Limbaugh's AFN audience has heard only misrepresentations of his "phony soldiers" comment on his show
During the first hour of the October 1 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, in response to a Media Matters for America item documenting his recent description of service members who advocate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq as "phony soldiers," Rush Limbaugh said: "I want to apologize to all of the members of the United States military, both in uniform and out, active duty and retired, for Media Matters for America." Limbaugh continued: "They will not apologize to you, and they will not apologize to me. I want to apologize to you on behalf of them." Limbaugh later asserted: "The bottom line to all this is that, last week, with this smear and this phony accusation regarding something I had not said about active duty military personnel, or even those who opposed the war, was that, once again, the integrity of the U.S. military was brought into question when the integrity of the sourcing group, Media Matters for America, should have been brought into question." But Limbaugh has misrepresented his "phony soldiers" comments; indeed, listeners to Armed Forces Network (AFN), which broadcasts only the first hour of The Rush Limbaugh Show, heard only a spliced version of Limbaugh's remarks in which he edited out 1 minute and 35 seconds of discussion, while falsely claiming that he was providing the "entire transcript."
Limbaugh's original reference to "phony soldiers" occurred during the second hour of the September 26 edition of his show, and therefore was not heard by AFN listeners. During the first hour of the September 28 broadcast of his show, however, Limbaugh -- reacting to strong criticism over his comments -- played an edited version of the discussion, which he presented as complete. That was the first time his AFN audience would have heard the comments on his radio show. During that broadcast, Limbaugh claimed that on September 26, he had not been talking "about the anti-war movement generally," but rather "about one soldier ... Jesse MacBeth." To support this claim, Limbaugh purported to air the "entire" segment in question from the September 26 broadcast. But as Media Matters noted, the clip he aired omitted a full 1 minute and 35 seconds of the 1 minute and 50 second discussion that occurred between Limbaugh's original "phony soldiers" comment and his reference to MacBeth.
Moreover, during the first hour of his September 28 broadcast, Limbaugh actually misrepresented his own comments in an effort to support his assertion that Media Matters had distorted his remarks. Limbaugh twice claimed that rather than speaking generally of soldiers who support withdrawal from Iraq, he was "talking about one soldier with that 'phony soldier' comment, Jesse MacBeth." But as the transcript makes clear, Limbaugh originally referred to "phony soldiers," plural. Responding to a caller's statement that supporters of withdrawal "like to pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and talk to the media," Limbaugh responded, "The phony soldiers" [emphasis added].
In addition, Limbaugh referred to Media Matters as a "Hillary Clinton front group." In fact, as previously noted in response to similar claims from Limbaugh, Media Matters is not affiliated with any political party or candidate.
From the October 1 edition of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:
LIMBAUGH: I want to apologize to all of the members of the United States military, both in uniform and out, active duty and retired, for Media Matters for America. They will not apologize to you, and they will not apologize to me. I want to apologize to you on behalf of them. As all of you military personnel know, I -- since the beginning of time and since the beginning of this program, certainly 19 years ago -- have been one of the most ardent, loyal, in-awe supporters of any and all who wear the uniform -- including those who disagree with the mission.
I found a couple of them when I was in Afghanistan on a troop visit. I went over to five base visits in Afghanistan, and did Q&A, sometimes for two hours with assembled troops at the various bases. Not all of them were happy with me in terms of my politics and so forth, but I told every damn one of them that I was in awe of them and that I wanted to come speak to them, and I purposely asked to go on this trip -- and I'd been asking for a long time. This is the first time I've been granted permission.
But I wanted to go on this trip because at the time this was all happening, Afghanistan had sort of cooled off and there wasn't much news coming out of there, but Iraq was roiling, and the news out of Iraq was -- well, you know what it was. It was bad: "We can't win"; "We're losing"; "Too many deaths" -- and all this sort of thing. And I wanted to go tell them, personally, as an American, how small and -- of a minority those thoughts about them were -- that there was love and respect and adoration for all who wear the uniform in this country, active duty or not, but I was specifically referring to people in combat zones of Iraq and Afghanistan.
And I stood up before them, and I said -- even to the ones who let it be known that they disagreed with me politically, not on the war, but politically -- I mean, they all wanted victory, and they all were doing their duty, and they all said they were there to protect their country. This is what they chose to do after 9-11 happened. And I stood before them and I said -- and I -- there are a lot of people, by the way, who were thanking me and all of that. It ran the gamut -- "I don't care who you are. I stand before you, and I feel, you know, six inches tall. Compared to what you're doing, I'm just, you know, uttering words here. I just wanted to come convey support because you're not getting a whole lot of it in the mainstream media in our country, and the attitudes toward you of the American people are being misrepresented to you in droves." You're --
I said, "When you get back and walk into most airports in this country, you are going to be given standing ovations and applause." Of course, that -- the story coming out of Oakland -- and it's -- I guess there's some controversy about it, but apparently, some Marines getting home, landing at Oakland, were spit on by people in the Oakland airport. Now, I haven't been able to confirm it, but it's on a couple blogs and apparently there's some witnesses that say that they did see it.
Bottom line to all this -- and I've -- you know, I've been -- I've described to you that the visit I took to Washington to Walter Reed Army Hospital and the amputee rehabilitation unit. So many of these men and their wives were thanking me for what I'm doing -- that makes me feel six inches tall as well. In fact, Justice [Clarence] Thomas and I discussed this in the interview coming up you will hear. I said, "I'm just uttering words. You guys, look at you." No, no, no. They were upbeat and happy. One guy had lost both arms; couldn't wait to get married six months down the road. He said, "Look, we all have our roles, man, and you keep doing what you're doing."
The bottom line to all this is is that, last week, with this smear and this phony accusation regarding something I had not said about active duty military personnel, or even those who opposed the war, was that, once again, the integrity of the U.S. military was brought into question when the integrity of the sourcing group, Media Matters for America, should have been brought into question.
A Hillary Clinton front group, they will continue to be used as an accredited source by the drive-by media, despite the fact that they have now been demonstrated to make things up, take things out of context, and embarrass those who report what they say. They will continue to be a source, because this is the '08 playbook that we saw break down last week -- and the Democrats may still introduce their resolution in the House castigating me. I don't know. The House doesn't go into session 'til two o'clock. We'll have to wait and see. Don't know if they will do that or not.
If they do, it's just an effort to try to portray themselves as pro-military 'cause they know they have to because they know the impression they have accurately created is that they're not pro-military, from [Rep.] Jack Murtha [D-PA] to [Senate Majority Leader] Harry Reid [D-NV] claiming defeat, [Sen.] John Kerry's [D-MA] lifetime of criticism of the soldiers. So they're going to try to deflect the criticism away from their pet organization, MoveOn.org, whose "Betray Us" ad backfired totally on them. It was a Wellstone moment for them, as will this be.
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 who works there -- to all of you in the U.S. 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. I really regret that it happened, and I apologize to you on their behalf since they won't.
[commercial break]
LIMBAUGH: OK, we got a little wager going here. How long will it take Media Matters for America to report that I, Rush Limbaugh, apologized to the troops, period -- which is not what I did. I apologized to troops on behalf of Media Matters for America, because they will not. Let's see how they distort this. They are totally capable of it. Clarence Thomas is coming next.
Well, he lies to the troops now. One more reason why he needs to be taken off of afr. The soldiers should hear the same thing we hear, not some watered down version of spin control...
I'm working on a list of his advertisers in hope that we can get some emails, letters, and phone calls going on this. Although, sometimes I wonder if it does any good when it comes to right wing BS.
You think you're gonna get Rush taken off the air over this phony attack against him? What a laugh. I'm not the biggest Limbaugh fan, but this is much ado about nothing.
I predict this will all blow over rather quickly, as it should, as opposed to the actual war itself, which is interminable.
It probably will. What gave you the impression MMFA was trying to get anybody kicked off the air? I didnt see MMFA say anything of the sort
Anyone else notice that whenever the story is about Rush that we get the dumbest people in the world suddenly having lots to say? And the sort of reasonable righties lose what little bit of objectivity they had? The ones I like are, "I'm no big fan. I don't agree with everything Rush says....but...." It's really sad. It seems like intelligence is inversely proportional to how much you can tolerate listening to this giant turd.
Yup, I notice that too. And I see fox has declared all out war on MM. So now we're a criminal enterprise? Talk about trying to eliminating free speech!
You'll like this article, I dare rush to take the challenge!
No one is trying to take away free speech, they are trying to stop the ridiculous attacks this website performs on non-communist.
Most definitely noted. I don't know what's worse, the lofty patronization you describe or their complete denial of what actually happened.
SUNDOG:
"Anyone else notice that whenever the story is about Rush that we get the dumbest people in the world suddenly having lots to say? "
True. Harry Reid and phony war hero Tom Harkin had a lot to say yesterday.
And to round it out YOU are all over the threads
yeah, I've noticed that. I think some of them are people I work with and others are people I've posted on other message boards with.
Hey Susan aka Shandalear and Erika aka PatS, how are ya? Why don't you just mosey on back to the Friendship Garden and discuss your stupid politics there, eh?
I would like that list when you have it compiled please, if you don't mind.
Thanks.
Taken by who? The KGB? Hitler's jack-booted thugs, the Senate of the US? Elaborate a bit more Snoopy. Who should decide to take Al Franken off the air? Who did decide that?
I thought we lived in America where we have the right to free speech and to make a buck from selling pizzas if they taste good.
Your backhanded apology was noted earier today Rush. Hows that for a response time.
Do you really believe that the true transcript is not availible for our internet equiped troops?
You have delusions of credibility.
Since you will never get an admission from Rush Limpaugh for characterizing him as a pompous windbag; since you'll never get an admission from Bill O'Really?; since you won't get an admission from Fox News or anybody who works there -- to all of you with half a brain -- I want to admit to you for them for the, again, denial over something that you already damn well know regarding their honesty and their commitment to falsification and misrepresentation last week on their programs. I really regret that it happens, and I admit it to you on their behalf since they won't.
I read the Limbaugh transcript, and would someone here point out to me the exact place where he says that soldiers who advocate a withdrawal from Iraq are phony soldiers. By pointing out, I mean copy and paste here the exact text where he says that soldiers who advocate a withdrawal from Iraq are phony soldiers, as Media Matters has repeatedly claimed. Thank you.
Good lord, we've provided links all weekend long. How many times do we gotta do that? How about you try to parse a few of the other links this time so we don't have to keep doing your work for you, OK?
CALLER 1: See, I -- I've used to be military, OK? And I am a Republican.
LIMBAUGH: Yeah. Yeah.
CALLER 1: And I do live [inaudible] but --
LIMBAUGH: Right. Right. Right, I know.
CALLER 1: -- you know, really -- I want you to be saying how long it's gonna take.
LIMBAUGH: And I, by the way, used to walk on the moon!
[...]
CALLER 2: No, it's not, and what's really funny is, they never talk to real soldiers. They like to pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and talk to the media.
LIMBAUGH: The phony soldiers.
CALLER 2: The phony soldiers. If you talk to a real soldier, they are proud to serve. They want to be over in Iraq. They understand their sacrifice, and they're willing to sacrifice for their country.
There is some soldiers that I have see in the general media that have BS all over them. To be honest, these are the ones who get the most air time. It's hard to take media matters seriously when they seem so unpatriotic towards their country. You will say your not but retreat, defeat, socialism, slander and funding sources do not seem like apple pie, the american way. It seems to me to be a position of weakness. Also, it gets real tiring of all the liberal attacks on conservative education. When I went to a debate and the other side made a point I didn't just say "Well your stupid." Sounds a little elementary to me. Also you will not admit to Soros money but there is proof of some alliance. Just Google "Media matters Soros" Case in point. http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=\SpecialReports\archive\200503\SPE20050303a.html
Since we're on the subject of clipping and editing...
From your linked article, dated March 2005:
"After initially claiming that 'neither Media Matters nor its president and CEO David Brock has received any money from Soros or from any organization with which he is affiliated,'"
Now let's look at the complete quote from the actual MMFA posting in December 2004:
"To date, neither Media Matters nor its president and CEO David Brock has received any money from Soros or from any organization with which he is affiliated,"
NOTICE ANYTHING DIFFERENT???
Now why would CNS leave out those two words? Because it would undercut their claim of "backpedaling", that's why!
As far as funds received from groups affiliated with Soros since December 2004, MMFA has clearly addressed this with financial records.
Meanwhile, the most substantial evidence we've gotten from O'Reilly is a flow chart.
Got any other two-and-a-half-year-old articles you'd like to reference?
You're posting links to CNSnews, originally called CONSERVATIVE NEWS SERVICE before realizing they were admitting their bias and changing the name to Cybercast News Service. They are bought and paid right-wing media with an absolute bias on every topic.
I can't believe you guys are here defending Rush's comments. Rush essentially said any soldier who uses his freedom of speech in this country is a "phony soldier". He is pissing on their service to our country because he disagrees with them politically. If they don't agree with drug addict Rush on the war, they are not even real soldiers in his opinion.
This is the same man, when he was drafted during Vietnam, got a medical deferment for a cyst on his rear end. Rush is a chickenhawk COWARD, plain and simple. He won't play his full statement because he knows he is caught red-handed.
