Double standard? Media provided extensive coverage of MoveOn ad, but largely ignore Limbaugh's "phony soldiers" controversy
SUMMARY: Many major media outlets that
covered the controversy surrounding MoveOn.org's "General Betray Us" ad have
yet to cover the bipartisan outcry over Rush Limbaugh's remarks characterizing
service members who advocate U.S.
withdrawal from Iraq
as "phony soldiers."
Numerous major media outlets that covered the controversy surrounding a September 10 ad placed by MoveOn.org in The New York Times -- headlined "General Petraeus or General Betray Us?" -- nonetheless have yet to cover the bipartisan outcry over remarks made by Rush Limbaugh during the September 26 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, in which he characterized service members who advocate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq as "phony soldiers." Notwithstanding numerous denunciations of Limbaugh's remarks by members of Congress from both parties, the Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, USA Today, ABC's World News, the CBS Evening News, NBC's Nightly News, and CNN programs have all ignored Limbaugh's remarks and the ensuing denunciations, despite having covered -- in some cases extensively -- the MoveOn.org ad controversy. In addition, there was no mention of Limbaugh's "phony soldiers" comments or the bipartisan criticism of them on the September 30 editions of This Week, Meet the Press, Face the Nation, or Fox News Sunday.
From September 10-13, there were eight articles and an op-ed in The Washington Post, four New York Times articles, two articles and one op-ed in the Los Angeles Times, one Wall Street Journal op-ed, and one USA Today article about the MoveOn.org ad and the ensuing controversy. In addition, the MoveOn.org ad was frequently discussed on CNN's Newsroom and The Situation Room, and was reported on the September 10 editions of ABC's World News and Nightline, the September 11 and 12 editions of ABC's Good Morning America, the September 13 edition of NBC's Nightly News, and the September 16 editions of ABC's This Week, NBC's Meet the Press, CBS' Face the Nation, and Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday. However, as of 12 p.m. ET October 1, the same newspapers and television news programs had not reported Limbaugh's comments and the ensuing condemnation of his remarks.
Following Limbaugh's September 26 comments, Reps. Frank Pallone (D-NJ) and Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) made speeches on the House floor responding to Limbaugh; Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) commented on the September 27 edition of MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann; and Reps. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) and Patrick J. Murphy (D-PA) issued statements denouncing Limbaugh's comments, as Media Matters documented. In addition, Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) and Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, criticized Limbaugh's comments. But Democrats were not alone in criticizing Limbaugh:
- Sen. Norm Coleman (R-MN) stated, "Limbaugh's suggestion that those who have served their country and express their opinions are 'phony soldiers' is wrong. There needs to be a level of civility and honest debate in this country about issues as important as this. Labeling an active duty General a traitor, or calling a soldier a phony for having a different opinion does not rise to the level of discourse we hold ourselves to in this country."
- The campaign of Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney released a statement to the blog Huffington Post: "Governor Romney would disagree with the negative characterization of those men and women who serve with honor and distinction in the United States Military. There may be disagreements with individual opinions, but no one would ever dispute the fact that those members of the military who disagree with the war have earned the right to express that opinion." The Romney campaign also reportedly said, "Rush's comments were unfortunate. People should be free to express their opinion and no one has earned the right to express that opinion more than these soldiers."
- Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) reportedly said, "Any American who risks his or her life to defend us has earned the respect and gratitude of every American citizen, irrespective of their views on this war. If Mr. Limbaugh made the remark he is reported to have made, it reflects very poorly on him and not the objects of his offensive comment. I expect most Americans, whatever their political views, will have the same reaction. He would be well advised to retract it and apologize."
As Media Matters for America documented, on the September 28 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio program, Limbaugh defended his original "phony soldiers" statement, asserting that he had been taken out of context and that he was referring to just one "phony soldier," Jesse MacBeth, who pleaded guilty to one count of making false statements to the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs for falsely claiming to be an injured Iraq war veteran. However, as the blog Crooks and Liars and Media Matters noted, in the same broadcast, Limbaugh expanded the group of "phony soldiers" to include Vietnam veteran Rep. John P. Murtha (D-PA) and Pvt. Scott Thomas Beauchamp, who is currently serving in Iraq.
I'd say for the Senate and House of Representatives to spend OUR time debating a syndicated talk show host's remarks, or a political activist website's newspaper ad is a warped definition of "extensive coverage".
I could care less how the media spends its time on these two hyperbole-driven partisan idiocies, but for our elected representatives to waste their time grandstanding for some moral highground shows just what a sad bunch of useless mouthpieces we have sent to Washington to lead us.
Maybe they can pass a resolution on who should win Dancing with the Stars next?
Why not? The republicans just introduced a resolution in congress commending Rush. I say let em at it, it just keeps proving that the current crop of rightwingers who took over the republican party put party above country. The world is watching in amazement as the republicans self destruct on international TV.
Yes, and I am so impressed, and in awe, over Senator Harkin accusing Limbaugh on the Senate floor of being back on drugs.....what pride the folks in Iowa must have over such an insipid legislative waste as this?
It is stunning, isn't it? =)
Maybe he's just as tired of the two faced posturing? (not like I really know, ja know!)
If he and the others want to reinvent their job description as "media hall monitors", then let's get moving on that......because that's what they're becoming. Frankly, I haven't much respect for any of them, so it wouldn't be sinking too much further.
Tommy, if the senate is going to burn fuel on this, I would prefer they take this approach. It makes more sense for the senate to focus on this instead.
The Harkin haters are lying about what Harkin said. I just watched the tape and Harkin was talking about Britney Spears. That part was cut out by the right wing media.
Oh Tommy boy...
If you were only this outraged over the MoveOn ad, then we might think you had some credibility?
I believe Tommy has said that the MoveOn bill was a waste of time all along. I could be wrong, but that's my recollection of his posts on that topic.
"nonetheless have yet to cover the bipartisan outcry over remarks made by Rush Limbaugh during the September 26 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, in which he characterized service members who advocate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq as "phony soldiers"
Maybe that's because Rush did no such thing. I originally condemned Rush for his remarks because I didn't get the full context of his remarks. Media Matters conveniently left out the part about the soldier named Macbeth who actually was a phony soldier. They cut off the transcript right before that happened. If anything Media Matters owes Rush an apology for cutting the transcript short and taking him completely out of context.
You just never give up, do you? You've been proven wrong all weekend long, and yet here you are saying it ain't so. It's like talking to a brick wall.
I haven't posted all weekend long, so you basically just proved again that you have no idea what you're talking about.
Well, I see now that you didn't post this weekend. I just confused you with Copius because you two are saying the EXACT SAME THING! So go back and read the weekend thread and catch up so you can discuss this intelligently, OK?
RH, even the dittohead posters who fell for that last week have caught on. You're not only wrong, but slow.
Did you actually read any of the other threads? It just seems odd to me that I as a native of a foreign country seem to have a better handle on this story than you.
I read where Media Matters claimed that Limbaugh left out context of the transcript. That's simply false, because you can just go to Rush's website and read the entire transcript. He just didn't want to take up time on his radio show by playing the entire segment when much of what he said didn't add anything. If you want the entire transcript go to Rush's website.
It was proven this weekend that Rush changed the transcript, there are screenshots of before and after. You need to read the weekend threads for all the links proving this.
The entire transcript is on Rush's website! He simply doesn't ever re-play an entire segment on his radio show. But Rush has the ENTIRE transcript on his website; the transcript that Media Matters didn't post.
Are you just in denial? Once again, it was proven that Rush removed parts of the transcript he posted. It's all over the internet. He got busted, and the only ones believing his lies are his audience of wannabe's.
Ok. I see what you're talking about now. But I'm not sure why Rush left out that segment, because it really didn't have anything to do with his orignal comment. He and the caller were just talking about WMD's. I think the transcript would have justified Limbaugh's claim even had he included that omitted portion. That omitted portion isn't really consequential, because he and the caller were just talking about a different subject. It doesn't really make sense that Rush omitted this portion when it had nothing to do with what he originally said. But again, it doesn't take away from the fact that he later talked about the real fake soldier MacBeth, and that's the part of the transcript that Media Matters conveniently left out. So in truth, both Limbaugh and Media Matters failed to include the entire transcript, but the portion that Media Matters left out was important to Rush's original claim, and the portion that Rush left out was a completely different subject than what was being originally discussed.
My lord, you can be exasperating! At least you are starting to look into the claims and read for yourself. I will stay open minded while you search.
No way that makes sense. FIRST he is talking about soldiers in the plural AND he says they never talk to REAL soldiers, so are you REALLY making the argument that what he really meant is the press ONLY TALKS TO THIS ONE SOLDIER? Thats just astonishingly ludicrous
Limbaugh never made that comment. The caller did. Limbaugh said three words: "The phony soldiers." And there's several more soldiers like Macbeth who have been documented to be phonies.
