Following the lead of Power Line and The Washington Times, Limbaugh cropped Dingell's statement to suggest he "refuses to condemn" Hezbollah
SUMMARY: Rush Limbaugh cropped remarks by Rep. John Dingell to falsely claim that Dingell "refuses to condemn" Hezbollah. In the portion of Dingell's remarks that Limbaugh omitted, Dingell said "I condemn Hezbollah, as does everybody else, for the violence."
On the August 1 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio program, Rush Limbaugh cropped remarks by Rep. John Dingell (D-MI) to falsely claim that Dingell "refuses to condemn" Hezbollah, which has launched hundreds of rocket attacks on Israel from Lebanon in recent weeks. In fact, as the weblog Think Progress noted when the right-wing weblog Power Line and The Washington Times similarly cropped Dingell's remarks, Dingell explicitly stated in his remarks that "I condemn Hezbollah, as does everybody else, for the violence."
Limbaugh aired a portion of a July 30 interview with Flashpoint host Devin Scillian on Detroit's WDIV-TV:
DINGELL: First of all, I don't -- I don't take sides for or against Hezbollah or for or against Israel.
SCILLIAN: You're not against Hezbollah?
DINGELL: I happen to be -- no --
Based on this edited audio clip, Limbaugh claimed that "I guess we could count" Dingell as someone who "refuses to condemn" Hezbollah. Additionally, Limbaugh suggested that Dingell might qualify as "an anti-Semite[]" by the standards of Democratic National Committee (DNC) chairman Howard Dean, who called Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki "an anti-Semite" because he "believe[s] that Israel doesn't have the right to defend itself and refused to condemn Hezbollah."
In fact, Dingell did condemn Hezbollah, as the unedited transcript of his remarks (link courtesy of Think Progress) makes clear:
SCILLIAN: The overall majority of your colleagues didn't see it that way, and some would suggest that if -- even though there are obviously a lot of issues with Lebanon and with the Palestinian cause wrapped up in this, that this largely boils down to Israel against Hezbollah, and as Hezbollah is a group that the United States has deemed a terrorist organization, that there's only one side for the Americans to come down on in this fight.
DINGELL: Well, we don't -- first of all, I don't take sides for or against Hezbollah or for or against Israel.
SCILLIAN: You're not against Hezbollah?
DINGELL: I happen to be -- no, I happen to be -- I happen to be against violence. I think the United States has to bring a resolution to this matter. Now, I condemn Hezbollah, as does everybody else, for the violence. But I think that we've got to talk to them, and if we don't -- if we don't get ourselves in a position where we can talk to both sides and bring both sides together, the killing and the blood let [sic] is going to continue.
As Think Progress noted, Power Line first cropped Dingell's remarks in a July 31 posting. The Washington Times followed suit in an August 2 editorial, as Think Progress also noted.
From the August 1 broadcast of The Rush Limbaugh Show:
RUSH: Let's start with the audio sound type -- sound bites. This is in Detroit yesterday, WDIV-TV, it's a program called Flashpoint with the host Devin Scillian. His guest is John Dingell, who is the ranking Democrat in terms of seniority in the House of Representatives, the ranking Democrat. And they're talking about Israel and the Hezbos [sic], a group that the United States and the United Nations have deemed a terrorist organization and that there's only one side for the Americans to come down on in this fight, and Dingell says:
[begin audio clip]
DINGELL: First of all, I don't -- I don't take sides for or against Hezbollah or for or against Israel.
SCILLIAN: You're not against Hezbollah?
DINGELL: I happen to be -- no --
[end audio clip]
RUSH: Can we go back to July 26th, less than one week ago, Howard Dean in West Palm Beach? Here. Well, across the bridge. We were -- we were saved from him by a moat. But he was over there talking to a bunch of business leaders, and this is what he said:
DEAN [audio clip]: The Iraqi prime minister is an anti-Semite. We don't need to spend 200 and 300 and 500 billion dollars bringing democracy to Iraq to turn it over to people who believe that Israel doesn't have a right to defend itself and refused to condemn Hezbollah.
RUSH: See, and I said to you when he said this, I said "Chairman Dean, then there are a bunch of Democrats that don't have the right to speak in the House of Representatives, according to you, who are also anti-Semites," and I guess we could count Congressman Dingell as one of them who refuses to condemn them. Now, I know he's from Michigan, and I know that there's a large population of Lebanese-Americans and Muslims there, but it's a terrorist organization -- so deemed by the United States and any other group of people around the world other than fellow terrorist organizations. And this gets no mainstream media coverage, folks. No drive-by media coverage at all. It was obviously covered in Detroit. There's some bloggers who've touched on it. But no drive-by media coverage.