Rush is an anti-American, drug-addicted, cowardly propagandist who is trying to SILENCE any soldier from speaking their opinion about the war. In Rush's mind, it's fine for them to die for this pointless war, but God forbid they actually use those freedoms they are fighting to protect.
brian,
If you really read Rush's comments through unbiased eyes you will see that he did not clump all solders that speak out against the war as fake. The context was the solder that was mentioned. The anit-war movement might want to do a background check of the solders they get to speak for them. (in this case anyway)
On a different note:
Why is it that most if not all Left wing people feel the need to call someone they do not agree with all sorts of names?? Could it be possibly to make themselves feel better about thier messed up, twisted view point?
Why is it that most if not all Right wing people feel the need to call someone they do not agree with all sorts of names??
Fixed that for you.
Reciprocity's a bitch. Save your indignation for the mouth-breathers over at FreeRepublic.
So why shouldnt I call someone names who tells me I have messed up and twisted views? Or is it just YOU guys that get to denigrate us. Why is it that conservatives have such ignorant and pointless views? How was that? guess I didnt call you any names. Limbaugh HAD NOT mentioned MacBeth in that program until AFTER he agreed that REAL soldiers want to be in Iraq and that the press only talks to phony soldiers. You are free to believe only what the Limborg approves of you believing but dont expect US not to think for ourselves.
>>It is disingenuous of MM to claim that the rest of the transcript should be voided simply because the conversation becomes a tangent for a couple of minutes.
Her's what was actually said: "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 interjected, "The phony soldiers."
Is your claim now that Limbaugh was said the media has ONLY ever talked to Mr. Macbeth?
You realize that doesn't pass the laugh test, right?
"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."
Clearly the caller was the one that said the comments the led to this stupid attempt to smear Rush. Growup people and stop whinning over Rush. The more you hype it up the more Rush gets listeners. Dumb its all Dumb. I cant believe you people justify this type of reporting.
ITs hard to take someone like YOU seriously. Lets get as many Americans killed as we possibly can is just such a SAD policy for you to support. If you cant cough up a Soros check to media matters or evidence that Soros gave money to some foundation and INSTRUCTED them to give money to media matters then coming in here and regurgitation for the hundredth time bilge we have already dealt with ad naseum it only shows your hive mind mentality. You have been assimilated.
And not only that, he questioned if the first caller (who was a fan of the show calling in to respectfully disagree) was a real republican saying "You can't possibly be a Republican."
It is obvious that the trolls will never admit that Limbaugh called the soldiers for withdrawal "Phony". But how can they defend Rush questioning a fan's loyality to the Republican Party just because he disagrees with him?
And if they do defend this, they are basically saying that in order to be a good conservative, you must think in lock-step with Limbaugh.
"It is obvious that the trolls will never admit that Limbaugh called the soldiers for withdrawal "Phony". But how can they defend Rush questioning a fan's loyality to the Republican Party just because he disagrees with him"
I disagree with Rush on that. I think that you can oppose the war and still be a true Republican. But making that statement is still completely different from claiming that military personel who oppose the war are "phony soldiers," which he didn't actually do. Limbaugh actually talked about the Macbeth story earlier in the week before he made his comments. But Media Matters failed to mention that as well. He had been talking about it all week.
Big F***ing deal. So he talked about it earlier in the week. He said something that could have been easily fixed by making a well worded appology saying he didn't mean it the way it came off. But no, instead, he edits the tape to make it look like he was innocent.
What's with you guys? What he said is horrible, but trying to cover it up makes the case air tight.
"He said something that could have been easily fixed"
It was. Today he stated over and over again that he supports all soldiers serving in Iraq, including those who oppose the war. Is that not good enough for you? Does that not clarify his position?
So F***ing what?
A few days ago those soldiers who didn't support Bush were phony soldiers. Today, when the heat's on, he suddenly supports all soldiers--even those who don't support Bush.
This fat f*** lies so much, how do I know when to believe him?
You seem more angry than you do reasonable. The OP was correct in his assertion that Mr. Limbaugh never called dissenting troops "phony."
Though I detest Limbaugh, he is right in this regard. This is a smear campaign based on semantics instead of facts.
It's obvious from the transcripts above that both the caller and Limaugh are discussing "fake soldiers " like Jesse Macbeth. Furthermore, his use of the plural form of soldiers was not correct as there have been a few soldiers who have falsified claims from Iraq.
Nowhere within the transcript is there any indication that Mr. Limbaugh believes that dissenting soldiers are "phony".
MediaMatters is placing itself in an untenable position with these disingenuous allegations. Basing an entire argument on false semantical meanings of phrases is ludicrous when the credibility of the organization is at stake. Mr. Limbaugh's statements were explained just 2 minutes later within a contextually significant amount of time, and MM continues to ignore this fact in a disastrous fashion.
Moveon.org dealt the anti-war movement and the Democrat party a death blow a few weeks ago with the Petraeus ads. Now MM is not only destroying its own credibility, but it s drawing respected congressmen into a position they will not be able to explain themselves out of.
Whoever is making the editorial decision to follow this route of blogging is leading MM to mediocrity. Perhaps its time for leadership change at the top. Someone clearly does to understand how to parse simple speech.
I respectfully disagree. And yes, I'm angry, and my disdain is well placed. I posted yesterday, the fallacy of this argument. Perhaps you hadn't read it.
Maybe you've lurked around here for a while, maybe not. But you're hardly in a position to concern-troll about MMFA and the "path to mediocrity."
And make no mistake, what you're doing is the very definition of concern-trolling.
Your comments are ad hominem circumstantiae. My position and even my entire self is irrelevant to the argument at hand. Accusing me of trolling does not refute any of the arguments I have made.
Media Matters has made accusations regarding Limbaugh based on semantical inferences that are subjective to the reader. Those who want to gotcha Limbaugh see one thing while many of us see something quite different.
It certainly is logical to believe that a term brought up in a conversation could be defined and fleshed out two minutes later by giving domentation of a so-called "phony soldier"
The problem is that if MM pursues an argument that is not based on fact, then they risk losing needed credibility at a later time when an actual factual argument is made.
Media Matters has made accusations regarding Limbaugh based on semantical inferences that are subjective to the reader. Those who want to gotcha Limbaugh see one thing while many of us see something quite different.
It was based on the first Mike that called in.
You must think that we haven't listened to the tapes. As I mentioned yesterday, Limbaugh knew he screwed up, otherwise he wouldn't have had the tape doctored. This isn't a "gotcha Limbaugh," Limbaugh got himself.
MMFA's credability will be just fine. They're representing the facts as they are, just as they always have. If they make a mistake, they print a correction--just as they always have. You are defending the king of liars--just as he always will be.
My response to the couple of minutes of irrelevant conversation that Limbaugh omitted is simply agreement. Had I been editing a previously aired tape I would have left out irrelevant parts as well.
I believe that even with the missing portion intact that the Jesse Macbeth section is still relevant to the "phony soldiers" comment. Based on the conversation between Limbaugh and the caller, it easily reads as a conversation about a "fake soldier" like Jesse Macbeth. It is completely plausible, and most likely the case in my opinion. I believe that most of the public will believe that as well.
We've been all over this all weekend. Sorry if I can't make you understand what is so obvious. You've worn me down, and I'm going to bed. Maybe I'll kick your butt some more tomorrow.
[Where's Solon? Solon? HBL? Tex? C'mon guys, it's someone else's turn. Tag!]
Sorry , Therick. I've spent enough time on this subject trying to hammer Q-Tips into anvils.
I notice that most of the original Dittohead defense team seems to have caught on. Now we're down to the lower level ones mentioning apple pie and socialism.
I think anybody who still doesn't get this may be a lost cause.
Yeah, we can expect Rush to be fired any minute now. LOL!
I'm pretty much giving up too. How many hundreds of times do the SAME points have to be made? There are none so blind as those COMITTED to not seeing
So who ARE "these soldiers that just come up out of the blue", these "phony soldiers"?
Are they Jesse MacBeth, all of them? Interesting how Jesse MacBeth could be the topic, without his name coming up even once during the conversation. Some wild telephonic mind-melding going on there, I guess. But apparently, Vulcan psychomechanics are considered a plausible explanation, when it becomes necessary to defend the rotund representative of republican rhetoric.
Mr. Limbaugh's purpose was persuasion in that particular incident. His mission was to make the listener falsely believe that there are dozens of Jesse Macbeth's in the headlines. His job isn't to outright say that, but he wants to give the general impression that several Jesse Macbeths have been outted, even if he can only cite a couple of examples.
This is not the same as calling all dissenting soldiers phony. Rather, he is creating a conspiracy in which the press is actively creating "fake soldiers" who cite brutality and murder that does not exist. He wants to create the general feeling that the press is untrustworthy..
His methods may be atypical attempts at mass social engineering, but it would be quite a stretch to construe the statements he has made as calling all dissenting soldiers phony.
"His mission was to make the listener falsely believe that there are dozens of Jesse Macbeth's in the headlines."
I don't think so. While one of limpaugh's missions is to create distrust of all non-conservative media, this was not one of those occasions when he was pursuing that course. You're attributing a purpose to him in this case that's not advanced by anything said during that segment. In other words, a comparison of the segment in limpaughs claimed context placed side-by-side with the segment in most others' context makes his look weak, and improbable.
And it's doubtful that if his focus was the advancement of media distrust, he would have made a comment regarding the "phony" soldiers rather than the "phony" media, anyway. I've heard enough limpaugh to know that he's very aware of the lack of mental acuity of his listeners in regard to nuance. If his intent was to besmirch the media, it would have been much less oblique.
They are Jesse MacBeth and Scott Thomas Beauchamp and Jimmy Massey and Josh Lansdale and Micah Wright and, especially, Tom Harkin and John Kerry.
>>My response to the couple of minutes of irrelevant conversation that Limbaugh omitted is simply agreement. Had I been editing a previously aired tape I would have left out irrelevant parts as well.
And would you have claimed - as Rush did - that the edited version was a "complete transcript"?
It must be very sad for you... having to defend L's obvious lie.
Exactly he first referred to phony soldiers and clearly identified this with soldiers who are against the war and then to define the category used MacBeth as an example of this category. He accused soldiers who are against the war of being like MacBeth. I certainly take it to mean that and I am sure 99% of the ditto heads did as well. Like if I talked about generals who prefer their political careers to being truthful with the citizens in the context of Gen. Petreaus and then defined that class of generals by using Benedict Arnold as the defining example. the most alarming thing about reactionary media is the absence of any good faith. We all know what he was saying and so do you.
"Though I detest Limbaugh..."---MutualDisdain
I don't get it. Where are you coming from if so?
Where am I coming from? Honesty I hope. I think Limbaugh is a negative influence on the nation, but I am not willing to compromise my beliefs to get him off the air.
If Limbaugh can be silenced by allegations based on semantics then anyone can.
I would much rather the listening public become educated to a point that they no longer need to graze in Limbaugh's pastures. I don't believe this can be accomplished via an obviously disingenuous argument that is not based on the reality of the transcript.
Possible. I'd give 100 to 1 against though..
You're worried about the nation and the self admitted negative force Limbaugh? And on top of that you're worried about Limbaughs' antagonists' future credibility?
Counselor, if I were the judge I'd throw you out of the forumroom on the grounds of aggravated intelligence insulting.
This attack on Limbaugh will not be successful because it is not based on provable fact. It is a subjective argument based on semantics.
I would hope that MM would reserve its credibility for a future time in which they will have an actual factual argument against Mr. Limbaugh. When the "phony soldiers" accusations fall through, all Limbaugh will have to do to refute future claims is to make an ad hominem attack based on this false claim.
I would hope that MM would reserve its credibility for a future time in which they will have an actual factual argument against Mr. Limbaugh.
They'll stop when Limbaugh apologizes for saying troops who want to withdraw are phony soldiers.
Mutualdisdain, Based on your view of semantics concerning phony soldier and phony soldiers, you have set the country back about a decade. Based on your fine use of the English language,(mine ain't so good) I believe that someone as capable as the now ridiculed Mr. Limbaugh will be inspired to revisit the Impeachment process and semantically charged investigation of Bill Clinton.
What is IS? As opposed to soldier...soldiers.
Rush didn't play fair and got caught..he MISINFORMED his own listeners and it takes MMFA to enlighten them. Do they listen...NO. So what does Rush do...lies, oops, misinforms again.
Rush was worried when the words "phony soldiers" came out of his mouth and he tried to fix...but someone was listening. HE GOT CAUGHT LYING about calling soldiers who disagree with moneymaking nonsense PHONY SOLDIERS. As I always say, Conservatives cannot hear or understand anything other than ConTalk.
I didn't detect worry in Limbaugh's voice when he made the transition to Jesse Macbeth. Instead, it sounded as if he was using the same model he has used for years.
Either a plant, a selected real caller, or caller who has been prompted to bring up a topic is brought on. Limbaugh discusses the topic with the caller. The conversation with the caller ends and then Limbaugh says something to the effect that he is glad the caller mentioned topic X because he has a story on topic X.
1) It fits his MO.
2) It makes a logical progression following the phone call in which the topic of phony soldiers was discussed.
I am off to bed now but I'll log in tomorrow afternoon to see where this has all gone. My prediction is that by next week, MM will have been harmed by pursuing these allegations.
No, they will just follow what they do best, expose Conservative Misinformation....that is all they do. But it sure pi$$es off the liars. Sweet Dreams....you write good...context sucks but writing is good.
>>This attack on Limbaugh will not be successful because it is not based on provable fact.
I think you're in deep denial... Rush has provided enough rope to hang himself by editing tapes when he claimed they were complete.