When the caller said that "real soldiers" want to be in Iraq, meaning "phony soldiers" want us to get out, Rush agreed with him. He didn't have to do that.
So he agreed with the statement, he was justemphasizing what the caller was saying. He never disagreed with what thecaller was saying.
And please provide the names of the other soldiers, don't just say, "It's proven", because you don't have that kind of credibility where we just say "Oh. OK."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Thomas_Beauchamp
Everyone is using the little portion he played on his show a couple of days later not the written transcript.
And after Limbaugh played the audio, he lied and said "That was the transcript from yesterday's program, talking about one phony soldier." It was an edit of the transcript.
SUUUUURRE, in his THREE HOUR SHOW he had to save that 95 seconds. You are embarassing yourself again.
What was so important in that 95 seconds? He included the most controversial part where he mentioned "the phony soldiers."
I am tired of going over the same ground a hundred times. It makes it seem like he follows the phony soldiers comment with talking about McBeth instead of talking about WMDs THEN talking about McBeth. This is simple. The caller talks about how REAL soldiers want to be in Iraq, even though a poll shows more than 70% of them want to be brought home, the caller said if you talk to a REAL SOLDIER they want to be there. Limbaugh agreed adding TO the statement. He didnt say WAIT not all the real soldiers want to be there. Now THAT statement would have been indisputably true. You are right it was the caller who said the press never talks to the real soldiers but AGAIN he agreed with him. So unless you are making the argument and REMEMBER Limbaugh specifically said he was talking about McBeth then you cannot POSSIBLY believe they are BOTH agreeing that the press never talks to anyone but McBeth.
Do you really believe what you say?
Jesus Rhino!!
Have you been listening to more Limboob today, and now you've got a mouthful of mush and right-wing lies?
It was Limbaugh who cut the tape, not Media Matters. Get a Clue!!!!!
Limbaugh edited the tape because the portion in between his original comment and his Macbeth comment added nothing. It wasn't necessary to put in. Media Matters cut the clip short and didn't include Limbaugh's comment about the documented fake soldier. Why didn't Media Matters just include the full transcript if they have nothing to hide?
Limbaugh edited the tape because the portion in between his original comment and his Macbeth comment added nothing. It wasn't necessary to put in.
He left it out to mislead his audience. He made it seem like a smooth transition when it wasn't.
Limbaugh edits his tapes to remove content? Why would he do that unless he has something to hide?
The day after Rush's disrespectful remarks, I listened while Rush emphasised that what he was playing was the entire tape of the incident. Now Rush says he cut a little out because it wasn't important. He lies about his lies and still his listeners believe him. I'm surprised nobody has made a horror movie about these dittohead zombies.
Cutting something out changes the appearance of the conversation to make it look like one thing was related to something closely following after it, when in fact the two items weren't close or related.
The only real proof of what was really talked about was the sentence just before the phony soldiers remark. Limbaugh was clearly reflecting back on what the caller said about troops who have negative things about Iraq to say to the media.
"Now Rush says he cut a little out because it wasn't important"
Thanks for pointing out that Rush admitted that he left an insequential part out. Did you even read the part he left out? Rush and the caller were talking about WMD's, which had nothing to do with the phony soldiers comment. It was simply inconsequential to the original subject.
The point is that the WMD conversation IS irrelevant to the "phony soldiers" comment. Why is it that Rush agreed with the caller's assertion that anyone who wants to get out of Iraq is "phony", then lets the guy talk for a minute and a half about something irrelevant before "clarifying" his comments?
Removing that "inconsequential" portion made it appear as if Rush immediately qualified his remarks, which is simply not the case. That's why it makes a difference.
Bottom line:Caller smears soldiers, Rush agrees, Rush edits transcript to try to cover his butt, gullible right-wingers fall for it.
The Limborg never know what they think until Rush TELLS them.
Limbaugh simply said three words. "The phony soldiers." It is documented that Macbeth and a few other soldiers who have criticized the Iraq War never even served in Iraq, or if they did they lied about what happened. If Rush was simply talking about soldiers who oppose the Iraq War then why did he bring up the Macbeth story at all? And why didn't Media Matters include that context? And why didn't Media Matters note that Rush had talked about the story earlier in the week and that ABC had actually been the first to call Macbeth "a phony soldier."
McBeth was irrelevant to what Rush said originally. He said the three words, then the caller said the three words, and said that any soldier who wanted us out of Iraq was one of those "phony soldiers". That's smearing a lot of troops. Then Rush agreed with him.
Nothing about McBeth is relevant to that. If he didn't understand what the caller meant, he could say so, and express his disagreement. If he did understand what he meant, he willfully joined in smearing the troops. The McBeth story is just an attempt to cover his butt afterwards.
The caller claimed that the media talks to phony soldiers, and Rush agreed with him. McBeth was one of the phony soldiers that the media relied on. There were a few others including the guy I linked to on Wikipedia.
No. Read carefully. The caller said that any soldier who wants us out of Iraq is "phony". That is what he said. Rush agreed with that.
McBeth has nothing to do with that. Do you understand?
The caller never said that. He said this:
"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"
McBeth was one of the "fake soldiers" that the media pulled out to talk to. Rush was talking about McBeth all week. If Rush really meant that all U.S. Soldiers in Iraq who oppose the war are "phony soldiers," then why did he single out McBeth over and over again?
Here's the relevant portion;
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 --
See, even if Rush was talking about McBeth at that time, that is not what the caller then referred to. He was talking about phony soldiers who want to be out of Iraq. Rush then, instead of saying he was talking about McBeth at that moment, agreed with the caller.
The caller said what I said he did. Do you understand now?
I can see how Rush could've been more clear about what he was saying, but neither he nor the caller explictly said that soldiers in Iraq who oppose the war are fake soldiers. Look, we can debate this all day, but we're not going to agree. I respect your opinion. I'm turning in for the night. Have a good one!
Let's try it again;
"The phony soldiers. If you talk to a real soldier, they are proud to serve. They want to be over in Iraq."
Do you see the distinction? What else could the caller possibly mean by that comment besides "Those who don't want to be in Iraq are phony soldiers"? The "real soldier" definition is anything but vague.
Without some plausible alternative explanation, there is no wiggle room here. You can disagree, but you can't claim you have an genuine basis for doing so. If you don't want to seem open-minded or intellectually honest, that's entirely up to you.
WHAT PRESS? I never HEARD of him until THIS THREAD.
Let's see if it crosses through this way:
If Limbaugh wanted to talk about the phony vet, why did he put the part about the WMDs in the middle?
Sorry. Meant "inconsequential."
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."
So, Rhino, if we concede that Pigbaugh was referring to MacBeth, and not just covering his ass later...who were the other soldiers? I think the "s" does mean more than one, doesn't it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Thomas_Beauchamp
Hmmm, this may explain why you like Wikipedia now!
"News and opinion with a progressive viewpoint"
Hmmm. Thanks for the objective web site.
Pearls of wisdom from the same person who believes Rush's site over before and after screenshots showing him to be lying.
RINO, you need to get your facts straight. Limbaugh DID NOT mean MacBeth when he referred to "phony soldiers." That's "soldiers", plural, not "soldier", singular. If Limbaugh meant MacBeth and ONLY MacBeth, he'd have said "phony soldier." Again, to be clear, Limbaugh said "phony soldiers." He OBVIOUSLY meant more than one.
As the UNALTERED transcript and audio recording CLEARLY indicate, Limbaugh meant "phony soldiers" to refer to anyone in uniform who doesn't agree with Bush on the Iraq war. He DID NOT mean it to refer to one obscure soldier who got caught faking his awards and resume.
Limbaugh provided an ALTERED transcript and recording in which he cuts out a large portion of his remarks. He did so in an effort to make it appear as though he referred to MacBeth, when in fact he did not. Why would Limbaugh produce an altered transcript and recording unless he knew he was lying?
I understand that the conservative method of winning disputes is to regard everything as subjective, ignore facts, never admit you're wrong, and never give in. But there really are things called "facts," there really is such a thing as "truth," and they can be objectively determined. There's no question that you're on the wrong side of both if you continue defending Limbaugh on this, which will make me wonder if you're arguing just for the sake of arguing, or if you're delusional.
Well RINO, I guess general Batiste got it wrong too, right?
The fact that he was actually on Olbermann's show doesn't speak well for him. He should be embarrased to go on a show like that. But beyond that, Rush was simply being honest about Murtha. Murtha certainly served honorably at one time, but he also falsely accused U.S. soldiers of murder, and he is now being sued in court by one of those soldiers. Rush simply accurately reported that Murtha is being sued for his defamation.
1) it doesn't matter what show he goes on, so you loose round 1.
2) Rush said a heck of a lot more than that about murtha, so you loose round 2.
care to go for KO?
Ok Rino,
Let's take a look at the comment Rush and the caller made. Remember, the caller Mike was following another Mike who Rush had just accused of not being a Republican because he did not agree with Rush. So the second mike says.
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.
Now Rush says for the first time.
LIMBAUGH: The phony soldiers.
Now this is where the caller defines what a "real soldier" is.
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.
So here is where Rush agrees with the caller.
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.
So, if Rush had been talking about a specific person why bring up the generalization about real soldiers being "proud". It's because he was not talking about a specific person.
That would be KO. Good summary!
"So, if Rush had been talking about a specific person why bring up the generalization about real soldiers being "proud"
Rush didn't bring up that generalization! The caller did. Rush simply said that the soldiers signed up to go to Iraq, which is certainly true. Where did they think they were going? Canada? They may disagree with Bush's policy in Iraq, but they certainly wanted to serve in the first place; otherwise they wouldn't be there.
Oh, really? You know that for a fact? My understanding is many of the soldiers were already signed up, they didn't just have this mass wave of youthful republicans run to the recruiting office to fill the ranks. And then we filled the ranks with the national guard, who's job is supposed to be defending the states they come from, not be deployed overseas. Once again you fail to understand the basics before you jump into a debate feet 1st.
Your right. The caller mentioned the generalization and Rush agreed. If he had been talking about a specific person then he would have corrected the caller. He went along with what the caller was saying. Therefore, Rush was not referring to a specific soldier.
As far as soldiers signing up to go to Iraq. There are plenty of soldiers in the military who signed up before Iraq. In fact the caller notes that when he talks about the new kids.
So if you can see that Rush is talking in generalities when he and the caller are referring to "phony soldiers" how can you say what Rush was then talking about a specific person. You cannot have it both ways.
That's exactly right. The caller smeared every soldier who thinks we should get out of Iraq. Rush agrees with him, instead of tearing him a new one for insulting our troops. Then instead of saying something afterwards like "I didn't understand at the time what the caller meant", he edits the transcript to make it look like he qualified his remarks at the time. If he disagreed with the caller, he has the means to express it, and he hasn't done it.
There is no valid defense for this.
"If he disagreed with the caller, he has the means to express it, and he hasn't done it"
He stated today over and over again that he supports all soldiers, even those who disagree with the war. Is that not good enough for you?
It depends what he said. If he's standing by his BS that he was talking about McBeth, when that was not the context of the comment, then he's still being dishonest.
He actually smeared the troops. If he chastised the caller, and retracted his agreement, great. If he's just saying "I support the troops" without honestly addressing what he did, then it's pretty hollow. There's no accountability there.
I think the troops deserve that, and I would think you would as well.
If he would've come right out and said that soldiers in Iraq who oppose the war are "phony soldiers" then I would agree with you. But he never said that. He said three words, and minutes later mentioned an actual fake soldier that the media had relied upon for bad news out of Iraq. He had been talking about him all week. Limbaugh's comments were vague enough that he has a lot of wiggle room. Media Matters can't pin him down on this one.
No, you keep dodging the point. It's not vague, because he clearly agreed when the caller was talking about anti-war soldiers being phony.
Either you are being dishonest, or you continue to misunderstand what happened. Make an effort to comprehend what is being said to you, please.
Bang!!!!!! That is the best argument so far to negate Limbaugh and anyone else who tries to defend this diversion he is putting up. I never thought of that. He agreed with the callers premise that anit-war solders are phoney. The caller never indicated he was talking about Macbeth. Excellent. You must be a lawyer.
Thanks! Others are making great arguments as well, the points about Limbaugh doubting the first caller as a Republican and when he disagreed with the war, and also Limbaugh's citing of Murtha as a phony soldier (meaning he's not talking about people like McBeth, of course). But I think the point I keep hammering on, by itself, is unassailable.
No, not a lawyer. I've thought about it, though.
"But since you will never get an apology from Jack Murtha for mischaracterizing you as murderers, since you’ll never get an apology from John Kerry, since you won’t get an apology from Media Matters for America or anybody that works there, to all of you in the US Military, I want to apologize to you for them for the, again, firestorm over something that did not happen regarding your valor and your commitment to freedom and democracy last week on this program." (emphasis mine)
That's quite the retraction of what he said. Give me a break.
No, that assertion of his support for the troops is not sufficient, for obvious reasons.
So YOU are defending Limbaugh, ludicrously, and think Batiste is discredited for going on OLBERMANN? Please tell me you are kidding. Olbermann is Edward R Murrow compared to Limbaugh. He said the press never talks to phony soldiers you have to be COMPLETELY brainwashed to continue to peddle the nonsense that he was talking about he press never talking to anyone but one or ever TWO soldiers. Its mindnumbingly inane.
Rush has been around for 20 years. He's had the #1 rated talk show for a long time with 20 million listeners per week. He's won multiple awards for radio excellence. He's even had the President of the United States on his show. Olbermann has been on the air for a few years and has been a major embarrasment. His ratings are abysmal, and rather than do honest reporting he simply takes things off of Media Matters and reports them as fact. Nice journalistic integrity. It's no wonder he got fired from ESPN.
The logical fallacy you use here is the appeal to popularity. American Idol is popular. Hitlers speeches were popular. Shakespear will never outdraw American Idol. Your post was all fallacy no point. Limbaugh is a liar, a flamethrower, pulls phony information directly from his ass regularly and they have at least one whole BOOK on the subject. Even the posters who support him say he is ONLY an entertainer not a journalist. If you are really arguing that Limbaugh is as credible as Olbermann you have gone off the deep end. He has ZERO credibility he never HAS had. Limborgians listen to him to find out what they are supposed to think and others enjoy the bomb throwing but KNOW he has zero credibility but no one with a functioning cerebral cortex thinks he is a credible source of information.
"If you are really arguing that Limbaugh is as credible as Olbermann you have gone off the deep end"
Olbermann has 0 credibility, so it's not really possible to get lower than 0. He's simply a far left bomb thrower who doesn't even do his own research but uses information off of left wing web sites as fact. He has absolutely no journalistic integrity. Rush has been a well respected figure for the last 20 years. He's respected by everybody except the far left. He was even nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.
He was not "nominated" for a Nobel Peace Prize. Mark Levin has no more power to make such a nomination than I do to nominate the next Pope. He admitted the nomination was "unsolicited", and therefore not valid.
Do you just believe any stupid thing that Limbaugh tells you, or what?
My GOD you cells of the Limborg will just eat up any spew he puts into the hivemind wont you? The Nobel comittee is the ONLY nominating body and they dont tell ANYONE who has been nominated for 50 years. Rush is a liar. Being nominated for the Nobel Prize is just one more lie he has told and further evidence he has ZERO credibility. YOUR evidence Olbermann doesnt have any credibility is that YOU dont like him. Do you realize how BAD you are at this?
Olbermann has been an embarrassment? Where are you getting that?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countdown_with_Keith_Olbermann#Countdown.27s_ratings_pass_The_O.27Reilly_Factor.27s
Hmmm, seems Keith has started to pass Bill Doh in the ratings. His show is also the highest rated show on MSNBC. So why exactly is he embarrassing their network.
Next up. President Bush going on Rush's show proves nothing. Do you think President Bush would go on a reporter's show who was asking him to resign? If you do you are crazy.
And finally, Keith was not fired from ESPN. He left. While doing so he burned many bridges. But he was not fired. Years later he even apologized noting his departure was his fault.
http://www.salon.com/news/sports/col/olbermann/2002/11/17/meaculpa/index.html
So Rino will you now admit that you don't know what you're talking about?
"On September 7, 2007, Countdown's ratings were higher (365 vs 324) than The O'Reilly Factor's in the 25-54 demographic for the first time, although they were still behind for households (1885 vs 856"
So in other words Olbermann beat O'Reilly in ONE demographic for ONE DAY! Is that the best you can do? The average age of O'Reilly's audience is about 65 years old, so of course he doesn't have as many viewers in the younger demographic. But as the link showed he's still killing Olbermann in the overall ratings. And this link shows that O'Reilly regularly kills Olberamann even in the younger demographic:
http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/ratings/default.asp
One demographic? It's the most desirable demo; the demo that determines advertising rates. O'Reilly only wins if you factor in veiwers between ages 54 and death. Face it: Olbermann is setting the TV news world on fire.
RINO, again, do you truly BELIEVE what you say? Do you actually pay attention to what you're typing and compare your claims to the events you refer to?
I remember Limbaugh calling Batiste and the other generals who called for Rumsfeld's resignation "Clitonistas." Rush said the generals were part of a conspiracy launched by the Clintons for some evil end. I can't remember exactly what.
Now its a federal emergency if a left wing group questions a general's honestly.
Rino,
Over the weekend there was a thread about this and some guy was in there posting the same idiotic line you are......
These threads are not about the obvious 'fake' soldier McBeth..... IT isn't about HIM!
Rush used the plural 'phony soldier"s" not the singular, as in, he was making the claim that any soldier that speaks out against the war and these sychophantic policies are 'phony'.
Rush and his single-cell-brain followers would love nothing more than to make this an issue on the part of a non-existant liberal media bias!
Face it, Rush is a false patriot..... a false American....
While I would normally consider an item about Rush to be a waste of time considering the disasters befalling us (Iraq, Iran to name two) this is exactly the kind of crap that needs to be exposed, mainly because there are boneheads like you that actually try to defend Rush and his ilk and think that it is somehow a conspiracy to silence conservative voices.....
I, like EVERY other liberal you will ever meet do believe that Rush has every right to make a complete ass of himself and you have every right to try and defend him.....
Hell, if anything, we would encourage and hope that Rush stays on the air.... so that his kind of bullcrap can be continuosly exposed by sites like MMFA
"Media Matters conveniently left out the part about the soldier named Macbeth who actually was a phony soldier."
Because they didn't need to post that part. The context for the phony soldiers comment is from the former military guy who called the show advocating withdrawal.
Yes he did. You were wrong then you are WRONG now. It is patently ridiculous to say that when he said the press NEVER talks to REAL soldiers he was saying they ONLY talk to this one phony soldier he mentioned later AFTER a segment about WMDs. Its not like he said phony solidiers LIKE McBeth. You have to be comitted to ideological blindness to accept that ludicrous explanation. You have to LOVE to be lied to in order to continue to try selling this patent nonsense.
Do you even realize that Rush had been talking about the Macbeth story all week and that ABC had originally labeled Macbeth "a phony soldier?"
None of that matters. The caller says if you talk to a REAL soldier they want to be in Iraq. He says the press talks only to phony soldiers Limbaugh agrees. No possible rational argument can be made that those comments apply JUST to McBeth.
The forces of darkness are gathering...their champion is under seige. I expect a full blown sh*tstorm to erupt over this; MMFA will be assaulted without mercy. At least this proves that you're rattling their cage a little bit...otherwise, Pigbaugh and his sycophantic dittobot minions would just ignore you.
Keep up the good work.
Nerzog,
You said "The forces of darkness are gathering"
Somewhere in the shadows, Dick Cheney is grinning like the imp that he is........
Internal memo leak:It has become obvious that with the current O'Reilly "incident", this group known as "Media Matters" is becoming more and more recognized and popular. It is our fear that they could ruin the good business model we have here: to fabricate alarmist stories about those who interfere with corporate interests worldwide--especially the corporate entity known as "BushieCo international"(our sole investor and provider).We are left to counter this by "creating controversy"; attacking this heinous website's veracity. We must continually attack them and fabricate as many falsehoods as possible. This is all we need to do and the timid "liberal" media will pick up on this and follow suit. And to add to this, we will once again pay conservative bloggers (aka the flying monkeys) to assault them through "Operation Excrement Toss". With all this, I am sure we will prevail as in the other past incidents when truth tried to surface. May Satan be with you,
Roger Ailes, Your Overlord and Master.
If you ever needed any proof, there it is.
Hey don't forget that Bill O has that super secret security crew that could come to your house. You have been warned.
Double standard? Media provided extensive coverage of MoveOn ad, but largely ignore Limbaugh's "phony soldiers" controversy
It's not an excuse, but a partial reason, that what maybe makes the MoveOn ad seem more noteworthy, and limbaugh's comments less so, is the context within which we think of these things, and the standard we measure by.
How often and to what degree, do we see "media" hacks personally attacking Republicans?
Contrast that with how often we such attacks against Democrats (Kerry Clinton Gore Pelosi Murtha Obama et al) by Republicans.
We see so many such attacks, that if I were to say "swiftboated", you would know immediately what I meant, and that Republicans attacked a Democrats in such a way, that a new word was coined because of it.
Likewise, if I were to say that someone "coultered" Sen. Edwards, or someone "hannitied" VP Gore, or someone "savaged" or "becked" or "morrised" or "o'reillied" some Democrat or Democratic cause, you'd know right away what I meant...
...despite the fact that I had just now invented those words, by taking the names of routine Republican attack operatives, and turned them into verbs.
Like "swiftboated".
Anyway, it's certainly not an excuse, but simply a partial reason; and it remains a double standard just the same.
About these particulars: It's almost funny, that the rare and unusal instance of a Democrat or a Democratic cause doing the thing we're talking about here (versus the so many instances of Republicans doing that thing; so many that you'd think it could justify launching a website to monitor and cite the stuff)...
In this instance, we have not only something that's a mere website (MoveOn.org), but that what they did was take out a single newspaper ad.
A single newspaper ad, by a website.
Contrast that with seeing coulter and hannity and beck and o'reilly and morris and cavuto and hume and so many other ugly faces, broadcast so continuously on the television band of our PUBLIC AIRWAVES...
...in addition to hearing savage and morgan and boortz and limbaugh and so many others, broadcast so continuously on the radio band of our PUBLIC AIRWAVES...
...versus a website taking out a single newspaper ad?
You know, if I had a kind of mirror that would refect these things accurately to a "media" seemingly blind to their own appearance, I'd hold it up for them to look at themselves, and add a healthy dose of criticism and ridicule, just to make sure the image registered.
And I'd probably maka 24/7 "media" obsession in so doing, that's how starnge and rare it is, to see Democrats do the things, that Republicans do continuously on the PUBLIC AIRWAVES.
Versus a website taking out a single newspaper ad?
DEM02020, haven't you been listening to Fox? George Soros, MoveOn, MM, the Clintons, the Liberal Media, and Satan are all in league to destroy God, America, and Apple Pie?
Don't you all think Moveon.org takes itself a little more seriously than Limbaugh takes himself. Good God, the guy is a talk radio host. He happens to be excellent at his job but it's entertainment ferchrisstssakes.
Moveon is actually serious with their content, that's the difference. Or at least they claim to be.
I'm not sure what's "entertaining" about Rush smearing the troops. I don't see how his status as a talk radio host makes his comments any less offensive. His words reach a lot of people, after all.
To follow, was the basis for the MoveOn bill the self-image they had of themselves, or was it that their ad was disrespectful to the military? I'm thinking it was more the latter than the former. They shouldn't have wasted their time with the MoveOn ad, but since they did, it's hard to see why Limbaugh shouldn't be held to the same standard.
Sorry, "self-image they had of themselves" was redundant, I meant to erase one of those parts.
I try learn more better English.
I don't agree with Rush's comments but that's not really my point. I just think it's a false comparison that MMFA is making comparing Moveon with Rush Limbaugh. Unless you think Moveon is strictly in the entertainment business like Limbaugh is.
If I implied that you agreed with Rush, I didn't mean to. I'm just questioning the value of your distinction.
I specifically made the point that it was the offensiveness of the comments that was important, the disrespect to the military. If you really think your distinction is relevant, then tell me why Rush being a talk radio host makes what he said any less offensive or less disrespectful to military personnel. The man did not say he was joking, and he smeared a hell of a lot more people than just one general. And if he doesn't say he was joking, then he was being serious and genuine about his opinion of our soldiers.
Are talk radio hosts allowed to seriously question the patriotism of our troops without consequence? If not, then surely he should get the same treatment MoveOn did, if not worse.
I think Rush is unfortunatly about more than entertainment. I like to think of him as the Godfather of the Axis of Weasels.
I'm with DEM. All that gnashing and gringing of teeth over one add. PPlleease.
There are only 2 reasons to listen to Limbaugh. #1 You have no judgment or intelligence, #2 You enjoy listening to people with no judgment or intelligence. Limbaugh and Hannity frequently say things they later deny saying. Lying comes easy to them. The term "phony" is a favorite Conservatives use to label Liberals. For example, whenever a Liberal talks about matters of faith or God--they are accused by Conservatives of being "fake., or such statements as "Hillary is a fake centrist, " "Hillary's laugh is "fake," etc. etc. etc. The Republicans are clearly better at getting their talking points repeated over and over in the media. How many hours and days did we hear about the Moveon.org ad?
Discussing MMFA and Limbaugh on "Morning Joe" today, Willie Geist used the phrases "phony soldier" (singular) and "out of context," and Scarborough said of MMFA "I guess George Soros will cut them a big check now."
MSNBC Morning Joe - did the same crap! The story is now about Media matters not that he said it - they are claiming that he meant one soldier which we all now is bogus.
RINO Hunter,
Sounds as if maybe you defied your instincts when you “originally condemned Rush for his remarks”. Stick with your instincts: If MM is bashing a conservative leader, they’re probably telling lies.
I heard the Rush “phony soldiers” show from end to end. I’ve been listening to Rush steadily since I first discovered his show three years ago. I also subscribe to Rush 24/7 so I know where the guy stands on the military. This MM claim is an outright lie! Rush was without a doubt referring to military people who misrepresented their service, not those who disagreed with him on Iraq.
It’s the Goebbels’ theory at work (repeat a lie often enough and it will be accepted as truth). MM tells the story over and over again artfully crafted from a different “perspective” each time using such compelling language that, unless one knows otherwise, one tends to believe the story the way MM presents it. They did the same thing with O’Rielly last week.
It’s not just lying by MM. Once they tell it, the MSM picks it up and also runs with it. Now we’ve got Jan Shakowski (Rep from IL) on Friday in the House, and none other than Harry Reid himself standing up Monday in the Senate and advancing the cause of the lie.
I could be wrong but I think this is going to backfire on the Dems and their supporters trying to make this lie stick. Depends on whether or not high profile Republican leaders in the congress step up and tell the truth loud and clear. I see that one congressman has introduced a resolution commending Rush for his statements on behalf of and his work for the troops (check out e.g. the Drudge Report website).
Rush has also challenged Harry Reid. I doubt if Harry has the cajones to take him up on it because Harry probably at least suspects by now the MM claims are not true. Should be interesting to see what follows. I think Harry and Jan and a few other Democrats in government have stepped into it big time.
The transcript clearly shows that the caller took Rush's "phony soldiers" comment and then made a contrasting statement about "real soldiers" wanting to be in Iraq. The only possible meaning of that is that he thinks soldiers who want us to get out of Iraq are "phony".
Rush agreed with him. He did not correct or chastise him, or tell him that he personally just meant McBeth when he said it. He agreed with what the caller said, let the caller go on about another topic, then dishonestly edited the transcript to change the context.
There's no way around this. Rino tried, and Rino lost. You're welcome to take up the argument, but I don't think you will.
Until then, you have nothing meaningful to say. As always.
Let's see if you can follow along.
On his syndicated radio stations Limbaugh does a morning update - a short commentay brodcast durnig AM drive time. On Thrusday morning - befor the daily show - the subject of the morning update was about a particular phony soldier named Jesse McBeth. This commentary was based on an ABC report on phony soldiers (plural) where McBeth was noted as the most notorious of several. Also in that story was a man who was performing services as a Marine Chaplian who had never been in the Marines.
On Limbaugh's daily show on Thursday his statement about a phony soldier was made after the callers comment about the media talking to soldiers from out of the blue blue - but before the ideaology of those soldiers was discussed. The only way you can associate Limbauge agreeing with that ideaology is to assume Limbaugh knew what the caller was going to say before he said it..
What you seem to be claiming is that just because he did not disagree with the callers follow up thought it's as if he said it himself. You are treading on very thin ice. I have seen several posts on this site - some your own - where not every point of an argument has been disputed. Does that mean you endorse those unchallenged points? Very few would assume so. In response to this threads headline - that is particularly why this story has no traction.
The caller was not referring to some soldiers' ideology. He was referring to those who MISREPRESENT their service. That was the context of the conversation on both sides of the conversation.
Nice try.
The caller specifically said that real soldiers want to serve in Iraq. That's contrasted with Rush's "phony soldiers" comment. So he's saying that if you don't want to be in Iraq, you're "phony".
That has nothing to do with McBeth, no matter how many times you mindlessly parrot the assertion.
You haven't gotten any further than Rino. He got shot down, and so have you, and so has every other dishonest apologist.
Careful OLDMARINE - we're on the same side on this one.
You're not addressing what I'm saying, and I've heard all that garbage before. McBeth has nothing to do with what the caller said. That was brought up by Limbaugh afterwards. If you are claiming that was what the caller was talking about, then not only are you saying that his words don't reflect that, but he must have been listening to Rush when he did his morning update two days previously. Quite an assumption to make.
The caller took Limbaugh's "phony soldiers" line and then talked about "real soldiers" who want to be in Iraq. Rush agreed with him. There is simply no way to claim that Rush's response was not total agreement. It's not a question of just "not disagreeing" with the caller, he actually agreed with him.
Furthermore, we are talking about the troops here. Rush supports all troops, don't you know? So if someone tells him that certain troops are phony because they oppose the war (which is what the caller did), you would think that if he really supported all the troops he would have ripped the caller up. Yet, he didn't. And he didn't say "I didn't understand" or anything of the sort afterwards. Why not?
You cannot win this, because you are not going to sway people here with your intellectual dishonesty. We're smarter than Rushbots.
In case I didn't make this point clear enough, if someone says something I disagree with I express it. It doesn't matter who it is. Obviously you haven't been here long enough to know this, but you should. I don't let anyone get away with BS.
So if I don't dispute something, either a)I find it irrelevant, b)I accept it, or c)I forgot to respond to it because of other things I had to say.
Are you really going to say that Rush found the smearing of the troops irrelevant? Or that in all the firestorm over this he forgot to respond to it? I hope not. He accepted it, and he expressly agreed with it at that. "They (real troops) signed up to be in Iraq". That's quite clear.
This is why you have to listen to the show and not work off of reporting. As I said - the Jesse McBeth thing was a morning update - Rush always works his morning updates into his daily show. This caller gave him the launch pad to do so. This war has been going on for five years. If Rush really believed what you assume he does this topic would have surfaced much sooner and you would have many references to point to.
You admitted that sometimes you may forget to address a point. It's easy for us to sit in front of our keyboards and contemplate every word we write but when you are having a live, unscripted phone conversation on the radio under a time constraint things might be different. It's a possibility. You are looking at things through too fine a microscope, If you are going to be overly judgemental you will need to learn to consider the situation. I have learned that through many uears of parenting.
When Joe Biden, talking about Obamma, said - it's refreshing to have a clean articulate black in the race-was he intentionally insulting Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Alan Keys -or blacks in general? As a the rest of the democrat candidates did not disagree with Biden did they ipso-facto say it too? Why did he respond in such a way?
Again - this phony soldier story has no traction -it's time to realize why.
You still fail to address what I'm saying about the conversation. The caller made a blanket statement, and Rush agreed with it. This is not something you can gloss over and then pretend you have a valid argument. That's not going to fly.
As I've said, this isn't about the troops. If I was hosting a show and someone said something like "soldiers who support this war are murderers" I would blow them out of the water. There's no consideration about time or politics or anything else that needs to be made there, because it's a clearly offensive comment that deserves a vociferous and immediate response.
The caller smeared the troops. Rush should have blasted him for it. But he agreed with him instead. If he really did that because of "time constraints" on a three-hour show, then he's the stupidest person in radio.
Biden's comment was completely brainless at best. If I was hosting a show and he said it, I would have held him to the fire over it. I know many liberals who don't support Biden because of comments he's made like that.
Pardon me, "this is about the troops", obviously. I underedited that part.
Brabandito - You are trying to convict someone not based on what they said or did, but based on what they didn't say or do. You are working off supposition and assumption and I see that as a fallacy in your argument. Again - after five years of war if your point were valid there would be some other evidence of it. Nonetheless I see that you are passionate about your point. At his point we are going to have to agree to disagree.
I note that this subject is dying and that the spotlight is now beginning to shift to the integrity of MMFA
No, Rush clearly agreed with what the caller said. That's something he actually said. You seem to be completely unable to address this, and now you're misrepresenting it.
"You are trying to convict someone not based on what they said or did, but based on what they didn't say or do. You are working off supposition and assumption and I see that as a fallacy in your argument. Again - after five years of war if your point were valid there would be some other evidence of it."
I'm wrong for assuming that if Rush really supported the troops, he would chastise a caller who insulted the troops. But you're going to assume that because Rush didn't say this earlier, he couldn't possibly believe it, and that's supposed to be a convincing argument.
So I'm trying to convict someone based on what he didn't do or say (which I'm not, as I've explained), but you're trying to defend him based on something he didn't do or say.
That's comedy gold right there.
Oh, and I forgot your idiocy that if Rush really believed what he did he would have said so earlier.
The most obvious thing is that Rush probably knows that this sort of comment is going to put him in hot water. It's obviously offensive. By your logic, someone who worked with black people and didn't say anything racist for five years can't be a racist. But I've seen people do exactly that, and then say something clearly prejudiced. There has to be a first for everything.
We also have to take into account certain mindsets here. I've presented the relevant portion of what Limbaugh said many times, and yet nobody will address it. Like you. It's just partisan denial, to protect your ideology. So it doesn't really matter if he did make comments like this in the past, because we're going to get any number of Rush fans coming in claiming it's not true, no matter how obvious it is, no matter how well demonstrated. I can guarantee that if Rush said something like this next week, this incident would not be dismissed out of hand because "he wasn't smearing the troops". If you're intellectually dishonest, then you won't agree on the history that allows people to evaluate his beliefs.
Most importantly, Rush said what he said. If he just got wrapped up in partisanship, then he should retract it. If he didn't understand what the caller meant, he should have said so at some point. I have no way of knowing why he said it. But saying "he never said it before" doesn't erase the reality of the current situation, sadly for you.
Again, sorry, a little sloppy today with my editing. "This incident would be dismissed out of hand".
So much for civilized debate. I'll repeat my post from above.
You are trying to convict someone not based on what they said or did, but based on what they didn't say or do. You are working off supposition and assumption and I see that as a fallacy in your argument. Again - after five years of war if your point were valid there would be some other evidence of it. Nonetheless I see that you are passionate about your point. At his point we are going to have to agree to disagree.
I note that this subject is dying and that the spotlight is now beginning to shift to the integrity of MMFA.
Civilized debate? Read your own posts. You baselessly accused us of being disingenuous.
Meanwhile, you will not address the points I've made. After this many chances, I think it's fair to say that your refusal to do so shows you are being intellectually dishonest yourself. You are ignoring a valid point and pretending your argument still stands, when it clearly can't.
Quit acting like you have an argument when it's been picked apart. You're not fooling anyone.
I'll walk you through it.
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.
The caller is referring to people who the media holds up in high regard - people who claim to be soldiers but are not.
LIMBAUGH: The phony soldiers.
-people like the now infamous Jesse McBeth who had been discussed on Rush's show the day before, and was the subject of a Morning Update (topics do carry over from previous days - If you were listening you would know)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.
You now make the assumption that the caller uses the term REAL referring only to soldiers who support the war. This is where ther is a disconnect between you and us. We are of the opinion that ALL soldiers are proud to serve - whether they agree with the war or not, and will make the ultimate sacrifice regardless of their beliefs. Rush himself has stated this many times before.
LIMBAUGH: They joined to be in Iraq. -
Rush affirms the callers statement above - that all real soldiers regardless of their ideaology - kenw they were going to Iraq when they joined the service. This is a volunteer service.
.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.
Nowhere in the above exchange does Rush or the Caller assert that those who dissent against the war are phony. That is your supposition and assumption. And by the traction this story is getting - I'd have to say your view is the minority opinion.
And yes - I do believe some here were being disingenuous -- because it's fun to stir the pot.
"If you talk to a real soldier, they are proud to serve. They want to be over in Iraq."
How do you assert that he's talking about people besides those who want to be in Iraq? It says it right there. "A real soldier...want(s) to be over in Iraq." That's very clear, and you're not forwarding a rational alternative interpretation.
What is this "we" nonsense? Aren't you assuming that the caller has the same mindset you do? It's sort of odd to say that the caller doesn't believe what he's saying because "we" don't believe that. And again, if Rush doesn't agree with that viewpoint, then he shouldn't have agreed with it. Isn't that simple enough?
Care to try again?
I repeat - a "real" soldier is proud to serve regardless of his ideaology. They would not have joined a volunteer service unless they were proud to serve. I'm not claiming they all agree with the war - just that they are all proud to serve. That's all that was being said and agreed to in the conversation.
A phony soldier is one who is not really in the military but claims to be. I don't doubt that there are phony soldiers that claim to support the war too.
There are two distinct sides to this debate - those who beleive as I do - those who believe as you do. The collective "we" simply states that I do not share this opinion with others.
OOPS - the collective we simply states that I DO share this opinion with others.
Yes, I understand this is the assertion you're making. But it doesn't make any sense.
See, the caller was making a distinction. "Phony soldiers". Then he defined the traits of a real soldier. He said more than "proud to serve", as you know. He also said "wants to be in Iraq". You seem to be forgetting the relevant aspects all of a sudden.
So by defining the characteristics of a "real soldier" as "wanting to be in Iraq", he is automatically defining someone who doesn't want to be in Iraq as a "phony soldier". The caller made that distinction quite clearly. Now you're telling me that he made this definition, split soldiers into two groups, but he really believes they're all real soldiers. It doesn't make a damn bit of sense, no matter how many times you assert it.
I think you're confused because people can be proud to serve and want us out of Iraq at the same time, when they know it's an unjustified war and they know they can be put to better use. So "proud to serve" is not the issue here. In fact, that's obviously the problem with the commentary, that people who are proud to serve are getting smeared as "phony" because they want us out of Iraq.
Besides, you're overlooking something very important. Rush also listed Murtha as a phony soldier. Now, you can have your opinion of his politics, but it's really difficult to argue that he wasn't proud to serve. I mean, really difficult. So to say that "proud to serve" is what makes someone a real soldier, how did he classify Murtha as "phony"?
No matter how you cut it, it's obvious the determining factor is one's opinion on Iraq. The caller said it, and Rush said it, whether you personally agree or not.
Oh, I wanted to comment on your "minority" line earlier. I wasn't going to, but I just couldn't help laughing at it.
If that's really the case, It's probably because FOX is lying through their teeth about it, and I'm not sure how much other coverage is out there. So people are misinformed or uninformed. It's certainly not because you have a more persuasive argument or anything, as these threads have shown in great detail.
I guess the idea of your comment is that I'm supposed to ignore the conversation that actually happened here. I'm supposed to forget what was said, the tones used, the undeniable meanings. I should forget that Rush edited the transcript and told people it was complete to change the context. I should forget he called Murtha a "phony soldier" as well. I should ignore all understanding of logic and reason and honesty, and adapt your inferior, untenable position because I sure don't want to be in the minority. Anything but that!
Thank you for showing me the light on that. I will go right out and tell all the war supporters that they are in the minority, and they'll feel ashamed and change their principles on the spot.
And thanks for the laugh. Priceless.
See, the caller was making a distinction. "Phony soldiers". Then he defined the traits of a real soldier. He said more than "proud to serve", as you know. He also said "wants to be in Iraq". You seem to be forgetting the relevant aspects all of a sudden. So by defining the characteristics of a "real soldier" as "wanting to be in Iraq", he is automatically defining someone who doesn't want to be in Iraq as a "phony soldier".
While I believe that is what you heard - that is not what was said. The caler didn't define anything. Thats where you make an assumption.
For the last 4 years we have been at war in Iraq - If a soldier didn't want to be there they would not have signed their enlistment papers. And while there are obviously soldiers who were in the military before the war began - every soldier is trained to be proud to serve and to support their mission. To them it is not a a matter of ideaology - it is a matter of survival. Whether the soldier agrees with the political philosophy or not his mission is to be there. If he doesn't support his mission he has lost his greatest defense. I guarantee you that there are soldiers serving side by side tonight, each with different political philosophies, both supporting their mission. They want to be in Iraq because that is their mission.
Now you're telling me that he made this definition, split soldiers into two groups, but he really believes they're all real soldiers. It doesn't make a damn bit of sense, no matter how many times you assert it.
I am not trying to tell you what he meant - only the caller knows that. While I understand that it doesnt make sense to you it makes perfect sense to those on the opposite side of the debate.
I think you're confused because people can be proud to serve and want us out of Iraq at the same time, when they know it's an unjustified war and they know they can be put to better use.
How am I confused - I just made that same point to you in my previous post.
So "proud to serve" is not the issue here. In fact, that's obviously the problem with the commentary, that people who are proud to serve are getting smeared as "phony" because they want us out of Iraq.
The caller never said "A phony soldier is one who wants us out of Iraq" - that is your assumption - what you wanted to hear.
Besides, you're overlooking something very important. Rush also listed Murtha as a phony soldier. Now, you can have your opinion of his politics, but it's really difficult to argue that he wasn't proud to serve. I mean, really difficult. So to say that "proud to serve" is what makes someone a real soldier, how did he classify Murtha as "phony"?
Just as you identified Joe Biden as an embarassment earlier - I must define Jack Murtha as one too. His conviction of murder against those Marines before they even had a chance to stand trial was a disgrace and a real attack on our military. The charges against most of those men have been dropped due to falsified evidence. There is still no decision on charging their Commander. I have not heard one word from that joke of a congressman since their dismissal. Jack Murtha is a member of the government and I have no problem with him disagreeing with the war philosophy - however I have a problem with the way he does it - with complete and utter contempt for the soldiers who are protecting his sorry rear end.
Also please note - I am not here to defend Rush Limbaugh. Like most people who listen to him he does not tell me what to think. He does espouse a conservative philosophy that most of his lisetners believe in. And he does it with humor and a bragadocious attitude specifically designed to irritate liberals. Politics while a serious subject can also be fun. Not everything he says is right and sometimes he's way off base - that's only my opinion of course.
No matter how you cut it, it's obvious the determining factor is one's opinion on Iraq. The caller said it, and Rush said it, whether you personally agree or not.
You heard what your heard - not necessarily what was said. Once again outside of this MMFA world - few are paying attention to this anymore.
"While I believe that is what you heard - that is not what was said. The caler didn't define anything. Thats where you make an assumption."
And now we explore the depths of your intellectual dishonesty. The caller clearly stated what a "real soldier" was, as opposed to a "phony soldier". What is that if it's not defining what each of those types of soldiers are according to their characteristics? I'd like an answer to that, please.
"For the last 4 years we have been at war in Iraq - If a soldier didn't want to be there they would not have signed their enlistment papers...They want to be in Iraq because that is their mission."
Nonsense. You're telling me that no soldier can identify an unjustified war and want to get out of it?
"How am I confused - I just made that same point to you in my previous post."
Um, didn't you just tell me that every soldier wants to be in Iraq because it's their mission? As a matter of survival? How can you be saying that and saying that soldiers want us to get out of Iraq at the same time?
"The caller never said "A phony soldier is one who wants us out of Iraq" - that is your assumption - what you wanted to hear."
It's not an assumption. It's the obvious meaning of what he said, to which you have failed to provide any rational alternative explanation for. To say something is an assumption, you sort of have to have other valid options. I don't want to hear anyone saying the things this caller did, but he said them nonetheless. I'm addressing the reality of the situation, and it would be nice if you could as well.
"Just as you identified Joe Biden as an embarassment earlier - I must define Jack Murtha as one too..."
How does this explain how someone who was proud to serve his country is a "phony soldier" according to Rush? You claimed that's the only criterion, but now you're suggesting that the way he objects to the war somehow justifies Rush's remarks.
You're basing your entire case now on this idea that the caller didn't separate phony troops from real troops and attribute characteristics for each. All you can do is pretend that the caller didn't actually say what he did, and therefore my conclusion is some unfair assumption.
Please try to be more honest.
You are just so stuck in the box you can't fight your way out.
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.
That is all the information you need to determine who the real and phony soldiers are. Everything else is in your own little world.
Everything else is in my own little world? How about this?:
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.
You posted that yourself. Oh, look, there's a definition of what makes a real soldier and what makes a phony soldier. How about that?
That's the part I was referring to, as you know. You can't address it honestly, so you're reduced to denying the basic reality of the situation and throwing out segments of the conversation that has nothing to do with what I'm saying.
All you have is talking trash and lies, nothing more.
"And now we explore the depths of your intellectual dishonesty. The caller clearly stated what a "real soldier" was, as opposed to a "phony soldier". What is that if it's not defining what each of those types of soldiers are according to their characteristics? I'd like an answer to that, please.
Tha caller didn't clearly state anything. From the opening of the conversation Rush identifies a "phony" soldier as someone who claims to be a soldier but is not. You can't automatically assume that the words that follow by the caller identify a real soldier as someone who disagrees with the war and not as an actual soldier. Look outside the box please.
"Nonsense. You're telling me that no soldier can identify an unjustified war and want to get out of it?
I'm not telling youthat at all. A soldier has the ability to discern between duty and ideaology. My point is that he is trained to obey orders first and will fight for his country regardless of his personal beliefs.
Um, didn't you just tell me that every soldier wants to be in Iraq because it's their mission? As a matter of survival? How can you be saying that and saying that soldiers want us to get out of Iraq at the same time?
Yes I did. You can't seem to understand that there is a difference between duty and ideaology. Most americans, including the President, want us out of Iraq as soon as possible. But not behind the flag of surrender. Knowing they have friends, family and loved ones waiting for them at home, most soldiers will tell you they will stay until the mission is complete.
It's not an assumption. It's the obvious meaning of what he said, to which you have failed to provide any rational alternative explanation for. To say something is an assumption, you sort of have to have other valid options. I don't want to hear anyone saying the things this caller did, but he said them nonetheless. I'm addressing the reality of the situation, and it would be nice if you could as well.
It is only obvious to you. The reality of the situation is that you do not know what was in the callers mind. The callers subject was undocumented soldiers who come out of the blue that the media holds up as heroes. Limbaugh then introduced the term phony soldiers - whom he had been talking about the day before (Jesse McBeth). The caller repeats the term. For all you know the caller never intended to use those terms. He then says that real soldiers want to be in Iraq. He doesn't clarify whether those are actual soldiers ir soldiers who believe in the war. He never follows up with a comment on a phony soldier.
Because you have interpreted the comment on a real soldier to be ONLY those soldiers who agree with the war you then logically assume the definition of a phony soldier is the opposite. This is conjecture. When forming a hypthesis if your definition of A is wrong - your definition of the opposite of A will be wrong too. Therefore your whole thesis becomes invalid based on your original incorrect interpretation.
"Just as you identified Joe Biden as an embarassment earlier - I must define Jack Murtha as one too..." How does this explain how someone who was proud to serve his country is a "phony soldier" according to Rush? You claimed that's the only criterion, but now you're suggesting that the way he objects to the war somehow justifies Rush's remarks.
Please reread my previous post on defending Rush Limbaugh. I have other words for Murtha but respect for the office of congress keeps me from uttering them here. He may have been a hero at one time.
You're basing your entire case now on this idea that the caller didn't separate phony troops from real troops and attribute characteristics for each. All you can do is pretend that the caller didn't actually say what he did, and therefore my conclusion is some unfair assumption. Please try to be more honest.
I have presented the call transcript and broken it down to it's basic roots. The fact is that neither the caller or Rush actually defines a real or phony soldier. That is left for the listener to decide.
I can't be more honest than that.
"Tha caller didn't clearly state anything. From the opening of the conversation Rush identifies a "phony" soldier as someone who claims to be a soldier but is not."
What relevance does Rush's definition have at the opening? Rush said "phony soldiers" to describe those who come "out of the blue". The caller then expands on that, making a blanket statement that real soldiers want to be in Iraq. That's going outside the scope of what Rush said. What I'm doing is not assuming, I'm judging the caller's meaning based on exactly what he said. Isn't that what you told me to do? Am I really supposed to believe that because Rush said something, the caller is automatically confined to that definition? That's quite an assumption to make there.
"I'm not telling youthat at all. A soldier has the ability to discern between duty and ideaology. My point is that he is trained to obey orders first and will fight for his country regardless of his personal beliefs."
The caller isn't talking just about duty, though. He's talking about those who want to be in Iraq and those that are willing to sacrifice. That applies to people who want us to get out of Iraq (not willing to sacrifice). They still fight out of duty, but they're "phony" because they're not "willing" and want us out of there. Your point has nothing to do with what the caller actually said.
"Yes I did. You can't seem to understand that there is a difference between duty and ideaology...most soldiers will tell you they will stay until the mission is complete."
Really? Was the mission complete in 2006, and we all missed it? I do understand there's a difference between duty and ideology. My point is that the caller does not seem to see that difference.
"It is only obvious to you. The reality of the situation is that you do not know what was in the callers mind. The callers subject was undocumented soldiers who come out of the blue..."
The caller never intended to use those terms? He expanded on Rush's use of the term, after repeating it himself. His comment was a tangent to the point about soldiers coming out of the blue. Do you understand? It's saying that we know that these soldiers who come out of nowhere and speak against the war are phony because real soldiers support the war and are willing to sacrifice. He's including the people Rush is talking about, but he's expanding it to say that anyone who wants us out of Iraq is phony as well.
"Because you have interpreted the comment on a real soldier to be ONLY those soldiers who agree with the war you then logically assume the definition of a phony soldier is the opposite. This is conjecture."
Idiotic nonsense! If you create two groups, and you define the characteristics of the members of one group, then those that don't match those characteristics fall into the other group. What else is possible? He said "phony soldiers" and he said "real soldier". A distinction between two groups. He then defined what makes a real soldier. How is it logically possible that he believes that someone who wants to get out of Iraq is a "real soldier" when that goes squarely against the definition he himself established in no uncertain terms?
"Please reread my previous post on defending Rush Limbaugh. I have other words for Murtha but respect for the office of congress keeps me from uttering them here. He may have been a hero at one time."
You're dodging the question. How does your comment pertain to Rush's classification of him as a "phony soldier"? He was an actual soldier, proud to serve, but something disqualifies him as "real". What is it? If a former Marine can be dismissed as a "phony soldier", that says something about Rush's arbitrary respect for those who serve their country.
