Scarborough and Geist repeated Limbaugh's defense of "phony soldiers" comment without noting its holes
SUMMARY: On MSNBC's Morning Joe, contributor Willie Geist stated that he had gone "back and looked at the full transcript" of Rush Limbaugh's recent description of soldiers who support withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq as "phony soldiers" and asserted that Limbaugh had been "talking about a specific soldier, this guy Jesse MacBeth," who falsely claimed to be an injured Iraq war veteran. Joe Scarborough agreed that Limbaugh's remark has "been blown out of context." However, the transcript and audio included in the original Media Matters item documenting Limbaugh's comments makes clear that he referred to "phony soldiers," plural.
On the October 2 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe, host Joe Scarborough and contributor Willie Geist discussed Rush Limbaugh's recent description of soldiers who support withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq as "phony soldiers," as Media Matters for America documented. After stating that he had gone "back and looked at the full transcript," Geist asserted that Limbaugh had been "talking about a specific soldier, this guy Jesse MacBeth," an anti-war activist who pleaded guilty to one count of making false statements to the Department of Veterans Affairs for falsely claiming to be an injured Iraq war veteran. Geist added that Limbaugh "was actually talking about a person who actually was a phony soldier." Scarborough responded, "Yeah, so it's been blown out of context."
But while Geist claimed that Limbaugh had been referring to a "specific soldier," the transcript and audio included in the original Media Matters item documenting Limbaugh's comments make clear that he 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 said, "The phony soldiers" [emphasis added]. Moreover, Limbaugh made no reference to MacBeth until 1 minute and 50 seconds after his "phony soldiers" comment. As Media Matters documented, Limbaugh subsequently cropped the audio clip of his show to falsely suggest that his reference to MacBeth almost immediately followed his "phony soldiers" comment.
Geist's assertions that Limbaugh had been referring to a specific soldier echo Limbaugh's own misrepresentations of his original remark. On his September 28 program, Limbaugh claimed that he was "talking about one soldier with that 'phony soldier' comment, Jesse MacBeth" -- until a caller pointed out that he had used the plural.
Moreover, as Media Matters noted, Limbaugh's assertion that he was talking only about MacBeth is further undermined by the fact that in a conversation immediately before the one in which Limbaugh referred to "phony soldiers," he appeared to question whether a caller advocating withdrawal from Iraq had actually been a soldier, as he had claimed. So, beyond appearing to question his caller's self-identification as a former member of the military, at no point prior to making the "phony soldiers" comment did Limbaugh refer to any soldiers he considered to be fake.
Finally, Limbaugh further undermined his own claim that he had not been referring more broadly to service members who oppose the war by expanding his group of "phony soldiers" two days after his September 26 broadcast to include Rep. John P. Murtha (D-PA) and Pvt. Scott Thomas Beauchamp, who is currently serving in Iraq. As Media Matters noted, in asserting that he was originally "talking about a genuine phony soldier," Limbaugh went on to state during his September 28 broadcast: "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?"
From the October 2 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe:
SCARBOROUGH: And finally, you know, Media Matters went after Bill O'Reilly. And I just have to put a little asterisk here, I went after Bill pretty hard too because I thought what he said was ridiculous. But I heard a lot people this weekend, like liberals on the upper West Side as I was walking up and down Broadway, you know, people smoking dope saying, "Hey, Scarborough, I think you're being a little tough on O'Reilly."
GEIST: Really?
SCARBOROUGH: Yeah, I did, I did, I, seriously. And so, some people around here saying it may have been blown out of proportion. I don't know. But now you've got Media Matters going after Rush Limbaugh. This really does look like a phony story about a phony soldier.
GEIST: Once again, Joe, as we did with O'Reilly, we went back and looked at the full transcript. The comment they're talking about is the, quote, "phony soldiers" comment --
SCARBOROUGH: Yeah.
GEIST: -- that Rush Limbaugh made while he was talking to a caller on his show last week. Well, he was talking about a specific soldier, this guy Jesse MacBeth, you might remember, who claimed to have served in Iraq and came back and was criticizing the war. He never went to Iraq, never served.
SCARBOROUGH: Now, hold on one second. By definition, can I Google "phony soldier"?
GEIST: Yeah, I don't think you have to Google on this one.
SCARBOROUGH: OK.