I suspect the people on thiis site are not trying to censor the right. Rather remember the context of this. MOveon just was censured by an act of congress for a less broad and objectionable ad. this is an attempt to enforce a consistent standard and to point out how much of a self serving phony EL Rushbo is. I would be happy if the antiwar side of the debate was given the same air time and leeway as the right wing guys receive. In a fair debate the wrong wing would lose.
Nowhere within the transcript is there any indication that Mr. Limbaugh believes that dissenting soldiers are "phony".
There is plenty of indication.
"Moveon.org dealt the anti-war movement and the Democrat[ic] party a death blow a few weeks ago with the Petraeus ads."
I don't think so. Most people thought Patraeus would toe the Bush administration line and he did. He changed no one's mind with that testimony.
It's worse than that. Polls taken after his report showed the percentage of people who thought the surge was working DECREASED as a result of his report.
>>It's obvious from the transcripts above that both the caller and Limaugh are discussing "fake soldiers " like Jesse Macbeth.
Nothing can be further from the truth. Neither Rush nor the caller mentioned MacBeth prior to the phony soldiers comment.
No RH because in a week or month he will recycle the same insinuations. Even now this has been used by FOX to slime Kerry. Limabaugh is just hiding out waiting until the "surge" against what he characteristically does fades away. then he will be using his propaganda terror tactics again.
Just because you blank out some letters does not make your words less offensive. Rush was not speaking about all solders who speak out againt the war. He was speaking about the ones that are fake. I.E. the one he mentioned.
The ones the press talks to? The ones who arent REAL? That is according to the guy he agreed with the ones who DONT WANT TO BE IN IRAQ? Yeah THOSE are who he was talking about.
Just weighing in from reality over here. Yes Rino, he said soldiers who oppose the war are phony soldiers. Do all you guys need more oxygen or something? How can we possibly have a conversation in this country when you can listen to something and simply not hear it if you don't like it? Cognitive Dissonance. It's really kind of disturbing.
How can you take things out of context over and over again? Rush had been talking all week about Macbeth and how he was a phony soldier that the media relied on. You guys are the ones avoiding reality.
The problem is, that on this day he wasn't talking about McBeth until he slipped up. The next day he went a step further and lumped Murtha into the phony soldier catagory.
Why can't you just admit it since the fact are right in front of you?
So you are asserting that Mr. Limbaugh "slipped up" while talking to the caller and swiftly saved himself by reiterating the Jesse Macbeth story he had been talking about all week?
Did I miss something here?
If your organization continues down this road it is going to lose all of its credibility.
My organization builds houses. If you're reffering to MMFA, I think there's an email address at the home page.
I stand corrected. I should have stated, MM.
So you are asserting that Mr. Limbaugh "slipped up" while talking to the caller and swiftly saved himself by reiterating the Jesse Macbeth story he had been talking about all week?
Correct me if I'm wrong:
9/24 (Mon) - Morning update with MacBeth.
9/25 (Tues) - No mention of MacBeth.
9/26 (Wed) - No mention of MacBeth until the second Mike calls in (which is about halfway through the second hour).
You haven't made your point. According to the transcript it happened as follows:
1) Caller calls in and the phony soldier comments are made.
2) Caller hangs up.
3) Limbaugh immediately brings up a story relevant to his "phony soldiers" comment. (the Jesse Macbeth story)
You seem to be asserting that because Limbaugh did not interrupt the telephone conversation to immediately read the Jesse Macbeth story that it makes it contextually irrelevant to his previous comments.
The logical progression seems to be that Rush discusses two topics with the caller 1) Phony soldiers 2)WMDs. He then hangs up and reiterates topic 1 with an example.
You haven't made your point. According to the transcript it happened as follows:
1) Caller calls in and the phony soldier comments are made.
2) Caller hangs up.
3) Limbaugh immediately brings up a story relevant to his "phony soldiers" comment. (the Jesse Macbeth story)
This is not how it went.
From the transcript:
Look, I want to thank you, Mike, for calling. I appreciate it very much. I gotta -- let me see -- got something -- here is a "Morning Update" that we did recently talking about fake soldiers. This is a story of who the left props up as heroes. And they have their celebrities.
The above paragraph clearly shows the transition from the caller that Limbaugh discussed "phony soldiers" with to a discussion on a "Morning Update" that he did regarding Jesse Macbeth.
The only visible reason for the delay was that Mr. Limbaugh allowed the caller to talk about WMDs.
The MacBeth story was impromptu. He had already called soldiers who want to withdraw phony soldiers so it was the perfect transition to a genuine phony soldier.
I completely disagree with you. Limbaugh often uses a caller to introduce a new topic, which in this case was "fake soldiers." The progression of he conversation is contextually logical, and you will have a hard time convincing the average person otherwise.
I completely disagree with you. Limbaugh often uses a caller to introduce a new topic, which in this case was "fake soldiers."
It was completely unplanned. After the second Mike hangs up, Limbaugh is rummaging through papers looking for the MacBeth story. The so called planned topic change wasn't even in front of him."It was completely unplanned. After the second Mike hangs up, Limbaugh is rummaging through papers looking for the MacBeth story. The so called planned topic change wasn't even in front of him."
Rush claimed that Murtha is one of the former soldiers who has lied about events in Iraq. Murtha lied when he said that several U.S. troops murdered Iraqis in cold blood, and one of the soldiers is now suing Murtha for defamation. But Limbaugh never called Murtha a "phony soldier."
Murtha based his assertion on official reports written concerning the incident. Since he didn't pull these reports from his ass, he didn't lie. And although Limbaugh didn't come right out and say Murtha was a phony soldier, he did lump him in with those he branded as phony soldiers. That's another Limbaugh smear of a soldier who disagrees with Bush.
"on official reports written concerning the incident"
I guess this means that you agree that Bush did not lie about WMD since he based his comments on "official reports". Thanks!
Wrong, actually it provides air tight proof that Bush lied, because he had official reports which said that Iraq was unlikely to have WMD. He chose to only relay the ones that said Iraq HAD WMD. Proof that Bush is a liar, and why anyone would even try to argue otherwise must be a stone fool.
But, thanks for playing.
I suppose you were there and know from your own experience that this didnt really happen. If it did then arent you now lying? through history most armies in most wars have seen some of their soldiers commit atrocities. Our soldiers are our agents and we are responsible for their conduct. If you feel we should conclusivley assume that they never ever do anything improper you give a green light to any who wish to. I place far less blame on soldiers who under the stresses the war places on them may lose it-- than I do on people who act like the see, hear, speak no evil monkies. Civilized countries do not tacitly encourage unethical military behavior. You on the other hand do. this will assure that we do not win the "war on terror" by winning their hearts and minds.
LIMBAUGH: You shouldn't hold your breath because there's no standard to hold me to, in the sense that you're -- I never said what you think I said, Congressman Pallone, Congresswoman [Jan] Schakowsky [D-IL], Sen. [John] Kerry [D-MA], or any of the rest of you in the drive-by media. I was talking about a genuine phony soldier. And by the way, Jesse MacBeth's not the only one. How about this guy Scott Thomas who was writing fraudulent, phony things in The New Republic about atrocities he saw that never happened? How about Jack Murtha blanketly accepting the notion that Marines at Haditha engaged in wanton murder of innocent children and civilians?
I think that adequately disproves your assertion, unless you want to argue about what the meaning of "is" is.
How is that in any way a defense??? he is defining the class of antiwar soldiers with the most noxious example he has at a hand. This is sophistry. Conflate Macbeth with the general class of soldiers opposing the war. Define that class with Macbeth (the poster boy whose poster I have never seen). You are applying a radically different standard to Limbaugh speech than you apply to antiwar speech.
That is a pile of horse manure.
Media Matters is lying and is being caught orchestrating a smear campaign.
You, Rino, and CD display an odd tendancy toward hero worship, and an odd choice for a hero.
What kind of loser would admire a 3 times divorced, draft dodging, drug addicted, lying, college dropout bigot, with reported tendancies toward sex addiction and pedophilia?
Republicans living on the down low.
Are you perfect? Have you never made mistakes? I've never claimed that I agree with everything that Rush has done. But for all the bad things he's done he's done lots of good things as well. He gives away a lot of money to charity, including organizations helping the U.S. military. I've always enjoyed listening to Rush, and I think that he was basically the driving force behind the conservative movement. I've never claimed that the man is a saint and never makes mistakes. He's human just like the rest of us.
Oh, there it is.
The symbol of righteous conservatism has skeleton's in his closet. But, that's okay, because he's human and has made mistakes. And as long as you enjoy the way he bastardizes Liberals, and belittles them as being morally deficient, then all that other stuff is just fine with you.
The ploy is to make his followers feel as if they're better than somebody else. In this case he sells: Conservatives are better than Liberals.
I gotta tell ya, it makes me ill the way this exuse for humanity has worked to desroy this country. And he'll keep doing it as long as you and others continue to listen and follow blindly. The real problem is when his message controls half the people in this country, and people start acting on his twisted preaching.
In the meantime, you and the other ditto's keep telling us what he really meant to say, or he really didn't mean what he did say. Great gig he's got going.
Don't you feel a little bit like a fool by doing just what he asked you to do today? Please, defend him some more, then reenergize your trance for 3 hours again tomorrow.
RH,
Then who is he to throw stones? If we are not allowed to critique Limbaugh on his imperfections, why is Limbaugh able to do the same to others?
If you believe that argument, politics in this country is done!
I've never heard Rush use the kind of personal attacks that have been used against him. I've never heard Rush call someone a fat, drug addicted, draft dodging idiot. Rush myself just sticks to the issues, and criticizes politicians for corruption. He criticized Clinton for being corrupt when he was President, because it's simply not good when the President of the U.S. is so corrupt. He was a serial liar, and Rush always pointed that out.
These terms are examples of Rush "sticking to the issues eh, RH? Plus, none of the people here have their own show
Does the term "Feminazi" ring a bell?
What about this:
Mr. Limbaugh referred to the citizens of South Florida as “deranged,” “lunatics,” “wacko,” and “devoid of rationality or reason"
http://wexler.house.gov/apps/list/press/fl19_wexler/091207rushlimbaugh.shtml
Or this: Barack "Ubama": A different pronunciation of "Obama" used after the latest Osama bin Laden video messages appeared, due to the media beginning to call bin Laden, "Usama" instead of "Osama" as most once did.
OR this:
Breck Girl John Edwards. The allusion is to Breck Shampoo as well as Limbaughs's belief that Edwards is too obsessed with his appearance.[13] This:Dingy Harry Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV)[18]. [19]The nickname is a mocking reference to Clint Eastwood's character "Dirty" Harry Callahan.Maybe you like this one:
Dung Heap Harkin Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA). Limbaugh gave him the name during the Clinton impeachment after Harkin called the charges against President Clinton a "dung heap."[3] Recently Harkin has attacked Limbaugh on the floor of the Senate over Limbaugh's presence on AFRTS (Armed Forces Radio). (See Armed Forces Radio controversy.)This:
Environmentalist wacko
A militant environmental activist or group, usually a Democrat, but sometimes a Green Party member. [21] As further explained in his books (the chapter "Decent Friends of the Earth" in particular), these more militant groups are not to be confused with groups such as the Audubon Society which Limbaugh gives as an example of more mainstream enviromentalism.OR this: George Lakoff (Rhymes With) A reference to Professor George Lakoff, a Professor of Linguistics at the University of California, Berkeley, and political commentator [25]. This:Halfrican American Term used to describe mixed-race African-Americans such as Barack Obama and Halle Berry.[5]This one should make you mad:
Long-haired, dope-smoking, maggot-infested, good time rock 'n roll plastic banana FM-types Laundry list of stereotypes Limbaugh uses to refer to liberals who don't take care of their appearance and listen to FM radio, typically on college campi.[11] These:NAGs (National Association of Gals) National Organization for Women (NOW). Limbaugh also plays The Forester Sisters' song "Men" during updates involving NOW and other feminist groups.[37] Nazi Pelosi Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), also called "Speaker Pelosi", or "Speaker-to-be Pelosi", prior to the mid-term elections of 2006. Limbaugh has called her "Nazi" as a parody to the way George Soros pronounces her name. New Fallujah Auburn Hills, Michigan, home of the Detroit Pistons. Limbaugh gave the city this nickname after the 2004 Pacers-Pistons Brawl at the Palace of Auburn Hills.[39] He recently (2006) indicated on air that out of respect for Detroit area listeners (and the term's lack of context due to the story's age) he will no longer use the term.All from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jargon_of_The_Rush_Limbaugh_Show
There are more if you want them!
Do you really want to compare corruption between Clinton and Bush?
REALLY? You never heard him call women he disagrees with Feminazis? You never heard him disparage liberals as unpatriotic? In fact he said your darn RIGHT we are questioning your patriotism. You missed him calling Chelsea Clinton the White House dog? I think you HAVE heard him make such rude and disparaging remarks you just have this tendency to DEFINE those attacks ON liberals as not being attacks and any disparaging remarks on conservatives as being reprehensible. Sorry you are not the final arbiter decider on what is and what ISNT an attack
Wow, thanks RINO for providing Proof Positive that there is absolutely NO POINT in trying to engage a dittohead in a rational discussion. Over the last week or so, I have learned that:
1, Dittoheads can hear what they want to hear, whether it was uttered or not.
