Fear of Clowns

My cousin Mark shipped out to Baghdad with his Guard unit in January after being retrained from heavy artillery to the art of patrolling in a humvee.

I don't know Mark well - in fact as a relative, I relatively don't know him at all. I associate Mark with my uncle's produce truck, the snakes and hares I saw while tagging along with older relatives on golfing expeditions, the delicious responsibility of driving an impossibly agile golf cart, and the exotic smell of my uncle's cigarettes mixed with the leather of unbelievably wide car seats. I was awed by my cousin's unabashed habit of smoking real cigarettes in lieu of gnawing on the powdery candy version even though he was hardly older than my brother.

My frustration with the ongoing war took on a personal aspect. Soon after my cousin's deployment began, I heard a radio report of non-specific American casualties in Baghdad and was struck by a jolt - "That could be Mark." Later, the names were released. Mark wasn't on the list.

I'd imagined the chains of family phone calls, I now also trace the chain from Mark's wife to me. "The family is going to have a funeral" is now suffixed with "and my suit is in the closet - don't think that, stop thinking that."

A couple weeks ago I was half-listening to top-of-the-hour news when the words "... Baghdad neighborhood" drew my attention; "... from Minnesota" riveted my attention. A list of names and cities followed - along with a knot in my throat as they were read. Mark was not on the list. I stopped whatever I had been doing and looked at an online map - I decided the casualties weren't from his unit as the city I checked was way up in Northwest Minnesota. I seem to remember wondering how many Minnesotans had died in the war.

While visiting my parents for dinner Friday night, my dad showed me an email forwarded from my uncle. It was originally from Mark - the thoughts it began and ended with,

Getting back to normal from the deaths we experienced. Not as apprehensive about patrol as in the days afterwards. Sometimes hard to sleep though ... Getting internet soon, so better communication. Have already heard from relatives I've not heard from in years. Family a powerful thing. Love.

I was struck with a pang of guilt for incorrectly assessing that the deaths hadn't been from his unit: people serving with my cousin had died. Maybe I should have known his Guard unit drew from across the state. Maybe I should have been more interested in the deaths and sought out an article and read, "151st Field Artillery" - I would have called my parents, "The 151st, that's Mark's unit, right?" Maybe I should have called my parents merely because the deaths were from Minnesota, knowing they would be thinking of Mark as well.

Driving home, my memory of a Rush Limbaugh clip I'd heard earlier in the week began repeating in my head - the clip was from his December 9th show of last year,

"The leftists in this country are just upset that there are not enough deaths to get people outraged and protesting in the streets against the war. They're mad that these doctors are saving lives. They want deaths!"

I'm certain I am among those Limbaugh includes in "the leftists in this country". Maybe I should be devouring the news of every single death in this war - particularly if they're from my state, but Rush Limbaugh, you are a cold-blooded and repulsive viper. The accusation that I'd probably be happier if they got my cousin's patrol as well - or any other patrol - makes me shake with anger. I can't even come close to imagining what it must be like for those "leftists in this country" who have heard that clip after actually losing a loved one in Limbaugh's damn beloved war.

Neither the Washington Post article nor the Reuter's report (reproduced here) which Limbaugh pointed to as evidence I want more deaths could possibly lead anyone to rationally believe anybody was welcoming deaths in any way. To be fair here is Limbaugh's transcript (make sure your JavaScript is off to avoid being redirected).

Limbaugh's accusation was not a careless and off-hand comment, it was a lie presented in great detail. An invention designed to incite political discord - in other words false propaganda.

I googled for bloggers who have mentioned either of the two articles Limbaugh cited. I found seven (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7) who believe these articles framed the information as Limbaugh said they did, "The fact that more lives are being saved and fewer lives are being lost is a problem." One of the bloggers (#7) had the courtesy to credit Limbaugh.

I did find a few other blogs mentioning one of the articles.

David "White European" Duke said it showed the media has ignored the actual human costs of the war.