GEIST: So, it's sort of hard to argue that he was -- that Limbaugh was right on this one. Again, no context ever given. They see the quote "phony soldiers," and that's all they hear. But he was actually talking about a person who actually was a phony soldier.
SCARBOROUGH: Yeah, so it's been blown out of context.
GEIST: Of course.
SCARBOROUGH: And I'm sure Media Matters will make a lot of money for blowing it out of context because people hate Rush Limbaugh, you know. And so who knows? Maybe George Soros will write them a big, fat, million-dollar check.
[...]
SCARBOROUGH: And Willie, we -- you know, we've been talking about O'Reilly this past week. Now it looks like Rush Limbaugh is in the sights of MediaMatters.com. [sic]
GEIST: Yeah, the story, Joe, is that Rush used the term "phony soldiers," talking about people who fought in Iraq. He's getting a lot of heat from Media Matters and other groups.
SCARBOROUGH: And Harry Reid goes on the Senate floor --
GEIST: Harry Reid [sic: Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA)] actually went on the floor and said, "Maybe he was on drugs again" --
MIKA BRZEZINSKI (co-host): Oh my.
GEIST: -- talking about Rush Limbaugh when he said that. So, personal attacks against Limbaugh. In this case, as we did with O'Reilly, we want to give a little context. Limbaugh was talking about a specific soldier, a guy by the name of Jesse MacBeth who, in fact, was a, quote, "phony soldier."
SCARBOROUGH: He was [unintelligible]
BRZEZINKSI: Well, there you go. So, then, the term was --
GEIST: Matter of fact, he admitted to falsifying his military record. He was sentenced to five months in prison. So he was, in fact, a phony soldier. He came out and talked about the atrocities he'd seen his own soldiers commit, killing children and women and innocent bystanders. But in truth, he never fought in Iraq or Afghanistan. Limbaugh was talking about this Jesse MacBeth guy, but again, we've lost context, it seems.
SCARBOROUGH: Yeah, lost context, but you know what? Media Matters is going to make a lot of money because libs who hate Rush Limbaugh will give them money for attacking.
Rush does not work for FOX so Scarborough can defend him. O'Reilly is not defended by anyone at MSNBC (Network of Imus and Savage). That is why I do not believe a word Scarborugh says. He is a total phony.
Hmmm, Willie Giest. Is he related to Coulter Giest?
MMFA is losing this argument in the media & with everybody I've talked to [an unscientific poll to be sure] but I'm not seeing any of this hurting Limbaugh at all. If anything, MMFA's campaign has backfired & brought Limbaugh a great deal of support.
Time to give it a rest guys and go looking for another target.
I tend to agree with you, Limbaugh was wrong but just like the OReilly event last week this gets no where and the Limbaugh /FOX machine is very powerful
I don't know about that, O'Reilly's ratings are falling, Olbermann has passed his ratings a few times now, and even Scarborough came out against O'Reilly. Limbaugh got more support from the so called MSM than O'Reilly did.
I do not want to turn this into a ratings discussion but what you said about Oreilly is just plain wrong. He still wins that time slot.
http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/ratings/default.asp
You're right, no need for a ratings discussion. Just admit that Olbermann has surpassed O'Reilly a few times in the ratings rather than using a single day of ratings as your answer.
Maybe he has but on that list was not a single day that showed it. If he has and you have the link I will be glad to say he passed OReilly.
I'll have to dig a little since I've got a meeting to attend, but this is interesting, take a look.
Here are the numbers...do with them what you want:
- Keith Olbermann's year-to-year growth may be the story at MSNBC, but Countdown was still #3 at 8pmET. Even with CNN's hodge-podge of a schedule...Olbermann trailed CNN in total viewers and the 25-54 demo. These are Nielsen live numbers...
O'Reilly - 2,096,000/420,000
CNN - 727,000/242,000
Olberman - 638,000/212,000
What is Scarboroughs ratings? Since the thread was about Joe?
You're the last person I expected to ask that question, lol.
Preston, bad bad doggy LOL ;-)
August, 2007 monthly ratings
That's ONE DAY of data. Just as Snoop pointed out, here have been recent others where Keith has beat O'Reilly in the demo.
Doh! More humble pie please!
I thought it was another Bistro citing of one day, so I didn't bother scrolling!
I'll shut up now.