2. Dittoheads can edit out what they don't want to hear.
3. Dittoheads are totally impervious to logic or sense or any amount of evidence that their Hero is wrong.
4. Dittoheads can forget what they want to forget to prove a point ("I've never heard Limbaugh make personal attacks..).. and NO I am NOT going to devote several hours of my life- or even one more minute- indulging you with link after link of Limbaugh quotes showing he's made his LIVING doing this for TWENTY YEARS- because you'll come back with "nope, not enough, show me more, the quotes are doctored, etc. etc." Sorry, I have a life.
Really, guys, why do we bother trying to talk to these dopes? They CANNOT be educated because they aren't INTERESTED in the truth. All they know is what Rush tells them- and if Limbaugh changes what he says from day to day, they swallow it whole and beg for more- and will fight to the death anyone who claims that Limbaugh isn't the most consistent man who's ever lived. Give it up.
What does he actually give and to whom? Limbaugh always uses that but does he release his tax returns or records on his alleged donations? He has done much harm to this country in my opinion. You are an example and most of the apologists on this site are too. He support the politics that bring him wealth and power. He always has and uses sophistry to fool you.
>>But for all the bad things he's done he's done lots of good things as well.
A thrice-divorced drug abuser?
You do realize that rather than discuss the information at hand that you are resorting to logical fallacy? A genetic fallacy used as a red herring will not save this argument. A simple reading of the available transcript shows that Mr. Limbaugh's statements were regarding "phony soldiers" like Jesse Macbeth.
False.
As has been proven here and elsewhere for the last 3 days.
Go away if you're not going to contribute to the discussion.
How do you define contributing to the conversation? Do you believe that a contributer is someone who agrees with your position.
Claiming that something has been proven does not make it so. If it were simple fact as you seem to claim, then it could be succinctly described in a short paragraph to all new-comers here.
The problem is that an interpretation of Limbaugh's statements is subjective to the reader. It s based upon whether you believe the Jesse Macbeth monologue was within the context of the previous "phony soldiers" statement.
I believe that when read in its entirety, that the transcript shows that Limbaugh defined "phony soldiers" as people like Jesse Macbeth. The discussion that occurred two minutes later was contextually significant to that term.
Yeah, he put the cart before the horse. Then the next day, he lumped Murtha in with the phony soldiers.
The problem is that an interpretation of Limbaugh's statements is subjective to the reader. It s based upon whether you believe the Jesse Macbeth monologue was within the context of the previous "phony soldiers" statement.
The first Mike calls in and says he's republican and former military and wants the U.S. to withdraw. A second Mike who is current military calls in to respond to the first Mike. In that back and forth, Limbaugh equates withdrawal with phony soldier. The second Mike then responds to a caller named Jill who said that there were no WMDs in Iraq. Limbaugh then transitions to MacBeth. It was essentially like saying: speaking of phony soldiers, we did a story on Monday on a character named MacBeth.
You don't believe that Limbaugh's discussion regarding Jesse Macbeth, that immediately follows the phone conversation regarding "phony soldiers" is contextually relevant, but you somehow believe that comments made in the two separate phone conversations are?
You don't believe that Limbaugh's discussion regarding Jesse Macbeth, that immediately follows the phone conversation regarding "phony soldiers" is contextually relevant, but you somehow believe that comments made in the two separate phone conversations are?
First Mike calls in. Limbaugh and Second Mike respond to first Mike. The two calls are related.
And how for the sake of reason does that argument help your main assertion? He used the most noxious example he could find to define the entire class of dissenters as phony and as being phony like macbeth. Your arguments leave me puzzled. Ditto heads will grasp any straw that lets them defend anything he says.
We've been over it a few hundred time already. The only way to buy Rush's excuse is if you WANT to. He was NOT talking about McBeth when he said the press ONLY talks to phony soldiers nor when he characterized the callers description as phony soldiers its that simple. There is no possible rational way to pretend those two comments were being applied ONLY to McBeth. The only reason to believe it is that you WISH it were true.
Despite your assertion, your opinion is not he only way to interpret Limbaugh's comments.
From the transcript:
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.
The caller refers to soldiers that "come up out of the blue." My interpretation is that the caller is referring to Jesse Macbeths that appear "out of the blue" with sensational stories about war atrocities.
Limbaugh seems to share my interpretation as he refers to them as "phony soldiers."Later, after the phone conversation has ended, Limbaugh immediately transitions to further define the notion of a "phony" or "fake" soldier.
Look, I want to thank you, Mike, for calling. I appreciate it very much. I gotta -- let me see -- got something -- here is a "Morning Update" that we did recently talking about fake soldiers. This is a story of who the left props up as heroes. And they have their celebrities.
You could debate the truth in Limbaugh's later statements regarding whether soldiers who signed up in the past 4 years knew they would be going to war, but for me it is fairly obvious that Limbaugh's phony soldiers fit the description of Jesse Macbeth.
Yes, he is trying to disingenuously paint the media as a organization that creates "fake soldiers" to sway public opinion, but I cannot garner in any way that he is implying soldiers who dissent are somehow phony.
I must go to bed now, but I'll try to log in tomorrow to see where this all goes. I honestly don't think the prognosis is good.
So then your argument is that they are saying the press ONLY talks to these soldiers? I am supposed to take that seriously? And when he agrees with the allegation that REAL soldiers WANT to be in Iraq that ISNT saying that those who DONT want to be in Iraq would be phony? No, take those two statements together and the claim they were talking about McBeth doesnt hold water. HE didnt say phony soldiers LIKE McBeth he just said phony soldiers. I dont see how you get past the accusation that REAL soldiers WANT to be in Iraq the implication there is unmistakeable. It CANNOT be laid to McBeth in ANY REASONABLE WAY.
Seems like the only person in the media that holds up phony soldiers is Rush.
[link to mediamatters.org]
Please note how he also questions the military's truthfulness.
More food for thought..
[link to mediamatters.org]
Yes, Rush supports the troops. As long as they're Republicans that share his views.
The problem is that you are attributing the caller's comments to Limbaugh. In this situation he doesn't say, "I agree with you." He also doesn't state that the press only talks to, "fake soldiers."
Limbaugh instead has allowed the caller (whether he is real or rehearsed) to make those statements. This is atypical behavior for Limbaugh, as he allows extreme right-wing callers on the air to rant without interruption.
When Limbaugh responds with "the phony sloldiers," to the caller's rant, he is only responding to the last line in which the caller says, "They like to pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and talk to the media."
Despite a desire to do so, it is not possible to attribute the caller's opinion to Limbaugh. This is especially true because Limbaugh further defines his understanding of "fake soldiers" when he transitions to the Jesse Macbeth story following the phone conversation.
Using the term, "phony soldiers," to describe soldiers who appear out of the blue with outrageous stories is not the same as saying, "Yes caller I agree with you." It is means to define a piece of rhetoric he plans to use in an upcoming propaganda piece regarding Jesse Macbeth. It is a transitory statement that he means to connect to later after the phone call has completed.
One could argue that just allowing such a caller on the air without interruption or rebuttal was the same as agreeing with the caller, but that is a subjective argument. Limbaugh never states that dissenting soldiers are phony, and it is logically plausible to assume that he does not believe that based on the transcript.
Whether you believe that or not, if a convincing counter argument and explanation exists then MM has lost. This is why MM should not stake its reputation on subjective, semantic arguments like this. I fully believe that Limbaugh will slip up and show his true self.
I would suggest a better line of attack regarding Limbaugh's tendency to tow the party line, even when that line is counter to the notion of conservatism. I believe more conservatives could be coherced by showing them Limbaugh does not match their value system, than by attempting a semantical gotcha that has a completely plausible alternative interpretation.
"The problem is that you are attributing the caller's comments to Limbaugh. In this situation he doesn't say, "I agree with you." He also doesn't state that the press only talks to, "fake soldiers."
His response to the callers assertion that "real soldiers" want to be in Iraq, clearly saying that those who want us out are "phony", was to say "They joined to be in Iraq".
That is agreement. That is in complete accord with what the caller said, even taking it further to say "real soldiers joined for the purpose of going to Iraq".
He did not say "Well, I was just talking about McBeth".
He did not say "People who want to get out of Iraq are real soldiers too".
He did not say "You can't be a Republican! Republicans support all the troops, you're just some liberal stooge!"
No, he agreed with the caller instead. He had other options.
There's really no way around this.
You are making subjective inferences from Limbaugh's statements that not everyone will agree with. It is plausible to assume that Limbaugh disagreed with the caller, because he never stated agreement or disagreement.
For example, if you and I were talking about the weather and the conversation went as such:
You: Those damn conservatives aren't doing anything about global warming. It is far hotter than it should be for this time of year.
Me: It really has been warmer lately.
Now, you might infer that because I didn't refute your claims about conservatives, that I agree with you, but you might be wrong. I could be choosing not to argue your point about conservatives to avoid confrontation and instead just be choosing to acknowledge that the weather has been warming.
In Limbaugh's case, he might not agree with what the caller is saying, even though he allowed it to be said. Limbaugh could have ignored the caller's comments for many different reasons.
It could either be because he doesn't want to confront a conservative caller, it could be that he agreed with the statements but wanted to use the caller as a mouthpiece, or it could be that he simply ignored them.
Unless Limbaugh emphatically states that dissenting soldiers are phony soldiers then you are making a subjective argument. Since there are several plausible ways to interpret Limbaugh's statements MM has placed themselves in an argument they cannot win.
No. The caller talked about how "real soldiers" wanted to be in Iraq. Limbaugh's response is to say "They signed up to be in Iraq". Limbaugh agrees, and says those "real soldiers" signed up for the purpose of fighting in Iraq. I've listened to the tape, and the tone is clearly in agreement. By no means is it disagreement.
Without some plausible alternative to that, your hiding behind the subjective nature of the discussion means nothing. There has to be some reasonable alternative in order to question the obvious conclusion.
For example, the Boehner "small price" story is also subjective. But in that case, there are two reasonable explanations for what he meant. And further, there was nothing in what he said to indicate whether he meant troops or money specifically. So I disagreed with any unequivocal declarations that Boehner absolutely must have meant the troops. We just don't know, so it's unfair to say without other evidence.
But this is different. Rush's words clearly show agreement. His tone indicates agreement. And most importantly, there's no clarification being made here like Boehner made. There is no "I didn't understand what the caller meant at the time". And if he did understand what he meant, surely such a patriot as Rush would chastise his caller for smearing the troops, whether he was conservative or not. If Rush is that blinded by ideology that he can't contradict a conservative caller who questions the patriotism of our soldiers, that's not a hell of a defense for Rush, now is it? Why would so many people admire such a spineless person?
What qualifies one as a phony soldier? One that claims to have served but never did. That’s obvious. Jesse Macbeth is a phony soldier. That’s obvious as well. But the caller’s qualifications of what makes a phony soldier is not someone who claims to have served but did not. By inference, the caller’s definition of a phony soldier is one who does not wish to be in Iraq. Now remember, this is on the heels of a New York Times op-ed piece in which a number of soldiers expressed an unfavorable view of the current situation in Iraq. Three were killed shortly after its publication. Now, Rush has to know this. Does he correct the caller? No. Does Rush let callers carry on when they say something that he disagrees with? No. That is evident in the exchange with the previous caller. In fact, when the previous caller states that he has served in the military and is a Republican Rush replies that he ( Rush) “walked on the moon.”
Rush has a documented history of calling into question the patriotism of people who disagree with him and, by extension, the Republican Party. He has a history of smearing the war record of veterans that disagree with him politically. I don’t think any of this is a stretch. And if it is, it’s not a very long one.
You are also inferring an opinion from Limbaugh's statements that others will not. In so far as I know, the NYT Op-Ed from dissenting soldiers was not mentioned on that show. That may be what you had in mind when Limbaugh said, "phony soldiers," but most people will infer that he was referring to Jesse Macbeth. Why? Because immediately following the phone conversation, he transitioned to the Macbeth story.
When Limbaugh introduces the term, "phony soldier" and then defines it within a contextually significant amount of time, then most people will give him the benefit of the doubt.
No, again. Rush may very well have had McBeth in mind when he made the comment. But even if he did, the caller took the phrase and contorted it for his own meaning, to smear anyone who wants us to get out of Iraq. Now, if Rush really meant that, then he should have said so immediately, telling the caller that's not what he meant.
Instead, he agreed with the caller. Until you can show some other plausible explanation for Rush's "They signed up to be in Iraq" comment, then you simply don't have a leg to stand on here.
I think we all know that not everyone will agree with that assessment, because some people are intellectually dishonest partisan apologists. Reasonable people will see what we're saying, because there is no valid counterargument so far.
Then how come dingy Harry couldn't get more Democrats to make their mark on that stupid letter of his, hmmm? And don't try to use that old "we couldn't find enough crayons" bit, either!
Gush Blimpaugh, liberal host said the other day"I listened to Gen Petreaus recently . You know there are generals out there who support the war and this can be beneficial to their careers. Obviously if you want to raise in the ranks it is helpful to support the President's positions. Maybe such generals delude themselves so they can feel better about giving the country prejudiced and distorted "facts". NOW changing to a new topic-- once upon a time there was a general - Benedict Arnold- who said he was on the side of the revolution but it turned out he was looking out for his career and thought the British would give him better advancement. You remember Benedict Arnold- the most famous traitor in American history." NOW GUSH NEVER ACCUSED PETREAUS OF BEING A TRAITOR DID HE? The thing I most dislike about the reactionaries is that they constantly insult my intelligence with such willed ignorance. Cant you guys find any good arguments so you can stop this nonsense. I would like to have some intelligent discussion with the right but have begun to see it is hopeless.
Hey, I think you just described every single celebrity, Hollywood and otherwise, who support the left-wing loonies!
Like Fred Thompson
Or Ronald Reagen? What about Arnie?
I dont believe you think. That would make you unique among the rightwing morons
No they arent. YOU are a wellknown liar however and have ZERO credibility. The next thought you have that Limbaugh didnt give you will be your very first one since grade school
Funny, it's easy to see Rush's lie. I haven't seen any indication the MM has lied. Where's your evidence, or is this just a "I hat e Media Matters" post?
If you listened to the entire broadcast, including the part after the same quotes everyone on here posts, Limbaugh goes on to discuss MacBeth, which proves his mind was on frauds not dissenters. Yes, MacBeth is one person and Limbaugh used the plural word 'soldiers'. But he did not mean soldiers that are against the war, but soldiers -like- MacBeth.
No one from MM continues to read the transcript to the end.
To summarize: phony soldierS are soldierS like MacBeth not soldierS against the war.
Kinda ducks the issue of why he later accused Murtha of being a phony soldier.
And also why he presented an edited tape falsely as a "complete transcript."
If Rush has nothing to hide, why is he lying?
Since you are so happy to comply with the request for a transcript, why didn't you provide the whole thing where Mr. Limbaugh states that he was referring to Jesse Macbeth, who was lauded by the press for giving "eyewitness accounts" of the "atrocities" he saw as a Ranger in Afghanistan and Iraq committed by American Soldiers.
However, here is US Attorney Jeffrey C. Sullivan's description of Jesse Macbeth," *Jesse Macbeth, 23, Tacoma, Washington, sentenced today in connection with his fraudulent claims of military service. Macbeth sought medical benefits claiming to suffer from PTSD related to service in Iraq and Afghanistan, in fact, Macbeth was discharged from the Army about a month after he joined. Macbeth never traveled outside the U.S. with the Army. Macbeth duped reporters, claiming to be a decorated Army Ranger who had witnessed war crimes."
The man actually was only enlisted for 44 days.
Yes, DAYS.
He washed out of Boot Camp. Hey, no true disgrace there, it's extremely difficult. My son certainly thought so. But my son is now in Iraq, doing his job, not searching out reporters here in the States trying to make a name for himself by lying about people obviously more physically and mentally tough than he.
So, before you start decrying someone for what they said, make sure you see, and comprehend the whole thing, please.
I see the second- or is it the third or fourth- troll shift has come in. Naturally, we'll get another wave of "show me the links" followed by links, followed by "I'm not convinced, show me more," until we have 200+ posts on this thread, of which 90% are devoted to trying to cram facts into the rock-hard skull of a dittohead. You guys have fun, I don't play with these guys.
As has already been pointed out, all of the evidence has been provided- again, and again, and again, in previous threads. No honest poster could be sincere in asking for them here.
Are you really trying to say that accusing the antiwar soldiers of not being real soldiers was his clear import? You are not acting in good faith. Did you defend moveon when accused of somethings they did not actually say? I think not.
I can't find anything like that. I suspect it's all about nothing as usual for the leftist media.
I suspect you are brainwashed as is usual for rightwing sychophants
INTERESTING OBSERVER:
CALLER: “And what's really funny is they (the media) never talk to real soldiers.
REAL SOLDIERS: NEVER talked to by the media, never quoted IN the media.
PHONY SOLDIERS: The ONLY soldiers talked to by the media, quoted by the media.
CALLER: “They like to pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and spout to the media.”
REAL SOLDIERS: Available for interview, willing to present their REAL views, but ignored by the media.
PHONY SOLDIERS: Come up “out of the blue,” are non-representative of “REAL” soldiers, in that they “spout to the media.”
RUSH: “The phony soldiers.”
(I.E, by this agreed-to definition, ALL soldiers who are quoted in the media, as opposed to REAL soldiers who are NEVER quoted in the media.)
CALLER: “The phony soldiers. 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.
REAL SOLDIERS: WANTS TO BE OVER IN IRAQ (applies to ANY “REAL” soldier)
PHONY SOLDIERS: Any soldiers who DO NOT want to continue to be over in Iraq, who express an opinion that America should WITHDRAW from Iraq.
This definitional argument could not be more clear, as to who is being talked about, and what constitutes a “REAL” soldier as opposed to a “PHONY” one. By clear definitional guidelines, our entire military is divided into to categories, “REAL” and “PHONY,” and each individual soldier can easily be placed in one category or the other … with no ambiguity, confusion, or doubt.
"I read the Limbaugh transcript, and would someone here point out to me the exact place where he says that soldiers who advocate a withdrawal from Iraq are phony soldiers"
He never says that directly, nor does he directly say he is referring to MacBeth. Based on the tenor of the conversation leading to the comment, I think that caller #2 was very likely referring to current and former soldiers. Rush is agreeing with him, and it is Rush that initiates the phony soldier comment. Rush may have been THINKING about MacBeth - probably was, since he had a piece about MacBeth near at hand - but that is not how it came out. Considering that the MacBeth story is rather old (17 mo.) and a bit obscure, I took it that caller #2 was referring to the seven sargents or John Batiste, or Paul Eaton, or Anthony Zinni or (the list goes on...) There is NOTHING in the transcript to indicate that caller #2 was referring to MacBeth or anyone like him. He states "If you talk to a real soldier, they are proud to serve. They want to be over in Iraq." The direct inference of this statement is that soldiers that do NOT want to be in Iraq are the phony soldiers. While Rush points to a comment that he makes 1:35 later to clarify what he "really" meant, one might just as easily point to his comments a minute or so earlier to caller #1 in which he states that caller #1 cannot possibly be a "real" Republican if he does not support the war.
<!--n-->If the troops were to vote on who supports them more, MMFA or Rush, 99% of them would choose Rush.
If the troops were to vote on who supports them more, Moveon.org or Rush, 99% of them would choose Rush.
If the troops were to vote on who supports them more, Democrats or Rush, 99% of them would choose Rush.
If the troops were to vote on who supports them more, liberals or Rush, 99% of them would choose Rush.
Define 'support'. If by support you mean spending ourselves into potential ruin, you're correct, the immoral neocons and their foolish lackeys are more supportive.
In the year 1492, 99% of the population knew the earth was flat, 1% were Liberals.
I can't even describe how sad that is. You might even be right--maybe not 99%, but I really wouldn't be surprised if it were well over 50%.
It's so sad that people (not just troops, people in general) believe those who put up a front of supporting them vocally, but don't look at what the actual results are. People crave validation more than substantiation. The Web amendment is a great example.
I have the same problem with politicians who say, "How can you believe this isn't a worthwhile enterprise? All the troops I've talked to believe it's worthwhile!" Apart from the fact they're probably talking to non-anonymous people on official government tours, there is a very basic human need to believe that what they're risking their lives for is worthwhile. The majority of troops will believe, even in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary, that they are engaged in a worthwhile mission.
I am NOT saying they're stupid or anything like that AT ALL, but it's very important to realize what a deep psychological need there is to believe in what you're doing, and this is compounded by how high the stakes are. And, it's really great that the military believes in their commanders--that trust is extremely important to their success in any mission, and to their emotional well-being.
This means that politicians and the voting public have a sacred duty NOT TO EXPLOIT THE TRUST of our men and women bravely serving in uniform. We owe it to them to examine geopolitical situations and foreign policy critically and skeptically and make sure that we are sending these brave, capable, and trusting troops into GENUINELY worthwhile missions in order to deserve such a loyal military.
"If the troops were to vote on who supports them more, Democrats or Rush, 99% of them would choose Rush."---Copiousdissent
So you think they'd choose a draft dodger who's doing his best to keep them in harm's way for no good cause over guys like Jim Webb who's trying to bring them home? If so, it proves advertising works, propaganda works.
Yes....to the first part.
If you were to pull statistics out of your @ss, you would be reich!
I guess that 1% that chose the liberals would be "phoney soldiers". Right?
And I guess by my spelling, all their bodies must be in the shape of phones.
Copious Pissant:
When is your unit set to go over there? I would assume one method of support would be signing up and giving the boys over there (and the girls) some needed relief.
Think what a relief it would be to us in the meanwhile.
Do you have to be a member of the Police Department to want police to fight crime in your neighborhood?
Are police officers not in danger every time they go after gang members?
Do you have to be a member of the Police Department to want police to fight crime in your neighborhood?
Yeah, if you wanted the police to take unnecessary and illegal action that could harm not only themselves but countless civilians. You do it yourself.
Are police officers not in danger every time they go after gang members?
What does this have to do with anything?
How long have you been waiting to use that line of horse s**t?
If you believe that this war is worth fighting, and you are able and of age, you have two choices:
1) Sign up and go fight it which earnes the undying respect from me and others, even though we may disagree with you.
2) Stay home, admit you're a chickenhawk who is just fine cheerleading a war that leads to the deaths of people besides yourself.
End of story.
Are those the real reasons why all of you don't support the war? You really don't like to fight? So if we support the war and don't go fight, then we are chickenhawks? How ridiculous! Are you saying that if terrorism strikes this way again, you still won't fight? That, is what I call chicken.
doughpro, are you saying that you really like war, or you just like to encourage other people to go fight so you can not feel like a "chicken"?
What are you, about 12?
You're a chickenhawk if you are
A) Old enought to serve
B) healthy enough to serve
C) Agree that this war is necessary
D) Recognize that the military is missing recruitment goals and lowering standards to get get more recruits, and that some soldiers are on their fourth and fifth tours.
It's not just your situation that matters, it's that the military is overextended, and they need a break. If you're able, why aren't you doing it?
An addendum: You are a chickenhawk, if you attack a combat veteran for being anti-war, when you yourself never served.
You are a chickenhawk if you are a vice-president who had five deferments and lied to start a war.
You are a chickenhawk and a chickenshit if you are a deserter and end up being commander-in-chief.
We straight now knuckleheads?
Note: D ... lowering standards.
It may well be that many of our rightwing posters to this site are ready, willing, and able to go fight Bush's war in Iraq, but that the standards just haven't been lowered enough.
When the standards are lowered sufficiently where they will take people who cannot discern between excrement and shoe polish, then our rightwing pals will enlist en masse.
On the other hand, our judicial system recognizes that people cannot be tried in court if they don't know right from wrong, and if they are completely alienated from REALITY. I feel it would be wrong to accept rightwingers into military service when they would not be competent to stand trial in our society.
Or even just make a monetary contribution so that our collective future tax burdens are less. If you are 1) convinced the war is right and 2) against communism ( my taxes going for your needs) then why arent you prowar guys making generous contributions to the war effort. NOthing prevents you dedicating another 10% of your income to go a fund for the war. You could buy better body armor or such. Why not?
*sniff sniff* what is that odor? I think its the rank odor of a statistic pulled directly from someones RECTAL DATABASE. Thus smelling like EXACTLY what it is.
You're probably right.
Rush's propaganda is very good. And when the soldiers are fed it via AFN with no counterpoint, it only naturally follows that they would think Rush supports them when in fact he doesn't.
Keeping troops in a war zone and getting their linbs blown off for corporate profits back home is "supporting the troops"? Yeah, them troops really want the chickenhawks on their side...cause they just DIE faster.
Compliantconsent with another brilliant self-inflicted wound.
The item is about Rush being able to spread his uncontested doctored statements and subsequent explanation to the troops.
And CD points out( using made up statistics, just like his hero) that the troops may be under the impression that the right supports them.
If it weren't so sad, it would be hilarious.
OKAY ITS OVER. I HAVE THE MOST COMPELLING VIDEO THAT RUSH WAS REFERRING TO PHONY SOLDIERS AND IN CONTEXT.
MMFA, YOU'RE A JOKE.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jE4y6hXWuNw
Unbelievable. One day you call us damned liars because we say Rush doctored his show. It was you who lied, who refused to hear what your own tape provided.
Day 2, you denied making the claim you made on day one, and still insist Rush didn't doctor the tape. You provide a link to Gibson that in your opinion conclusively shows MMFA is lying. The Gibson segment ends up being a joke, because Gibson used the doctored version of the Rush broadcast. So there's 3 huge lies in two days.
Now you are back again with yet another right wing link that is going to prove your case. Do you ever get tired of being wrong?
The link show ABC talking about numerous Phony Soldiers two days before Rush's show.
Hey Funnypants. Tell me that my video does not show ABC talking about phony soldiers before Rush's show.
So WHAT? Are you claiming that Rush was saying THOSE soldiers in that show were the ONLY ones the press ever talks to? OR that when he used the phrase to characterize the types of soldiers the second mike was talking about they were both talking about ONLY those soldiers mentioned on ABC? Ya got nothin. Remember the first rule of holes and stop digging.
Please answer my post. You have been caught flagrantly lying multiple times. Why do you think it is okay to lie, and why do you think it is okay for Rush to lie?
The so what is that ABC spoke at length about Phony soldiers two days before Rush spoke about Phony soldiers. That is context.
The next time MMFA wants to post something about Rush, maybe they should provide the context instead of creating a fake scandal.
And of course you libs won't watch the tape, you don't care about the truth.
No, it was not the context. The caller made a blanket statement, having to do with all soldiers who want to get out of Iraq, and Rush agreed.
Copiousmoron. YOU are the saddest joke I have read in days. NOTHING you have yet posted has been worth the waste of my life reading.
How much you want to bet?99% is the stated criteria.
100% of the troops in Iraq I know personally disagree with all four of your assertions.
--
This sounds unreal to me. Like something out of movie. Like he's intentionally trying to be as ridiculous as possible. It's hard to believe our educational sytem is so bad as to produce an audience of millions for the likes of this con man. Which makes me wonder where are the legions of Rush supportors. Why aren't they here in the hundreds defending him? He sure has let it be known to them that he is being wronged here. Could it be that he doesn't have anywhere near the the audience claimed? Or they know he's a blowhard and discount much of what he says as a matter of course?
Those who can't read have a hard time using the internets.
Look this a liberal site. We are only sweeing the tip of the iceberg.
ha ha ha took not too long you idiots
I remember a few visitors when the story broke. After that its been CD and a few other semi regular posters. Noted that it would probably take a personal act of god to get some just to acknowledge availible evidence. I still expect a few absurd interpertations of that evidence.
This story ain't done yet. As has been noted elsewhere today. The real penetration of this story onto MSM is vaporous at best. The Senate noticed , but I don't get a big thrill from that. He should be removed from the Armed Services Radio Network.
So Rusty gets backed into a corner and decides to get on the airwaves and deliver a blistering...advertisement for Media Matters for America?
I mean really, does he honestly think his core audience has the slightest inkling of what Media Matters for America even is? That, to me, is the weirdist, most messianic part of his whole trip. It seems to be an unconscious tipping of the hat to his perceived adversaries, as if to say "you caught me fair and square."
When you say "soldiers" (plural) you don't get to turn around and claim you meant a "soldier." Rusty's getting old. I actually think blood has finally been drawn.
conservative talk radio was on a full court press with this Limbaugh thing.
Is Limbaugh for real?
GET HIM OFF OF ARMED FORCES RADIO ASAP!
If that can't be done for some reason put the fairness doctrine back in place so Armed Forces Radio isn't just a propaganda tool for the Bush administration.
I think we should let the Troops decide who they want to listen to thank you.
Then why do you give them only one choice?
Sounds good, CD. Why not give them choices then instead of just one guy?
I am here to petition to have people start calling Rush by his original radio name - the one he got arrested under - JEFF CHRISTIE. Rush is very fond of doling out insulting nicknames to everybody else; I think he deserves a little turnabout. So from now on, he is JEFF CHRISTIE - I hope he's proud of his past! If you don't know about that name, google it up. You'll be happy you did.
Whoa! Bombshell. Rush was arrested for soliciting sex from a guy in Pittsburgh, huh? Who knew?
I kept thinking all day "where is Solon?"---for responses like that one!
First time poster, so I apologize if this was already pointed out. But after reading the enitre transcript (all 3 versions!) I was struck by one small detail: When he [finally] gets around to mentioning Jesse MacBeth he says "ONE OF THEM is Jesse MacBeth." So not only did say phony soldiers [plural] but when he does mention the guy he's supposedly refering to, he refers to him as be ONE OF... what... a group maybe? (Oh yeah, but he was only talking about one guy. Sure Rash.)
I don't know why this idiot can't just come out and admit he dosn't give a $#!+ about soldiers who oppose the war! Just admit it! Don't be gutless as well as brainless!
I could pretty much give Bill-O the benefit of the doubt with his recent comments. "Never attribute to malice that which is explained by stupidity" I always say. His ego just prevents him from admitting the stupidity of what he said. (Or, more importantly, how he said it.) But the full context of Rash Windbag's comments only reinforces the perception of what he said.
Sorry all you wingnuts. MMA got this one right on the money!
This is not really related to Rush's pathetic attempts to cover up what he said, but I have to say it anyway...
I am so sick and tired of hearing about these "troops" from both/all sides of the political spectrum.
The military are just people like you and me. They don't NEED Rush to defend them, and they don't need MMFA to defend them.
Hey troops! You know, some of you suck, and some of you are awesome! Yeah, I said it, some of the TROOPS SUCK! Weee.... let's see what the next step is, the Senate maybe pass a resolution saying that anyone who says that some of the troops suck will be forced to listen to Rush?
I have never seen a group of people as coddled as these so called troops. Are they made of cotton candy?
They need to be defended from people like you.
No they need to be defended from people trying to get so many of the killed like YOU
Militarism requires a cultlike reverence for all things military. Myths like the moral superiority of the US troops, that they are fighting for our freedoms, that they deserve to be treated as heros, even if they're shooting up civilians. All to reinforce that militarism. All to maintain a war crime.
With the political climate such as it is, having an all volunteer military gives the militaristic among us a decided advantage. It allows them to play the 'support the troops' card with much greater effectiveness. If you join something you are more likely to believe in it or at least say you do and go along. And then that becomes the general attitude and peer pressure causes everybody try to fit in. That isn't the problem though. The problem comes from one political party being willing to exploit this situation against the other.
On the other hand relatively unlimited personnel to wage wars around the world would be theoretically available to them if there was forced service.
You gotta hand it to these guys, they know all the angles.
This is so funny. Libs who despise the military and cheer for the defeat of the US in Iraq are defending the soldiers from the terrible Rush Limbaugh. You cannot silence him. You cannot put anyone on the airwaves to dispute him.
Typical warmonger who wants to get as many Americans killed as possible and doesnt know what he thinks until the Oxymoron tells him what to think. Your ignorance is duly noted
Oh you guys got sooo busted! Pretty hateful when the facts come out huh?
Uh, wrong, Rush got busted by the FACTS.
Rush Limpaugh cannot backtrack because his comments are on audio tape. Sean's windbag friend got caught with his pants down-again.
This is the same windbag that was arrested for possesion of illegal drugs and this is the same windbag that can't keep a wife.
Rush lying or what a linguistic lie is
The defenders of Rush just won't give up. Now they claim that because Rush didn't actually utter the words "dissenting soldiers are phony," he didn't mean it.
But the Rush apologists are wrong and dishonest. In linguistics, Rush committed what is a linguistic lie. Here are two examples:
person 1: Who much weight can you lift?
person 2: 100 pounds.
person 1: [thinks] Wow, I thought person 1 was stronger than that.
It ends up that person 2 *can* lift more than 100 pounds. He can lift 200. Technically speaking, he can lift 100 pounds (quite easily!). His answer mislead, and is therefore a lie.
Second scenario:
person 1 answers the phone: "Honey, it's Bob," she says.
person 2 walks out the door. Person1, the wife, wonders what the hell is going on. Since Bob is her husband's friend, she can't figure out why he walked out the door. In other words, the wife doesn't have to say "honey, please get on the phone and talk to Bob." The context makes it perfectly clear, and human beings in fact wouldn't walk out the door as the husband did.
I know the Rush apologists are trying real hard to pretend that Rush didn't mean all dissenting soldiers. But the caller said "phony soldiers," and Rush agreed, in the plural. He then went on to talk about how real soldiers join to fight in Iraq, furthering his statement that those who are against the war are phony. As if this isn't bad enough, the next day he calls Murtha a phony soldier. Since Murtha is a decorated veteran, Rush couldn't have meant just those people who pretended to be soldiers and were not.
Mom yells to Johnny; "Johnny, did you do the dishes?"
Johnny answers; "Yes Mom." Remembering that he had done them yesterday although not today.
Yes, there's a million ways to lie and mislead. And Rush invented a few new ones after he burned through that million.
I bet that poor Annie Coulter is really pissed that Rush and Clarence Thomas have taken her free advertising time away from her latest book..I think the title is "Democrats Can Read, That's Why They Don't Like Me" or something like that..Another literary masterpiece soon to become a give-away on most of your ConJob websites.
Limbaugh could have made this very easy for his listeners by saying, "I've edited out one minute and thirty-five seconds from the audio transcript I'm about to play to you."
But he didn't do that... I'm sure it was just a simple oversight though *cough*
Smear, Smear, Smear....Another smear....against Rush Limbaugh. Media Matters is selectively using PART of the discussion to smear Rush. The "Phoney Soldier" comment was a discussion relating to "The Rush Morning Update" aired in AM Drive on stations that carry "The Rush Limbaugh Program" "The Rush Morning Update" is not aired during hiss Noon-3pm program. Rush re-aired the update relating to Jesse MacBeth, a "soldier" who washed out of boot camp after 44 days and told lies about "atrocities" in Iraq. The following is a transcript of that morning update that you won't find anywhere in the media or even Media Matters: "This is a story of who the left props up as heroes. They have their celebrities and one of them was Army Ranger Jesse MacBeth. Now, he was a "corporal." I say in quotes. Twenty-three years old. What made Jesse MacBeth a hero to the anti-war crowd wasn't his Purple Heart; it wasn't his being affiliated with post-traumatic stress disorder from tours in Afghanistan and Iraq. No. What made Jesse MacBeth, Army Ranger, a hero to the left was his courage, in their view, off the battlefield, without regard to consequences. He told the world the abuses he had witnessed in Iraq, American soldiers killing unarmed civilians, hundreds of men, women, even children. In one gruesome account, translated into Arabic and spread widely across the Internet, Army Ranger Jesse MacBeth describes the horrors this way: "We would burn their bodies. We would hang their bodies from the rafters in the mosque."
Now, recently, Jesse MacBeth, poster boy for the anti-war left, had his day in court. And you know what? He was sentenced to five months in jail and three years probation for falsifying a Department of Veterans Affairs claim and his Army discharge record. He was in the Army. Jesse MacBeth was in the Army, folks, briefly. Forty-four days before he washed out of boot camp. Jesse MacBeth isn't an Army Ranger, never was. He isn't a corporal, never was. He never won the Purple Heart, and he was never in combat to witness the horrors he claimed to have seen. You probably haven't even heard about this. And, if you have, you haven't heard much about it. This doesn't fit the narrative and the template in the Drive-By Media and the Democrat Party as to who is a genuine war hero. Don't look for any retractions, by the way. Not from the anti-war left, the anti-military Drive-By Media, or the Arabic websites that spread Jesse MacBeth's lies about our troops, because the truth for the left is fiction that serves their purpose. They have to lie about such atrocities because they can't find any that fit the template of the way they see the US military. In other words, for the American anti-war left, the greatest inconvenience they face is the truth."
Jesse MacBeth is the Phoney Soldier...others who lie about Iraq without having been there are Phoney Soldiers. This is the truth...Media Matters smears!
Sadly for you, Rush didn't mention this untilafter his "phony soldiers gaffe. Reality bites, huh?
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 llike to hide it so much?
The fact YOU are too stupid and brainwashed to admit clear reality. Just because you refuse to believe ANYTHING until Rush tells you what to believe doesnt mean we are wrong. The conversation clearly shows that Rush was agreeing that REAL soldiers want to be in Iraq. We dont care what propaganda you are comitted to we have not been assimilated
Murtha is a phoney. What a hoot. Just because he is a vet doesn't make him any less an idiot. Same for McCain. I'm sick of people trying play like these guys are hero's. They were in the past, however, not today. Losing limbs in combat doesn't mean you will be wise and wonderful as you age. Some times you become out of step. Even forget what you fought for. Lets try just calling it the way it is. Rush didn't lie and he didn't say dissenting soldiers are phony. You just wish he did. Can't Media Matters find something inportant to report on.
There you go again.. just like moveon, you're slamming the service of a real soldier.
I wonder is Rush's anal cysts were the result of gay experimentation?
Let's not go there. There's enough ammo against these guys without getting into any supposed homosexuality.
I heard this conversation live. I knew right away what Rush was talking about. I understand how the comment could be interpreted without the context of being a listener of the show. But the involvement of Congress????? What the hell is going on!!!!
>>But the involvement of Congress?!?!?!?
"Waaaah! How dare they attack Rush like we attacked moveon.org"
I really don't give a rats ass about that pumpkin headed junkie spewing his filth to wingnuts in Nebraska. But on AFN which has my tax money involved, I have a BIG problem.
I call on congress to defund AFN until they remove him from the network. This has nothing to do with this latest episode. Limbaugh is a self-proclaimed republican shill. My tax dollars are funding a infomercial for an ideology I despise. If he wants to buy time the same as "Hooked on Phonics" or the televangelists then, OK.
You don't like Nebraskans?
LOL picked a random red state.
As a veteran of 7 years active duty(USMC) and 4 years in the reserves (USNR), some of my reserve time serving in Desert Storm, I am getting sick and damn tired of all of the cons in this country saying the troops support deluded, misinformed serial liars like Rush, O'Lielly and Bush. Copiously Braindead never assume what the people serving currently or those who have served in the past think about this sorry, miserable, pathetic excuse for an admin or it's equally sorry, miserable, pathetic excuse for a foreign policy. When I was in we never talked politics at all. As a matter of fact we avoided it like it was the plague. We never even talked about voting. All we cared about was working, how long it was until our EAS and whether or not we would get our desired request for leave. This is for both sides, left and right, although I know the left is better at this than the right. The troops are not one homogenous mass of people. The military comprises views from all points not just one and to think otherwise is just plain stupid.
Macbeth sentenced to five months in jail. He should be charged with treason, the lying rat.
MMFA could not possibly take Rush comments out of context, right? I have one for you, August 6, Hillary Clinton admitting to supporting the progressive movement, and stating that she started and supports MMFA. Imagine that!
Hey, Rush is inviting Harry Reid to appear on his show. Do you think the scrawny-necked scrub Reid will take him up on the offer? Hell no, I don't think the lunatic left will allow Reid to do it. Rush has also extended the offer to any progressive who wants to come on his show. The left is always bitching about fairness on the airwaves, here is their chance.
>Rush has also extended the offer to any progressive who wants to come on his show.
He likes to make that claim, but it's a lie. He also claims liberals go to the top of the list. I know for a fact that isn't so.
