remarks of someone like Rush Limbaugh on our troops as they serve overseas is wrong and Congress should withdraw all funds for that purpose. But I'm a fair man, and I think Limbaugh should have a chance to make his case. Limbaugh challenged Harry Reid to come to his station and "say it to my face." I think Mr. Limbaugh has a more than inflated notion of his own importance. If Mr. Limbaugh would like to speak to Senator Reid, then I think Senator Reid should make that happen as soon as possible, and a subpoena might be the most efficient way to grant Mr. Limbaugh his wish.
The Senate can play the tape of Limbaugh's remarks, read the transcript of what he said, listen to Mr. Limbaugh's defense, and ask him pointed questions--all under the watchful eye of the press. Once Mr. Limbaugh has had his say and Congress has asked him some questions, Congress can give Mr. Limbaugh one of those "up or down votes" Republicans claim to love so much (when they aren't obstructing them).
I would dearly love to see Senator Jim Webb cross-examine Rush Limbaugh.
Cross-posted from the infamous Richmond Democrat Richmond Democrat.