Of the left-leaning bloggers, one provides an excerpt and a link. Another complains of Limbaugh's mischaracterizations of the article. More recently, another notes that Limbaugh repeated the same lie to our troops while visiting them in Afghanistan late last month - close to the time of the attack on my cousin's unit.

Maybe the "problem" was discussed at length in the DemocraticUnderground.com forums. Nope. The Reuters article was not discussed at all. Here are the types of comments made about the Washington Post article,

It seems everybody but a handful of right-wingers understood that the articles Limbaugh referred to were describing the tremendous effect of advances in battlefield medicine: there are more survivors to traumatic injuries and as a result there are also more severely wounded veterans - the "cost" that is paid. To be sure, many have noted a lack of attention paid to the war wounded.

I would not deny there may be some sociopaths hoping for more deaths. But clearly - and at great bellowing length - Limbaugh was describing a large slice of America, not a lunatic fringe. The "leftists in this country ... mad that these doctors are saving lives" are only a fictional segment of Rush Limbaugh's Fantastic World for Angry & Deluded Right-wingers.

Is this how Limbaugh is supporting the troops? Grossly mischaracterizing - no, oppositely characterizing articles about improvements in battlefield medicine to spread propaganda that large swaths of the American population are wishing luck to the insurgents? Mr. Limbaugh, "What message do your words send the enemy?"

Further, what message does this send our own military men and women in Iraq? I think it's quite a demoralizing message!

Over the weekend, I again looked up the cities of the dead soldiers from my cousin's unit and wondered how I ever could have assumed they couldn't have been from my cousin's unit based on geography. The cities cover half the state; one I knew to be right next to me - far away from the city I thought I saw to be in far Northwest. Was the initial report wrong? Did I hear wrong?

Certainly, my anger at Limbaugh has been exacerbated by my guilt for not being interested enough in a report I heard. But my anger pins on the fact that the accusation tossed at me was that I was too interested in American deaths in Iraq, not that I was not interested enough.

Today, I am in awe of Mark's fulfillment of his pledge to defend our nation even though it meant leaving his job and home during his daughter's senior high school year. This is in spite of it being to fight a war I have always opposed. But more importantly, I wish nobody to die in relation to it, not as many as possible as Limbaugh's self-accredited Institute of Advanced Conservative Studies has concluded,

"It's gotten to the point now where the more deaths in Iraq the better for them, they think. The more lives saved in Iraq, the bigger the problem for them."

No, Sir. Opponents to the invasion never wanted it to happen in the first place. But now that it's has, I would think we could at least agree that it should end in as little time and with as few deaths as possible. But we can't seem to even agree on that. The point it's gotten to is where Rush Limbaugh now says it's a good thing that the war continues and we should even welcome a growth in it's scale. Speaking of the insurgency on September 27, 2004, Limbaugh had this to say,

"Could we just call these people who they are? They are terrorists! And, of course, they're gathering in Iraq. This is a battlefield. It's a good thing they're gathering in Iraq, and of course they're trying to recruit people. Could we also stipulate here that war is hard?"

It's a "a good thing" the insurgency is growing? The same insurgency my cousin is fighting against? The same that killed my cousin's buddies? I believe Limbaugh's previous position was that we ought to depose Hussein so we could find and destroy WMD and liberate Iraq through battle - not turn Iraq into a battlefield for battle's own sake. But one is allowed to have evolving and nuanced positions, known in some quarters as "flip-flopping". The point here is that Limbaugh seems to think,

1. It's good that "terrorists" are gathering in Iraq, and obviously they will try to draw more into their ranks.
2. War is hard, we can't expect to reap the benefits to be gained through the preceding point without making sacrifices.
3. It's "leftists" who are willing to accept a greater toll to our servicemen and women.

If Mr. Limbaugh is out there, a response of any kind to any or all of the above would be appreciated. I've sent him an abbreviated version of this post. And I've already calmed down enough to edit away the instance of "Luciferbaugh" which at first came out quite naturally.

// posted by Erik @ 3/07/2005 05:12:00 AM
permalink | email post: