indeed, his use of that very word which he used to validate the idea that REAL (see below) soldiers WANT to be in Iraq while PHONY soldiers don't.
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.
LIMBAUGH: They joined to be in Iraq. They joined --
CALLER 2: A lot of them -- the new kids, yeah.
LIMBAUGH: Well, you know where you're going these days, the last four years, if you signed up. The odds are you're going there or Afghanistan or somewhere.
ok.. point by point. Can you see where the distinction between phony and real has been insinuated based on the soldiers political view of the war? Validated by Rush's use of the word Phony?
Even if you don't agree that this is what Rush intended can you at least acknowledge that it's not a giant leap to interpret his words in such a manner considering his standard practice and position in American politics? It's not like he is a lightening rod for inclusive, middle of the road politics.
btw.. I wasnt trying to be hostile or toss out strawmen. I thought using krystol as an example would indicate what side of the spectrum was implied when seperating REAL soldiers from PHONY soldiers. Krystol is one of the last standing figures that were hawking this war. Personally, again, I don't really care about this non-issue. To me, this is as silly as the flag pin thread. BUT, I was curious how RGS came to his conclusion. I think that reasonable people can either back up their assertions or admit that they were just having a little shit talking fun. I think I've posted a clear reason why some took his words as a slight against a certain demographic of soldiers. If true, his words are as unfair as the left assuming that soldiers are killers when civilians die in a war zone. We see how the right pounced on Murtha despite some of the stories coming to the surface lately. It's another round of gotcha politics. If im wrong and you can show me why then I will admit to being wrong. But, i'm not slighting your perspective just because of your affiliation. I want to know how your logic comes to a different conclusion than mine.
Also, notice the PLURAL nature of the comment. This doesn't seem to be in referance to one guy, one example, etc. but rather many soldiers... which, seems to me to be a dead give away of intent.
Hope you are having a great weekend!