Undeterred by facts, Limbaugh again relied on inaccurate Army recruitment numbers from NY Post op-ed
On August 26, nationally syndicated radio host Rush Limbaugh again wrongly claimed that the Army is surpassing its yearly recruiting goals. Limbaugh previously made this claim based on inaccurate military recruitment numbers from an August 23 New York Post op-ed. Limbaugh presumably referred to this same op-ed on his August 26 broadcast, asking his listeners: "Did you hear the story earlier this week?" -- even though the New York Post issued a correction to the op-ed days earlier.
On the August 26 broadcast of The Rush Limbaugh Show, Limbaugh attacked The Washington Post for "lying through their teeth" in reporting on August 26 that the Army will fail to meet its recruitment goal for fiscal 2005, which ends September 30. On the August 24 broadcast of his show, Limbaugh had referred to New York Post columnist Ralph Peters's August 23 op-ed, saying, "Recruitment levels are way above what expectations are in every branch, including the reserves. This is a big myth that the media has put out there that people aren't signing up." Limbaugh apparently referred to the op-ed's erroneous statistics again on August 26, stating, "Recruitment goals in all branches of the service are in excess of projections."
But as Media Matters for America noted, Peters used inaccurate first-time recruitment numbers to erroneously claim that "the U.S. Army is exceeding its re-enlistment and first-time enlistment goals." After widespread recognition of his error, Peters drafted a correction that was printed in the August 24 edition of the Post and appears at the bottom of the online version of the op-ed. In his correction, Peters acknowledged his "substantial error" and wrote: "The new-enlistment rates I cited were wrong. The Army is still falling short on new enlistments."
From the August 26 broadcast of The Rush Limbaugh Show:
LIMBAUGH: Washington Post again. Boy, they're loaded for bear, lying through their teeth today. Did you hear the story earlier this week? Recruitment goals in all branches of the service are in excess of projections, including the reserves. Have you heard this? The media's been lying about this for as long as they can. They've been trying to say that recruitment levels are down. They are in excess of projection. They are over 100 percent of what they need. Headline, Washington Post today: "Army Likely to Meet August's, But Not Year's, Recruiting Goal: Expanding Force in Coming Months Expected to be Difficult. The Army's expected to meet or exceed its monthly recruiting goal for August but is likely to miss its annual goal for the fiscal year that ends next month amid one of the most difficult recruiting environments since it became all-volunteer, the Army's chief of staff said yesterday." How do they get -- how do they create this? How do they create this? They ignore the re-enlistments. The recruitment and the re-enlistments combine to put them above recruitment levels. The Washington Post ignores the re-enlistments. They totally -- they don't ignore it, but they bury it way back in the story. The story is written by Josh White. "By the end of July, the Army was on pace to miss its annual goal by more than 10 percent. It raised the target in fiscal 2005 as part of a long-term effort to expand the force by 30,000 troops to a total of 512,000." Washington Post once again craps all over the United States military.
This guy just doesn't stop, does he? But he knows what his listeners like to hear. I used to buy into the whole "liberal media" bit, but I woke up. By and large they are pretty fair. Limbaugh will now probably accuse MMFA of 'taking him out of context'.
He won't have to resort to the "out of context" defense. His comment wasn't outrageous enough not to take the "other side is lying" tack instead.
That "out of context" stuff is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard in my life. It is the equivalent of clicking his heels together and saying "there is no place like home" and waking up in Kansas.
Actually, it reminds me more of the Party in "1984", trying to cover up the first lie by trotting out a second lie and attempting to convince people that the first lie never really existed. After all, "who controls the past controls the future...who controls the present controls the past."
Exactly. Unfortunately, what's new?
Interesting related story:
June 03, 2005 DoD assumes responsibility for releasing recruiting stats Individual services no longer authorized to announce numbers at beginning of the month
[link to www.armytimes.com]
Me thinks you could start just about every story about Rush Limbaugh with "Undeterred by facts..."