Compare this, though, to Mel Gibson. This guy is the senior Democrat in the House of Representatives and would be a Commerce Committee chairman if these clowns win back the House of Representatives. Mel Gibson is a Hollywood actor. He made some despicable comments, he's now apologized. And he's even asked the Jewish community in his latest statement for help in overcoming his alcoholism. Fine and dandy. Dingell is an elected senior member of the Democratic Party. I'm not excusing Mel Gibson here, but where is all the criticism? Howard Dean himself has defined anti-Semites, and John Dingell is one according to the Democrat [sic] National Committee chairman's own definition. I just wanted to mention this because nobody else is talking about it.
that if your gonna lie, lie often
Earlier today, Powerline updated their article to include more of Dingells comments. To be fair, MMFA should have noted that in the article. Powerline was updated prior to this posting by MMFA.
[link to powerlineblog.com]
It was probably just an honest mistake the first time around.
Rush doesn't lie, Rush misrepresents and distorts the truth. Sadly, it's up to the audience to fact check these people and call these out as lies. Guys like Rush feed off a complacent society and are thriving in an era of dumbed down citizens.
He said he condemns them for violence, as he would anyone that was violent.
That is hardly the same as condemning for being who they are.
Hezbollah has a terrorist arm, also a political arm and also a humanitarian arm. Much as you guys love the either you are with us or against us simplicity, reality rarely fits so neatly into the relevant boxes.
The Nazi's had a Generalleutnant of the Luftwaffe, a Generalleutnant of NSFO (political propaganda), Generalleutnant Judge Advocate General, etc...
Did this not make them all Nazi's?
Whenever someone has to bring up the Nazis in a thread, they are almost always engaging in hyperbole.
See my post below. Should we condemn Israel for their brutality? Or do you have a double standard?
I'm not calling anyone a Nazi. I'm just pointing out that they had specific wings of their party that an above post had made about Hezbollah.
Once a Nazi always a Nazi? Once a Hezbo always one?
Somebody pointed out below that Nazi Officers were tried for war crimes in Nurnberg and some Officers were acquitted of charges. Does this apply with Hamas and Hezbollah? Should we only go after the head of the snake or root out the rest of the slithering reptile?
Just stimulating debate. Don't get carried away.
Hezbollah has a terrorist arm, also a political arm and also a humanitarian arm.
Timothy McVeigh was a mass murderer of woman and children, but he was also a model soldier, he was awarded the bronze star, and was a practicing Catholic. Was he also condemned improperly?
See my post below. Israel also "deliberately" kills civillians. So you agree that we should also condemn Israel, right? Or do you have a double standard?
See my post below. Israel also "deliberately" kills civillians.
Israel does not deliberately kill civilians, I don't care who said it, especially HRW. Would you agree that Israel was minding its own business when their soldiers were attacked, on Israeli territory and two soldiers kidnapped? It's VERY, VERY simple, if Hezbollah had not ATTACKED Israel, there would be NO civilians dead, for either side. I find it amazing I am debating morality as it relates to Hezbollah and Israel. Incredible!!
Isreal does target civilians. It does so deliberately, has been doing so for decades. In fact, it did so at the very beginning, when the Zionist terrorists started the terrorism in Palestine and massacred entire villages in the war to begin Israel. It is bombing entire families in their homes, in Lebanon and Gaza. It shelled families on the beach in Gaza, has targetted fleeing civilians in Lebanon, and has recently declared anyone...man, woman, or child...found south of the Litani River will be considered viable targets.
Present death toll in Israel's most recent military adventure...508 Lebanese civilians, 46 Hizbollah guerrillas, 26 Lebanese soldiers, 36 Israeli soldiers and 19 Israeli civilians.
Gee, who's killing the most civilians? Israel. Again.
By comparing Hezbollah (something that has multiple entities) with a single entity (McVeigh), it is a false comparisson.
I don't think you really understand what Hezbollah is like as Solon has stated. Here is a link to wikipedia.
I don't think you really understand what Hezbollah is like as Solon has stated.