So when is Jon Soltz going to be on? He requested last week.
This is getting embarrassing! Media Matters is soooo busted, and yet refuses to admit it.
Come on! You were upset about a group on the Left looking like asses for the infamous Petraeus ad, and grasped at straws to "get" someone on the right. Now you're looking like the asses.
You failed!
But even worse, you refuse to simply apologize, and move on. You cling to this absurd story despite the truth becoming clearly apparent to everyone watching you.
I admit, I'm no fan of liberal politics in general, but this is getting difficult to watch. I hate to see anyone suffer extreme embarrassment like this.
>>> sooooo busted.
How so?
MM hasn't lied, but they sure have proven Rush lied to you, his audience.
The smear merchants at Media Matters deny any association with the Gorillary.
However, Rush found a transcript from Hitlery's speech to the DailyKooks back in August where she said this:
“…putting together a network in the blogosphere and a lot of the new progressive infrastructure, institutions that I helped start and support like Media Matters and the Center for American Progress…”
Lying thugs.
Rush is talking about how Harkin had his staffers alter his Wikipedia bio to erase the lies he told about his military service.
Long thread, but thank you to all of Rush's little robots for showing up and providing some laughs. Begging MMFA to drop the whole issue while declaring victory is pretty funny. Seems like if you were right,you would be enjoying it.
I am enjoying it immensely! I just came to gloat. Although it is always challenging to come in and attempt to clear up the fog that MMFA always seems to have hanging over its head.
And your opinion on Hillary's statement? You guys have been denying it all this time, and then it comes right from the horse's (?) mouth.
You came to gloat in a thread where your Limborg compatriots are getting spanked. Congratulations your disconnect from reality is complete.
To the brain-dead, but wordy, Boil Robots, sorry, DittoHeads, I have a question? It has been asked of the supporters of Mr. Limbaugh. why did Rush edit time approx. 90 seconds out of his EXACT transcript. which by the way changes the context, and let all of you BELIEVERS think it was EXACT? ( and for the Disdainful ONE, is it just semantics).
Why not read and understand? Life is that simple. By your standards, Is was not Is.
Im not the biggest fan of NPR but Im not calling for them to be stopped. The fact is this comment has been taken out of context, its that simple. I dont have a problem with Dems disagreeing with something they think he said, but it doesnt need to take place on the floor of the Senate. There are much more important things these politicians should be doing. Healthcare, Tax Code, Trade Imbalance, Energy Efficiency... the list goes on. They elected officials are in office to look out for the best interests of us, not themselves, this pandering on both sides needs to stop. This is a waste of time and money. This wild goose chase by they Dems is exactly why Congress' approval rating is lower than the Presidents, they get nothing done.
Taylor, And I ask, why did Rush make it seem that it was out of context. WHY did he cut some of the transcript and announce that it was in its' entirety? I finally get it...It was a JOKE. No, it was a TEST. No, it was a LIE and his attempt to dig out of his comment will haunt him forever. Well, the results of his test are being seen. And MM is getting great posts from both sides. You can do that here but try debating on the Cons websites...NOT
I really doubt this will haunt him for any length of time and to answer your question, I dont know why. Thats not my point either. If both sides were to put the collective energy they expend on Craig, Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly... from the left and Pelosi, Reid, Schumer, Soros... from the right into something productive, they could be very effective lawmakers. MM is getting some good feedback, and youre right there isnt much banter on the conservative sites. I believe it is because libs wont leave the comfort of their own backyard.
Why would I step into a cesspool?
Why are you worried about steeping into a cesspool when you spend your day here, up to your neck in BS?
Because we are liberals and we maintain the hope that morons like you can still be saved regardless of the relentless BS you spew
I'd love for you to suggest a rightie site that would allow an avowed gay liberal to post, and which would prohibit name-calling.
Because when I've posted on conservative sites, I've been subjected to vile name-calling, obscenities, and personal abuse.
>>The fact is this comment has been taken out of context
Rush himself did that by edited out the context, then claiming it was unedited.
NPR? What does that have to do with anything? Rush isn't heard on NPR (EIB is a fake network, BTW. Just anothewr example of Rush's lying to his listeners).
I was referring to an earlier post saying he should be taken off the radio because tax dollars fund his hour long broadcast to the troops. My post ended up not being near that one. I realize it looks out of place.
BTW Ken, congrats on the work you've done for AIDS and breast cancer! Its commendable.
Today (Tuesday) Rush played a sound clip in which Hillary said she helped found Media Matters. It is her voice, they are her words--really not arguable. Is she lying about her involvement with the organization? The notion that Media Matters is "not affiliated with any political party" is humorous enough. I mean, certainly this sort of claim will get a big laugh all around. But is Media Matters purely a creation of George Soros, or did Hillary assist him? Or is he just picking up the tab? I think these are interesting questions and should be answered.
BETTY, Please link to his comment. I don't think anyone trusts Mr. Edit Limbaugh around here. But keep following him. He says you must listen to him everyday so that you can survive.
Let's assume, just for the sake of discussion, that Hillary WAS involved in the creation of Media Matters -- is that illegal? I don't think so. So what? What is the big deal?
Yes, it is illegal. Don't worry, though, I am sure the queen of slither will wiggle out of this one. Funny how those silly Clinton's are always surrounded by unlawfulness, but they always glide right through. I would love to see a crackdown on all "non-profits".
So you have been lied to all along? Are you mad yet? Have you taken off the blinders? At least us "righties" had the decency to link to a video that shows the whole speech, not clips here and there. Rush is not given such courtesy.
I listened that day, the discussion had gone on for quite a while. You can tell none of you listen to the show, since you appear to have no clue on how he really works when he is on the air.
At least us "righties" had the decency to link to a video that shows the whole speech, not clips here and there. Rush is not given such courtesy.
Would you be talking about the Gibson tape? The tape that has been debunked as an edited version dozens of times on this sit already? Or if it is some other tape link to it. And what would this "crackdown" on non-profits look like? Specifically which "non-profits" are you talking about and what evidence do you have that a "crackdown" is necessary? Do you have evidence that none of us listen to Limbaugh ever or, specifically, that show? Never mind. It is pretty much a waste of time responding to your inane posts.
I smell a rat here. Sounds like a phony story. The only links google finds are wing-nut rightie sites. Anybody have any actually proof she said this?
She was speaking at the YearlyKos convention in Chicago on Aug 4 of this year.
There is a youtube video of her discussing it.
There is a youtube video of her discussing it.
And yet you didn't link to it. And I'm sure that somewhere on YouTube there may is a video in which Clinton admits to the murder of Vince Foster, the assassination of John F. Kennedy, and the fabrication of the global warming crisis. It is there! Trust me on this. Of course I don't have to provide a link. After all--it is somewhere on YouTube.
I guess Media Matters should also criticize for the General Betrayus Ad by Moveon. I mena if Rush can call a fake soldier who was wahed out of the military a Phoney and get hammered by the Myrmidons in the Media, it's only fair to subject the Move on crowd with same scrutiny.
ME....I ask you and everyone else who strawmans' to Gen Betrayus ad....Have you read it and if so, what is wrong with someone organization expressing their thoughts? Rush is permitted to spew his hate everyday and you don't attack him. Or do you believe everything he says? And do any of you deny the Senator Betrayus remark..oops, another JOKE
What in the world are you talking about. Moveon was criticized in the media more than Rushbo has. Moveon was subjected to some very speech chilling actions by congress. Has Rushbo? Yet you still claim he is being badly treated compared to moveon? This is just whining on your part/
Do you people ever listen to Rush Limbaugh?
I didn't think so.
Get your act together and stop putting out your lies.
I've listened to him quite a few times, usually on long drives. I've heard a lot of intellectual dishonesty from him, just like I hear from his fans.
Yup. Former cubemate listened everyday.
When AirAmerica came on, I played Franken in retaliation.
Do you Limborgians EVER think for yourselves? Repeating his propaganda with such servility is sad and pathetic. Stop being such a moron
YOU ALL DO KNOW THAT ABC NEWS RAN A SIMILAR STORY TWO DAYS BEFORE RUSH LIMBAUGH'S COMMENTS....SEE FOR YOURSELF http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=3645227
I WILL BE WAITING FOR THE MEDIA MATTERS CONDEMANTION WITH BAITED BREATH.
ABC called liberal soldiers "phony soldiers"?
Funny, your link doesn't support that assertion.
I'll try this again since my last post didn't get through.
If you listen to the entire transcript, to the part after the same quotes everyone on MM posts, Limbaugh goes on to talk about MacBeth as an example of a phony soldier. This proves Limbaugh had frauds on his mind, not dissenters. True he used the plural word soldierS, but he meant sodierS like MacBeth, not soldierS critical of the war.
So your defense is you're a better mind read of Rush?
Let's focus on what he ACTUALLY said.
[one hour of rambling, no mention of Macbeth]
LIMBAUGH: Another Mike, this one in Olympia, Washington. Welcome to the EIB Network. Hello.
CALLER 2: Hi Rush, thanks for taking my call.
LIMBAUGH: You bet.
CALLER 2: I have a retort to Mike in Chicago, because I am a serving American military, in the Army. I've been serving for 14 years, very proudly.
LIMBAUGH: Thank you, sir.
CALLER 2: And, you know, I'm one of the few that joined the Army to serve my country, I'm proud to say, not for the money or anything like that. What I would like to retort to is that, if we pull -- what these people don't understand is if we pull out of Iraq right now, which is about impossible because of all the stuff that's over there, it'd take us at least a year to pull everything back out of Iraq, then Iraq itself would collapse, and we'd have to go right back over there within a year or so. And --
LIMBAUGH: There's a lot more than that that they don't understand. They can't even -- if -- the next guy that calls here, I'm gonna ask him: Why should we pull -- what is the imperative for pulling out? What's in it for the United States to pull out? They can't -- I don't think they have an answer for that other than, "Well, we just gotta bring the troops home."
CALLER 2: Yeah, and, you know what --
LIMBAUGH: "Save the -- keep the troops safe" or whatever. I -- it's not possible, intellectually, to follow these people.
CALLER 2: No, it's not, and what's really funny is, they never talk to real soldiers. They like to pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and talk to the media.
LIMBAUGH: The phony soldiers.
CALLER 2: The phony soldiers. If you talk to a real soldier, they are proud to serve.
"They" (the media) never talk to real soldiers.
No one here - NO one - has offered a plausible explanation that CALLER 2 is referring only to the "soldiers" such as MacBeth.
It's a ludicruous claim.
If you have to work that hard to explain it, it isn't true. Truth is simple.
Trying to clean the egg off your face I see.
Still failing to form an original thought I see. You have been assimilated
The comments against Mr. Rush Limbaugh are completely a political lie. Period. You and the left wing liberals are completely falsifying what Mr. Limbaugh said, and you well know it. I was listening to his program that day the “phony solders” comment was made and everyone knew he was talking about only one lying individual and / or group of lying individuals the liberal “media matters” press tries to hail. Please, you and the Dems keep up the good work, your only hurting yourselves. The American people respect honesty, not a political workshop of lies to allow funding from liberals. If you support the liberal bias now, you will end up bowing to their threats and lies in the future.
No they arent. Just because you have been assimilated into the Limborg means nothing except you can regurgitate dutifully all the talking points we have fully refuted.
You clowns are insane if you think you can make this stick. Limbaugh was talking about Jesse MacBeth, who was sentenced to 5 months in prison for pretending to be a veteran of the war in Iraq and trying to bilk the VA out of disability benefits. Hmmm.... what would be a good term for someone like this? A phony soldier?
Yeah, a phony soldier that up until everyone realized he was a lying scumbag, was the left's poster child against the war. You can criticize the war all you want for ruining America's image to the rest of the world, but trumpeting made up stories from a mentally-disabled nutbag like Jesse MacBeth in which he accuses America's Rangers of hanging Iraqi's from the rafter's of Mosques doesn't help either.
The only thing this whole flap shows is how intellectually weak Democratic leaders are in Congress if all they can do is just parrot this claptrap about Limbaugh, instead of articulating an alternative policy. But the left never has been one for winning arguments on the merits, it's always about name-calling, demagougery and pandering, the three pillars of leftist debate strategy.
Nice to see you haven't changed.
Read the thread. Address the points that show why he wasn't talking about McBeth.
Or don't, and look like a partisan parrot. Your call.
Hilary was heard on sound bits today saying that she helped startup this blog,media matters. Is this true?
Do you throw out strawmen much?
Let's assume, just for the sake of discussion, that Hillary WAS involved in the creation of Media Matters -- is that illegal? I don't think so. So what? What is the big deal?
Yes. it is illegal. Their articles of incorporation are as a non-profit, non-political entity. As such, they are tax exempt.
In reality, MM is nothing more than a propaganda arm/political hit squad for Hillary.
And that's why they've run so many stories about right-wing misinformation regarding Obama and Edwards. She wants to spend her money defending her political opponents.
I thought she was all ruthless and vicious and all that. Hmmm.
Look at what you higlighted "pulling soldiers out of the blue" CLEARLY means phony soldiers. Real soldiers, even dissenting ones, don't come "out of the blue"
As I said, don't stop quoting at that point, continue reading the full transcript. That is when he mentions MacBeth. If you think that Limbaugh, a guy that makes his living promoting the war and its soldiers would insult the growing numbers of antiwar soldiers then you are delusional, not me.
The relevant part is past that point, yes. It's when the caller talks about phony soldiers and how real soldiers want to be in Iraq, and then Rush agrees with him.