[link to webpages.charter.net]
RobertSeattle,
Interesting article. Recruitment numbers not being released until the end of the month? I'm suprised they haven't tried that with the casualties numbers themselves-the ban on photos of the returing caskets didn't deter people from rethinking their position on the war, did it? When that one falls, they'll just ban any reporting on a Iraq, except DOD sanctioned-sounds kind of like the Soviet Union doesn't it?
I would say that if the photos of the caskets had been seen by the public for 2 years on a regular basis it sure would have made the public react quicker. A picture, or in this case pictures, would be worth a thousand words. Visuals are much more powerful than words someone might read.
There should be a law against anal cyst draft dodgers talking about the military without the preface, "Now I refused to serve my country, butt..."
Sorry for the pun, but I couldn't resist.
In Rush's line of work the truth is not really important. Get the message out - attach those liberal media messingers.
Hasn't even he himself been quoted as saying that he doesn't really consider what he does to be political commentary and thinks of it as entertainment? If that's all it is, why bother with the facts anyway?
For myself, I'm about as inclined to believe that as I was to believe that Andrew "Dice" Clay (whatever happened to him, anyway?) had tremendous respect for women. However, even if Rush really doesn't take it seriously, that doesn't change the fact that plenty of other people do -- and he's being very irresponsible both by failing to make that distinction more clear and showing such blatant disregard for the facts.
I wonder if Limbaugh isn't deliberately trying to provide a ready-made excuse for armchair-hawks. "You know, I would sign up, but you heard Rush, they're all filled up!"
Wouldn't it be refreshing if these guys would just stop pretending to be moral? I'd at least be impressed with the honesty of someone who said, "I didn't sign up for the same reason I support every action Bush takes as long as he claims it's part of the war on terrorism! I'm scared to die!!!"
Of course, you try to explain to these idiots they have less chance of dying in a terrorist attack than they do of dying in a car crash, and you can practically hear the few active brain cells in their heads shutting down. "B-B-But those terrorists want to kill me because they hate my way of life!! They'll stop at nothing!!!" I guess it's better to believe that than the truth: that no one cares about them one way or the other.
Of course, you try to explain to these idiots they have less chance of dying in a terrorist attack than they do of dying in a car crash, and you can practically hear the few active brain cells in their heads shutting down. "B-B-But those terrorists want to kill me because they hate my way of life!! They'll stop at nothing!!!" I guess it's better to believe that than the truth: that no one cares about them one way or the other.
by dbarber
------------------------------------------
Touche. It's almost as if the people have nothing else in their lives. Their job demands much of them, and that makes them nerotic about everything, on and off the job. They have a need to be paranoid about something-this fear of terrorism fills it.
Some may call us crazy for saying "f--- it man, you can't live in fear," and just getting on with our lives and refusing to heed to the this Adminstration's B.S. about bringing freedom in Iraq while encroaching on ours here at home (psychologically, with the joke of the color coded system, and terror warnings, and legislatively with you know what-the PATRIOT ACT).
Mr. Limbaugh,
Once again you’ve been caught ignoring the facts and lying to your listeners. Recruitment and retention goals are two completely separate issues and one has nothing to do with the other for the purpose “goals” and reporting. The FACT is the Army has little chance of meeting it’s goal as it has been WAY behind FY 05 goals all year long.
As someone who has been a part of the military for over 26 years I can tell you from what I’ve seen first hand things are worse than they ever have been. The only thing keeping recruitment alive at all is the massive cash handouts given to young people to essentially bribe them to "volunteer" for service. Add to that the lowering of recruitment standards and the picture doesn’t look quite so rosy. Do you have any idea how much cash is being handed out to recruits before they even do a job? How about $20,000 in some cases, more in others! On the retention side, I see WAY more people baling out mid-career than ever before. If recruitment numbers are meeting goals it’s probably because they lowered the goal, I’d just about bet on it.