I know that they are the kind of people that fire rockets, indiscriminantly at Israel, purposely and willingly killing innocents. I know they fire their missiles and mass their troops and weapons at schools, mosgues and hospitals, forcing Israel to kill yet more civilians. I know that the core of their existance is the destruction of Israel. I know they are not the government army of Lebanon, so they have no business there. I know they attacked Israel without provocation and I know that Israel has a right to protect itself. I know that this issue was supposedly resolved and Hezbollah would be disarmed by the UN. I know that Israel complied with the terms of that agreement.
What else do I need to know that might mitigate all that?
Hezbollah rockets have been aimed at Israeli military installations in the north of the country, which are deliberately placed next or in Arab Israeli villages by the Israeli military with the express purpose of using their own civilians as human sheilds.
"Some distance from Nazareth, for example, Israel has built a large weapons factory virtually on top of an Arab town -- so close to it, in fact, that the factory's perimeter fence is only a few metres from the main building of the local junior school."...Jonathan Cook, [link to www.counterpunch.org]
From the same article..."In the many cases of civilian deaths examined by Human Rights Watch, the location of Hezbollah troops and arms had nothing to do with the deaths because there was no Hezbollah around."
Who's hiding amongst the schoolchildren? Who's deliberately targetting civilians? The answer is clear, the Israelis are lying thru their teeth yet again.
If they cut out the violence, it wouldn't matter who they are.
It's surprising how that's not self-evident.
Why did Rush Limbaugh lie? Do you support liars?
By the way, if we are going to play the game of we must condemn Hezbollah, let us also say they we must condemn Israel. Do you support a state that has violated over 70 UN Security Council Resolutions, that is guilty of "deliberate killing" and "torture?" That steals other peoples' land?
Did you see the Human Rights Watch report issued today that found Israel "deliberately targeted civillians" in the Lebanon campaign?
Doesn't this make them just as guilty?
Actually no. It doesn't make them all guilty, just as every member of Hezbollah is not necessarily guilty.
Actions are what seperate the guilty from the innocent. The Nazi's that were found to have committed attrocities or war crimes were punished after the war at Nuremburg. The ones who could not be proven to have committed war crimes were not prosecuted or acquitted.
By your logic, there shouldn't have been a trial because they were all guilty just for being Nazi's.
It was meant as the heads of those wings, as I assume the poster was conveying the same sentiment, but I agree with your argument. There were a few officers who were not charged.
Media Matters is the last hope for progress in America. You are the only widely read source for well documented accounts of the lies spread by government officials and the media that corroborates the lies. Your willingness to document each claim makes this website a goldmine of information for those who choose to argue the points with the lesser informed.
However! Despite your well documented accounts of the US role in the war against Iraq in terms of it's history and current quagmire, and despite your well documented accounts of 9/11 you have succumbed to the same pressures that insure the US will remain a target forever.
In other words I have yet to see you document the role the media has played in covering up Israel's hostory and the US role post Eisenhower. You do not get into the atrocities, the politics, the US pandering, the criminal activity of settlers, the murders, the US abuse of it's veto power in the UNSC, nor any of the other WELL DOCUMENTED details that have put us in the situation we face now. Nor do you get into the reasons we have pampered Israel thereby making the US a sattelite of that tiny country.
The news media has been covering for that country since the days when they were actually "liberal". Yet "Media Matters" doesn't address this travesty.
Every nation in the world has told the United States that it's pandering to Israel and it's atrocities and colonialism yet they alll know that this government has always been too weak to make any demands upon Israel. Both parties have been guilty of this out of fear yet Media Matters succumbs to the same fears that perpetuate the situation in the Middle East.
You have lost 50 percent of my respect for your disgraceful and cowardly avoidance of the problem.
The fact of the matter is, Israel will continue to exist and many people have a hard time grasping that concept. The other fact of the matter is the Palestinians and other groups will continue to exist as well, and are not going anywhere.
With that in mind, kidnappings of Israeli troops were occuring as Israel was finally beginning to make some concessions for a Palestinian state. However, as long as there are people within the Middle East community who exist only to destroy Israel, that nation can make concessions until its blue in the face and there will be no peace.
I don't know what the solution is. But the fact of the matter in this fight is that Hezbollah is a major political party in Lebanon that has been running its own military operation, and the Lebanese government has been unwilling or unable to disarm Hezbollah as has been ordered under UN resolution.
Egypt and Jordan have been at peace with Israel now for decades... and it has been at great expense at the leaders in those nations. But they realize they will not cease Israel's existence. For several years, Lebanon followed suit. These nations no longer are or were targets of Israeli aggression.
Lebanon, unfortunately, could not control Hezbollah... and Hezbollah terrorists marched into Israeli territory, killed eight Israeli soldiers and kidnapped two more. Imagine, if you will, the American Republican, Democratic, or even Green parties assembled their own militaries and made international deals to procur weapons to launch from within US borders at either Cuba or Mexico without the jurisdiction of the US government. Would that be something the US government needs to control?
So in spite of the Lebanese government's wish to procur peace and stability, Hezbollah engages in arms building instead of disarmament. Furthermore, guerrilas penetrated Israeli territory in unprovoked acts of violence. Then they did what terrorists organizations absolutely love to do being the cowards they are: mingle with civilian populations, and coerce them into accepting their homes and neighborhoods as being military rocket launching pads.
So your simplistic and anti-Israeli post does nothing to advance the necessity of an Israeli and Palestinian state in the Middle East, and only illustrates why this situation continues to percolate and escalate. Israel has made some concessions. Where are Hezbollah's and Hamas'?
They don't have any because they exist to destroy Israel, and in Hezbollah's case would like to destroy all Jews all over the world. When will they moderate?
Thank ytou for proving my point. That spew of misinformation reflects the embedded misinformation that the media has successfully perpetrated on the US public. It is again unfortunate that the cowards at Media Matters choose to assist the very media they criticize about everything else. The stories in the US media don't match those of other countries including several ISRAELI media sources. It is as blatant as the "liberal media myth that won't die" that Media Matters documents so well. Yet Media Matters refuses to address it out of the same fears that Democrats and Republicans both have. They allow it to go on because because they both know that addressing the issue is political suicide. The media knows that addressing it honestly means their destruction as well and unfortunately Media Matters doesn't want to deal with the cries of anti-semitism that will go along with it and the fact that they will have to blast Democrats heavily in the process. Therefore, Media Matters is directly insuring the perpetuation of the "Middle East Crisis" the same as the media they so aptly criticize.
I don't know what concessions you are talking about. Israel still occupies Palestinian territory, including Gaza. (They moved the settelments out but still control the borders and air space, so it is one big prison and legally considered still occupied.)
As we speak Israel is building new settlments in the occupied territories. Olmert said he wants to build a new settlement bloc in the Jordan Valley so he can annex it for "security purposes." The Israeli government is making as many concessions towards the Palestinians as the American government made towards the Native Americans.
Each day I'm floored that 13-million listeners along with hundreds of affiliates nationwide not only accept his irresponsibility, but bathe in his ratings, profits, and outright lies.
The distortions that he gets away with, such as one illustrated above, are staggering. Instead of actual facts to back up his statements, he is tremendously talented at feeding his willing listeners his arguments using only bombastic flair.
Some cases in point:
1) Yesterday, he was criticizing an Anderson Cooper interview with an NYT reporter (I believe his name was Goldberg) in which Cooper's guest highlighted Hezbollah's anti-Semitic... not just anti-Israel... stance. Of course, Limbaugh missed the whole point and went on with a senseless diatribe on this subject for something like 20 minutes.
2) A couple of weeks ago, he accused CNN of reporting Lebanese death and injury numbers, but not Israeli. Anyone who has watched CNN for even ten minutes knows that Limbaugh's claim is completely false.
3) The day after that false claim, Rush was watching FOX News with the sound off. Tony Snow was doing a press briefing and FOX was showing some b-roll of Hezbollah's leader along with pictures of the Israeli attack. It just so happened that Snow's picture was a bit smaller while the dual picture showing attack footage along with Hezbollah's leader was larger (because there was more detail than a smaller picture could show). In his own twisted and absolutely dishonest way, Limbaugh accused even FOX of stooping to "drive-by media" status because those pictures were larger than Snow's talking head.
So seeing MMFA's highlight of Rush distorting Dingell is but a small example of MO of this notorious liar.
At least Bill O'Reilly occassionally breaks ranks. But Limbaugh along with Hannity strike me as the most dangerous of all.
Why is anyone surprised? This is how Limbaugh operates. He will twist just about anything and apply a meaning that was not intended, and then go on for days about it. And people buy this crap... Amazing.
This reflects the points I was making above:
[link to www.haaretz.com]