"I have presented the call transcript and broken it down to it's basic roots. The fact is that neither the caller or Rush actually defines a real or phony soldier. That is left for the listener to decide."
Listing the characteristics of one group is a definition. The caller listed those characteristics. "A real soldier is proud to serve...etc." That's his definition. You can't possibly tell me what else it is besides a definition, but yet you insist that it somehow isn't.
That's intellectual dishonesty.
I can't be anymore honest that to post exactly what the caller said. You are trying to put values on other peoples words that may or may not be there.
The caller never said a real soldier is "blah blah blah". You assumed what followed was his definition
If you listened to Rush the day before this happened, or listened to his morning update the day this happened you knew exactly what his definition of a phony soldier was. Jesse McBeth and those like him
Again, what was it if not a definition? He defined the characteristics of each type.
And again, if Rush defined a phony soldier as "Jesse McBeth", then he shouldn't have agreed with the caller, who defined it differently.
I'm going to substitute dictionary definitions for the words real and phony into the call transcript.
CALLER 2: No, it's not, and what's really funny is, they never talk to factual, having verifiable existence; true and actual not imaginary soldiers. They like to pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and talk to the media. LIMBAUGH: The not genuine or real soldiers.CALLER 2: The not genuine or real soldiers. If you talk to a factual, having verifiable existence; true and actual not imaginary 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
When you read it that way what follows the callers use of the term real is not a definition but a complement to all soldiers. This caller claims to have recently returned from Iraq. Is it not possible that he was holding all fellow soldiers up in high regard - regardless of their view on the war?
When you look at the call from this perspective and then follow the events that unfolded you should begin to realize that MMFA is way off base and it trying to float a lead balloon. Search your political news database - see where this is going. There is no "recasting" there is no decietful editing. All the chatter from Rush that follows supports the above.
I think your original take on the possible meaning of the call was valid because the of the ambiguity - the original statements were not clear and could be taken out of context - which I believe was purpously done as a rebuttal to the flack over the "General Betrayus" ad. But those of us who were listening and know how what Rush believes knew from the beginning what was actually meant.
For the Murtha comment - I am not avoiding the question. I think I said he may have been a hero - now he's a joke. Somewhere in all the transcripts - Rush aludes to Active Duty soldiers - those in uniform. I think that is one of the points MMFA reclaims is recast but as it was never discussed as part of the original conversation recasting is not possible. I am going to make an assumption that as Murtha is no longer a soldier Rush believes that by talking about atrocities as if he (Murtha) were still a soldier he too is a phony soldier. This would also fit the Kerry comment - but why don't you call Rush and ask him that yourself. I'd say if you tell the call screener what you want to talk about your call will be taken rather quickly.
Please reread my post below about my nephews to see where my perspective is coming from. All I'm trying to do is help you look outside your box.and maybe - just maybe - you'll understand that another opinion besides your own may be valid.
So the idea is that he's talking in the most literal manner about "phony" soldiers. We're talking about people who aren't serving. But then he talks about how real soldiers are "proud to serve". As opposed to...people who aren't proud to serve? How would they know, considering they've never served? Further, if we're talking about McBeth, he washed out of boot camp for being unfit. So since he was making the effort to get into the military, it's a bit odd to say that he didn't want to go to Iraq or wasn't willing to sacrifice. What the hell did he think the Army was going to do with him if he made it through camp, send him to Hawaii? Hell, it sounds like he made up the story he did out of spite because he didn't get to go to Iraq, doesn't it? If that's the case, then he joined to go to Iraq, which is exactly what Rush said a "real soldier" did. I find that rather amusing.
So that explanation still doesn't make a lot of sense. If you're pleading stupidity for Rush and his caller, then that might be a possibility.
Your explanation of Rush's Murtha comment is extraordinarily weak. I thought "phony soldier" was about "misrepresenting" your service. Did Murtha do that? I find it interesting that the definition of "phony" is so narrow for the conversation in question, but it suddenly widens to include someone who used to be a soldier, isn't pretending to be a soldier and isn't misrepresenting their own service when we're talking about Murtha. And of course it doesn't have anything to do with Murtha's stance on the war, right? He said the previous caller was a phony Republican because he opposed the war. He used the word "betray" for Hagel, because of his stance on the war. But his "phony" classification for Murtha has nothing to do with his position on the war.
Right.
I should add, if this caller is talking in literal dictionary definitions, where he's saying every single genuine soldier wants to be in Iraq, that seems odd coming from someone who recently returned from Iraq. He doesn't know that so many of his fellow soldiers wanted to get out? Doesn't Rush know that there are a lot of soldiers like that either?
If they're talking in those terms, either this is a delusional or dishonest conversation on both ends. They're making illogical comments about McBeth, they're making wildly inaccurate assertions about the troops. Is this the only defense here?
Otherwise, the caller was making his own definition, which is consistent with your description of the context.
I may re-evaluate part of what I've said, based on an alternate take of the key quote.
"If you talk to any real soldier and they're proud to serve, they want to be over in Iraq, they understand their sacrifice and they're willing to sacrifice for the country"
I was taking this as meaning that "proud to serve" was a characteristic of being a "real soldier". But let's assume he means "real" the way you do, just meaning he's actually serving. It looks like the "and they're proud to serve" is part of the conditional clause. The "real soldier" part is a given, because if they're not a real soldier they're not serving at all. So it then boils down to "if they're proud to serve, they want to be in Iraq..."
Now that's very hard to defend. Every soldier who is proud to serve wants to be in Iraq. So it naturally follows that if you don't want to be in Iraq, then you can't possibly be proud of your service. Ouch. That's quite a comment to make about so many soldiers.
So you should be happy now, I've found another valid explanation. And in it, the caller still questions the patriotism of the troops, and Rush agreed with him.
That was a useful little exercise in "thinking outside the box". Very illuminating!
my above reply did not post properly - may have had to do with text formating. I'll substitute the definitions below in bold.. This is the complete modified transcript.
CALLER 2: No, it's not, and what's really funny is, they never talk to factual, not having verifiable existence, true and actual, not imaginary soldiers. They like to pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and talk to the media. LIMBAUGH: The not genuine or real soldiers.CALLER 2: The not genuine or real soldiers. If you talk to a factual, not having verifiable existence, true and actual, not imaginary 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
it's still not posting correctly but I think you'll get the idea.
You obviously have an issue with trying to decypehr other peoples thoughts by reading between the lines. Learn to take peoples words for what they are.
My comment about your thoughts being in the minority is nothing more than an observation of what's going on outside this MMFA box. In my earlier post I told you we were going to have to agree to disagree - it's as simple as that. I encourage your opinions and look forward to reading them.
I will share with you that while I have no sons - I do have two nephews - brothers who completed two tours of duty in Iraq. They left as overconfident high school seniors ready to take onthe world and came back as fine well rounded young men. With God's protection they came back to us in full mental and physical health - a condition I know many others have not been blessed to experience.
We don't agree on everything - in their late twenties they are just starting to hone their politiacl philosophies. They think President Bush is too conservative - I think he is too liberal. But while they don't totally agree with their President - they have the utmost respect for their Commander in Chief. Nothing boils their blood more than to see pundants insulting the man. You can disagree with him all you want but if you want to irk them just try denouncing him personally and you will be caught in the stare of two pissed off Army Rangers. They have learned that there is a line between disagreement and disrespect - that you can not agree with everything but still support a cause.
They have demonstrated to us the pride and honor of the US military. They too listened to Rush Limbaugh for one hour a day whenever they could - they still do today.
OLDMARINE, your world must be a very simple place.
As a Giants fan it was fun watching Donovan McNab on the run Monday night - but by the time the Giant defence sacked him the 12th time it was embarrassing to watch. How many times do you libs have to be sacked before you realize it's time to change your game plan. This story has no traction because it has no basis in truth. It was fun to watch you try to twist this into an Imus adventure but fact is - game over.
Frank Rich - lib columnust for the NY Times ripped onto Hillary yesterday. Baseball playoffs are exclusely night games now which may raise the earths temperature by 1/4 of a degree by 2052, Clarence Thomas was on 60 minutes Sunday night - and all you can whine about is Rush Limbaugh?
If you ever wonder why conservatives dont hang areound this site very long it's because a proverb tells us "Don't argue with a fool as others will soon see you as one". I know you libs are smarter that you are pretending to be - I'm curious as to why you like to hide it so much?
WC4ME, some of the conservatives stick around here. The brighter ones who can keep up, as well as the oblivious ones who don't realize they can't.
Most come here briefly, until they realize they're far from the comforting lies of Rush and their other masters.Usually, these end with a badly beaten dittohead posting something like "You people are idiots!", and a cloud of dust.
HBL - let's hope then we can continue to have some good debate without resulting to name calling.