I wouldn't expect a chickenhawk who never served his country to know much about military recruitment and retention. But you appear to be purposely lying to your listeners in a feeble attempt to prop up the grossly incompetent and destructive Bush Administration which is doing more long term damage to our military and our National Security than any of your wildest “Clinton decimated the military” wet dreams, which were mostly blatantly false too.
Brian N (USAF RET) NM
Great post, I was wondering why no one was mentioning how much cash was being used to "induce" people to join the armed forces. We don't have a draft, but we are spending enormous sums of taxpayer money on what I would call bribes to mainly poor kids who have never had that kind of money offered to them. A draft would be economically inexpensive, but politically a disaster so let's write some checks instead.
On a side note, I read an online article that mentioned how a reporter asked Govenor Romney of Massachusets (supporter of the Iraq war) if his sons are going to join up ``No, I have not urged my own children to enlist.I don't know the status of my childrens' potentially enlisting in the Guard and Reserve,`` Romney said, his voice tinged with anger." [link to news.bostonherald.com]
I would have asked why not join the Army or the Marines. Why bother with the reserves?
Intergalatic Purveyor,
Believe it or not, you don't sound much different than Romney. Just the liberal version.
Claiming unfairness, because there's no draft; i.e. only the disadvantaged go. If this bothers you so much, why not enlist to bring some equality?
Same for national service. Funny how many of the proponents of mandatory national service aren't involved in any service themselves.
It’s not really a claim; it’s more a truth of reality. The privileged are NOT fighting this war and dying and getting maimed in any where near the same numbers as less privileged. For whatever reason it’s there and it’s the reality.
It's not so much about a draft...it's more about so many of the loudest hawks and warmongers from the right have never served themselves and in most cases neither are their families serving. Hence the term "chickenhawk"
Their answer to the criticism is "it's a volunteer force". Maybe it’s THEM who should stop whining about anti-war lefties exercising their ever degrading 1st amendment rights and take their kids, go sign on the dotted line and fight the good fight themselves.
brian,
You have no clue what you are talking about? That the "warmongers from the right" who support our War effort have never served and the priveledged are not fighting - you have no proof to back up this idiotic claim, only more inflammatory and divisive class warfare from the left...and this tired and overused term here, "chickenhawk" - another favorite word of the day thrown out here with regularity.
It's all so transparent - if you are against the War, fine......just please refrain from labeling everybody.
Well I served in the Navy for nine years. I am also against THIS war! He lied to get us into it, lied to keep us there, has no strategy or plan to get us out and feels like he can keep whitewashing the people and we will keep taking it. Number one, he doesn't have very much credibility left with me (and I suspect with the priveleged, underpriveleged and whoever else is over there dying based on his lies).
Second, it is NOT the moral responsibility of AMERICA to export democracy - McDonald's and Starbucks will do just fine thank you very much.
Finally, if you read at all about Vietnam, this is exactly how that mess started. Colin Powell is gone because he opposed the quagmire that he knew would follow the invasion. Our kids aren't coming home anytime soon, so now we need to figure out where to go from here - regardless or your political bent!
Tommy
I have no clue? Dude your living in the same fantasy world as your CINC
First, you’re putting words in my mouth I never said. Second, it’s very well known and a no-brainer. Most of the loudest hawks on the right have not served.
The chickenhawk data base: [link to www.nhgazette.com]
You’ll notice most of this administrations top policy makers and strongest advocates of war are in here.
Maybe “privileged” was the wrong word…playing semantics? Tell you what, why don’t you inform me with a list of all these notable family members of the hawks in the Bush administration and congress and the right wing media serving in Iraq right now since I “don’t have a clue”. Not that I haven’t seen it myself for the last 26 years… By the way, how many times has Rush gone to Iraq and “supported the troops” broadcasting his show from Baghdad (outside the green zone) or Fallujah?