Are you really arguing that because Rush makes his living promoting the war, he wouldn't smear soldiers who oppose the war? Aren't they obviously people who are standing in his way of promoting the war? You're not making a lot of sense.
Phony Soldier #1: Jesse MacBeth (Embraced by liberals because his phony story about our troops committing atrocities coincided with what they TRULY believe about REAL soldiers).
Phony Soldier #2: Scott Thomas Beauchamp (Embraced by liberal rag because his phony story about our troops committing atrocities...you get the picture).
Phony Soldier #3: Jimmy Massey (Embraced by liberals, toured w/ Mother Sheehan sideshow, because...well...once again, libs will swallow any PHONY story about REAL soldiers).
Phony Soldier #4: Micah Wright (Anti-war loon who made a phony claim to have seen combat as an army ranger but turned out to have only participated in ROTC...oh...and the libs at it up).
Phony Soldier #5: Senator Tom Harkin, D-IA (Best know for turning Wellstone funeral into a pep rally, claimed to have flown combat missions in Vietnam but...you geussed it...didn't, making him yet another phony soldier admired by libs).
Phony Soldier #6: Senator John Kerry, D-MA (Tried to avoid combat in Vietnam by enlisting in the Navy, thinking he'd have plenty of free time as he kept a sharp eye out for all those VC submarines, only to have some warmongering yahoo come up with the brilliant idea of using boats in Vietnamese rivers. Insisted on writing all after-action reports so he could make himself the hero. Re-enacted and filmed his alleged heroics. Applied for purple heart any time he stubbed his toe, finally recieving enough to get him the hell out of there. Came back and lied about atrocities. Threw somebody elses' medals over a fence and lied about that. Falsely claimed he ran illegal black-ops in Cambodia...etc., etc., etc.).
Phony Soldier #7: John Murtha, D-PA (Not exactly a "phony soldier." Just a despicable coward, caught on an FBI tape dicussing bribes).
*Note: 7 = plural
Hilary was heard on sound bits today saying that she helped startup this blog,media matters. Is this true?
yep. here's the evil pig in her own words:
[link to www.youtube.com]
Non-substantive shuffling, media mattered. It's so 5th Column-bine already, Limbaugh and Coulter should be debating how many backgrounds checks have already been passed over.
He's quite sure that his convictions about 'liberty' and 'freedom of speech' require him to personally see to the elimination of the democrats. He harps on Kerry and Pelosi, is always trying to defend the honor of Munky bin Laughin, the occupant and overseer at the White House. He's an evil, derranged, sick little man lashing out against America from his banana republican hideaway.
He wouldn't DARE insult real soldiers that oppose the war, he just ignores them. Insulting them would make no sense.
Phony soldierS are ones that lied about their service - it is a known term. Stop parsing a few quotes in order to change its meaning.
..."In addition, Limbaugh referred to Media Matters as a "Hillary Clinton front group." In fact, as previously noted in response to similar claims from Limbaugh, Media Matters is not affiliated with any political party or candidate."
Then why would Hillary say this at the YearlyKos convention:
"...institutions that I helped to start and support like Media Matters and Center for American Progress." Was she misquoted or taken out of context?
MMfA clearly and openly support dems in general and Hillary in particular. Hmmm...I'd start to worry about the non-profit status.
But here's what will happen...As soon as she gets the nomination, she will distance herself from MMfA, MoveOn, DailyKos and all the rest because she will need to appeal to mainstream rubes and yokels like me. The left-wing blog sites are useful idiots to her and you don't see it.
Why doesn't Reid and Harkin take Rush up on his offer? Accuse him to his face! We all know Hillary founded Media Matters. If only you could get your wish and get Rush and O'reilly off the air. Then you could float right into the White House. Fat chance!! My sons are Vets, real ones, not phony Macbeths. Democrats have spent 7 years out for revenge because GW was elected. I grew up around Gore and thank God every day he wasn't elected. Even his own hometown and state turned him down. All you have the intelligence to do is oppose anything Republicans try to do. You have no ides of your own. Reid and Harkin will never go to Rush face to face. Got no guts. I double dog dare them.
I have never been a big fan of Rush Limbaugh because I think he is way too divisive. That is not to say that I disagree with his conservative point of view. On the substantive issues I agree with him more often than not.
My problem with Rush is how he frames the divide between liberals and conservatives. His conservative = good, liberal = bad thought process is what I think makes him divisive [The same goes for a lot of commentators on the left who reverse his formula, i.e., liberal = good, conservative = bad (Al Franken comes to mind.)]
That having been said, I don't think that a lot of things his critics say about him and comments that they attribute to him are accurate. This phony soldiers "controversy" is just one more example.
I have read the transcript put up by Media Matters and I have listened to the audio they have posted regarding Limbaugh's phony soldiers comment and it is pretty clear to me that Rush's comments have been skewed and taken out of context.
I don't think he was applying the phony soldiers comment to active-duty military who oppose the war, i.e., saying anyone in the military who opposes the was is a "phony soldier." What I think he was doing was commenting on how quickly and easily the media accepts at face value anyone who calls in to a radio or tv show and claims to have been in the military.
It is clear to me that Rush thought that the first caller named "Mike," who said he was in the military, was not actually in the military. I think we can all agree that if "Mike" was lying and was not in the military then he is, indeed, a "phony soldier." Because of this, I think this particular criticism of Rush is wrong.
What I think it is fair to criticize Rush for in this debate is the ease with which he thinks he "knows" whether or not someone was really in the military or not. He seems to apply the same simplistic good/bad dichotomy to this issue and believe that all people in the military support the war so that anyone who says they oppose the war and then claims to be in the military is obviously not really in the military. In this respect he might have been wrong about whether or not "Mike" was in the military and, if he was wrong, he called someone in the military a "phony soldier" and that he should not have done.
Yeah, that Limbaugh is a big, fat idiot. I read about him.
Is it just me or is the RW composed entirely of thrice married, closeted, mens room dwelling, drug addicted, convicted felons and liars?
I am not sure if the Wikipedia has an entry for “Freudian Slip” but if it does the Limbaugh clip needs to be right there. If you listen to this thing you will hear Ole’ Rush refer to soldiers serving in Iraq that do not support the war as “Phony Soldiers”. Yup, the remark is aimed at real soldiers serving in Iraq as it is a response to a comment about such soldiers made by a caller.
I fought in the Vietnam War and hated every day of it. I did not support that war but I did my job very well. Nobody suggested that I was a phony as the criteria there was what all about America and not a political party. Same goes for Iraq. Soldiers in Iraq both supportive of the policies of the Bush administration and non-supportive are fighting that war. They are free to think as they like but must do their jobs.
Many folks think this war is being ‘non ended’ as a suitable end for its authors, the GOP, would be victory and that is not going to happen. There are only two ways to not lose a war: win it or fight it forever. Failure would crush the war proponents, vindicate the anti-war crowd and end the careers of a boatload of conservative pundits and pols. It would relegate the GOP to permanent minority status, the Bush Administration to the cellar of presidential legacies and about half of our news outlets to ridicule. So, the mission is not about WMD’s (never was), Liberating the Iraqi people, (never was) or nailing Al Qaida (they were not there in 2003) but about Bush. This war was part of a grand plan to image the GOP and Bush a tough warriors, manly men and ass kickers. That is not going to happen so now it about preventing the opposite from happening: revealing that GOP mess to be rank failures.
When Limbaugh states that the soldiers in Iraq that do not support the mission he sees “mission’ thru his own optics, preservation of the GOP and therefore himself via never ending war. If you don’t support that you are a phony as just fighting hard is not a criteria for legitimacy in his book. Limbaugh, a Vietnam war draft dodger and Chickenhawk extraordinaire, would be prime substrate for such thinking as the trait of allowing “Mission”, “Duty” and “Honor” to over-ride your personal preferences is not associated with self serving Chickenhawks.
Limbaugh had a chance to fight for America and opted out. He fights for the GOP and sees all fights as either for or against the GOP. The war in Iraq for him and his ilk has two sides: supporting Bush or not supporting Bush. The USA never figured in. We should thank Rush for making this a little clearer because as soon as this Rove and Limbaugh smokescreen is blown clear we can do what is right for America. Protect the troops, save the troops or as Rush says “whatever”.
PS: check out the “whatever’ comment. It really is the most damnable part of the clip.
I can smell the air here so will air my comments with caution and thought. I can't believe we're getting down to parsing words down to the plural to define what a man means. I don't think that argument is necessary from me at this point. I think it is about knowing someone over time. There are so many hateful people out there. Most of you do not listen to Rush and only hear of his comments through secondary sources. I, being a mind-numbed robot, have listened to Rush for about 13 years and also have listened to Al Franken when I can. The comments here are immature, uninformed and simply sad for America. No hate or name-calling here, just a wish for someone to show some class, knowledge, respect... I just wish you would go to the source whether it be Al or Rush before making up your mind. After all, I'm here on media matters reading and looking.
Media Matters (very little) has gotten its knickers all twisted! My oh my, how the lefties scream for the troops they so love.
Problem is MM(vl), the military knows who respects them and who doesn't. Soldiers wish Armed Forces radio would have had all 3 hrs of Rush everyday rather than the nonsense from the now defunct Hot Air America. They know that it is liberals like Murtha, Durbin, Reid, Pelosi, Kerry, et al., who would 'Hadifasize' them at the drop of the hat. Given an opening, they would jump to accuse our troops of war crimes, Gestapo tactics and like Senator Kerry himself who says that the soldiers are terrorizing Iraqi women and children and reminds us of his 'respect filled' comments about fellow Vietnam era soldiers who "razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan."
American soldiers know who's patriotism is phony and who's is not.
MM(vl)-Me Thinks Thou Dost Protest Too Much!
"I want to apologize to all of the members of the United States military, both in uniform and out, active duty and retired, for Media Matters for America."
This is a perfect example of Limbaugh's modus operandi.Its precisely what he has done since he began dumping his toxins into the open water of debate.He actually seems to delight in this kind of "throw it back in their face" projection,which although childishly simplistic and meaningless,is surprisingly effective.Which is to say, Liberals have yet to find a way to counter this nonsense.Perhaps they should react in kind by taking it a step further by apologizing to (the military forces)for asking Limbaugh to apologize,knowing full well that he would NOT,thereby needlessly raising hopes that he WOULD etc..
Oh BTW-hello to all of Rush's ditto-heads!Hows everything in the sex tourist trade?Rush have any 3rd world cruises lined up for the faithful?
Loislap-dog,
Nice try but I guess in your defense, actually attempting to respond to the logic of previous postings and/or the hyperinflated attempt to make this 'Rush' thing an issue, your best bet is to deflect and otherwise present the least relevant information in the guise of intelligent banter in order to fully the prove the vapid intellectual depth of most people on the left.
Kudos!
Loislap-dance,
How's that impeachment coming along? Has John Conyers managed to get a break from having to pull his wife out of drunken bar brawls? Perhaps she should aspire to emulate someone other than Ed Schultz so Johnnie-C can get busy speaking truth to power.
Right on Rush, you speak for most of America. These dopes are the usual low IQ people that Liberals ADORE! They are the "show me the money" type folks that keeps the Left in Congress bashing America!
Haven't the time to read very many comments from the Limbaugh haters, but you're all missing the most important point:
Most Americans, whether they agree with Limbaugh or not, know that he loves America and our military. Whether they agree with this war or not, most Americans know that Limbaugh does, and supports the troops. Rush could fly to Iraq or Afghanistan tomorrow and still be treated like a rock star. John Kerry, Harry Reid, Nancy Peloci or HRC could visit Iraq tomorrow and the vast majority of troops would ignore these asshats.
Even if Limbaugh did take a dig at all anti-war troops, which he didn't, it's forgivable in the way that John Kerry's and Murtha's slander of our troops is not.
It's kinda sad--and extremely fun to watch at the same time--the meltdown of the leftwing media which matters less and less every day.
In reading Limbaugh's transcripts it is quite clear that his claims about his intentions are correct, and that Media Matters is misrepresenting him.
I don't understand why Media Matters would bother, however. Why give Limbaugh such an opportunity to illustrate your dishonesty? This is baffling. What possible motive could Media Matters have for this activity - other than what Limbaugh, himself, says are your motives? Or is Media Matters secretly a Rush Limbaugh publicity machine? You're making him look like a saint...!
Also, before the ad hominems are hurled, I am Canadian and politically neutral in this discussion.
I think it's really sad how he's taking it.. technically he could have made this into a positive thing... or at least saying 'that' soldier might have been phony.... but the way he said it was .......... not careful for someone in radio.
isn't the real story how gullible (to put it politely) american people are? the fact that we are all still discussing a despicable fringe character like Limbaugh is telling and sad.
but he is right about one thing: Media Matters doesn't criticize war-mongering/pro death penalty Hilary do they? Media Matters has only slightly more cred than Rush.
The only misrepresentations have been made by your group of leftist nuts. You have taken what Rush said and distorted it as you do everything. Thank GOD Rush has tells the truth. Thank God for President Bush who has the guts to do what is right. Thanks to all our troops how are serving a JUST CAUSE. If this country was left up to people like Media Matters we would be commies.
Sorry Media Matters,
It's not Sticking. Nice try though!
You best let up on Mr. Limbaugh. Him and Mark Levin will bury your non tax status if you continue.
Your 4 years are up. Disband and go on to a fair and balanced approach on Media. Not just the conservatives you attack.