You’ll have to define “the war”. I’m not against war. I spent my whole adult life as part of the “war machine” in one form or another. What I’m really against is the deceit, the incompetence, the lack of leadership, the arrogance that leads to the loss of life needlessly. Which brings us full circle. Folks who have lived or prepared for war are a lot more careful in their decisions, and a lot less likely to send troops into battle unless it is absolutely necessary, and unless they are given every opportunity to win, and win decisively.
Ummm…pot, kettle here, you just “labeled” me from the “left” you don’t even know me.
"Name: Rep. Tom "The Exterminator" DeLay (R-TX) Born: April 8, 1947 Employer: The U.S. Taxpayer Conflict Avoided: Vietnam Notes: One of our most-nominated chickenhawks, Mr. DeLay has said he wanted to serve in Vietnam, but was unable to since all the positions had been taken by blacks and hispanics. We suspect there might be someone in Iraq today who would be willing to trade places with Mr. DeLay ... " ____________________________________________________________
This is by far the best chickenhawk excuse of them all.
Tommy I would like to add this website: [link to www.awolbush.com]
The people who seem to have the most problem with the word Chickenhawks are the Chickenhawks. If the feather fits....wear it.
My point was that Romney is a supporter of this Iraq war and is not encouraging his sons to go. It is more about the strength of his convictions and beliefs and what he is willing to sacrifice or place in harms way. And yes, I do believe a draft, if done fairly, would cut across economic/class lines so that not only poor kids would die.
Here is a link to an article that gets to the truth of the matter [link to www.post-gazette.com]
Here is the first few paragraphs: "Staff Sgt. Jason Rivera, 26, a Marine recruiter in Pittsburgh, went to the home of a high school student who had expressed interest in joining the Marine Reserve to talk to his parents.
It was a large home in a well-to-do suburb north of the city. Two American flags adorned the yard. The prospect's mom greeted him wearing an American flag T-shirt.
"I want you to know we support you," she gushed.
Rivera soon reached the limits of her support.
"Military service isn't for our son. It isn't for our kind of people," she told him."
As for my personal situation, I was against this war, fiasco or disaster, whichever term you want to use from start and believe it to be illegitimate.
In an added note to my posting above. I wonder how long we would be in Iraq if we had a draft with no deferments, where rich and poor and all in between had to go. I would venture a guess that we would suddenly have the biggest anti-war, get out of Iraq movement you could imagine.
This is a war where not many sacrifices have been made by the upper classes, unless you consider a tax cut in a time of war, a sacrifice.
,blockquote>I was wondering why no one was mentioning how much cash was being used to "induce" people to join the armed forces. We don't have a draft, but we are spending enormous sums of taxpayer money on what I would call bribes to mainly poor kids who have never had that kind of money offered to them
You should see the problems it causes...Give a young person a pile of cash and let em loose on the world, watch out! Then it's gone and now they have to live off the meager pittance of low rank enlisted pay! On top of that, they now come in with a completely different attitude after starting out with a huge cash bonus for no work........
Blimpo is really on a lying streak today. The repugs. know that nobody is enlisting to die for dumbya's oil war.
Al Franken has been to Afghanistan and Iraq several times; and Limbaugh, Hannity, and O'Reilly haven't been once. Nuff said!
Limbaugh did go to Afghanistan. While he was there he made sure to tell our soldiers how much the Left hates them.
Limbaugh did go to Afghanistan. While he was there he made sure to tell our soldiers how much the Left hates them.-by Sagra
***
A perfect example of “inappropriate venue”, how is it supporting the troops to tell them people at home hate them? I guess you could say Rush was providing “aid and comfort to the enemy” by demoralizing our troops, huh? The man is an idiot.
Is Limbaugh still the only radio show on armed forces radio? I recall signing e petitions, some time ago, addressing the need for "equal time" on AFR but was anything done about it?
Exactly what does 'many' mean? By this standard I would be jusfified in saying 'many' Americans believe the moon landing was faked. There are at least a few hundred that do. That constitutes many in a weasel wording kind of way. So if THAT is the standard than the whole statement was basically meaningless. The majority DO believe Bush lied. For good reason. He did.