Yeah you do have to scroll its the entire month and actually the entire year. I could really care less if Oreilly loses, but misinformation is misinformation. Just because we say OReilly is losing in the ratings does not mean it is true.
Ok, I lied, I won't shut up.
I'm looking for where Snoop said "O'Reilly is losing in the ratings", but all I see is "O'Reilly's ratings are falling" and "Olbermann has passed his ratings a few times now".
I guess that can be construed as declaring O'Reilly the loser somehow.
ratings aside, why do you feel mmfa should not be engaging limbaugh on this issue?
the question is to jlyons.
You are a troll so I do not answer to you.
in other words, you can't answer.
in other words I never said that and you are a troll. if one of the other valid posters wishes to ask me that I will be glad to answer .
you said you agreed with jeter that mmfa's campaign against rush has backfired. can you explain? [pretend someone else asked.]
Okay, I'll bite.
O great arbiter of who is and is not a "valid" poster...
Impart your wisdom upon us, Great One...
why do you feel mmfa should not be engaging limbaugh on this issue?
I will answer for you .
I do not feel that way, I agreed with Jeter that Limbaugh may be winning in public opinion. I think we need a new tactic , just like the OReilly racist remark last week. Instead of one subject there are MANY more subjects to catch Rush lying on. When the same topic is discussed, it gives Rush and to some extent Oreilly more time to lie and come up with diversions. No where however did I say MMFA should not go after Rush. Of couse King Smear (mefirst) loves to play little word games. Must not be busy all day.
as usual, the word games are on your side. to quote you: "nowhere however did i say mmfa should not go after rush". and of course, i did not say you said that. i asked you why we should not be engaging him "on this issue". jeter said: "mmfa's campaign has backfired and brought limbaugh a great deal of support....time to give it a rest, guys and go looking for another target." you said: "i tend to agree with you, limbaugh was wrong, but just like the o'reilly event this gets nowhere...". according to you, though, continuing the discussion gives limbaugh "more time to lie". so if he is lying, then i think most would agree that you point out where he's lying. jeter's testimony of who's winning the battle is of little meaning here. i realize you hate to be quoted accurately, but if that is a "smear", then we differ on the meaning.
melast
Why do you not ask Jeter this question? Or does he know you for the troll you are also? I have given the other poster the answer he was civil, you are not a civil person. You are a troll. You look to smear posters on here and paint people as "Evil Conservatives" if they even tend to have a slightly different view on any subject than you do. You are intolerant and you are starting to be exposed. If you do not like how I feel about Rush and OReilly and the lies they spewed please just say so instead of playing word games and taking things off subject. Otherwise just give it a rest.
unfortunately for you, your little rewrite of history won't work, because it's all there for everyone to read. my complete first post to you at 3:46 pm yesterday was the following: "ratings aside, why do you feel mmfa should not be engaging limbaugh on this issue?", a question that deeznuts repeated to you basically as i wrote it. if he was "civil", then i was too. but your first reply to me was: "you are a troll so i do not answer to you". so that was you who decided not to be civil. a lot of people, including pearlene later in this thread, think you and sueeld are the same person. feel free to take your often repeated advice to ignore me, but if i want to ask a question, i will.
ok melast, the smear campaign by you continues. Most on here know your games, and frankly Pearlene can think what she wants but the issue is your smearing and taking things out of context. When you smear me I do respond, I willnot allow you to swift boat me.
that swiftboat stuff is great. and again, all i hear from you is "smear", when you're the one who started calling me names. all i'm doing is quoting you extensively and accurately. if i'm taking it "out of context", please show me how. and truthfully, to show what a phony you are, deeznuts was not being civil with you, but extremely sarcastic. with reason, i thought, but you could hardly portray his post as civil.
Pete, I did the same thing. I have a big Doh! on my head too!
Agreed. The only way MM could make the initial complaint against Rush work was by cutting the part at the end where he speaks specifically about Rush. My guess is that MM didn't guess there would be this big of a sh*tstorm and didn't realize that cutting that portion of the transcript would point out that Rush was speaking about actual fake soldiers, like Jesse MacBeth.
I meant where he speaks specifically about "Macbeth" not "Rush". Little Freudian slip there.
Freud would have a field day with dittoheads.
It doesnt matter because when you are RIGHT you can be a majority of ONE. MMFA is fighting the good fight. That means you dont just fight the fights you can win you fight the fights that need fighting. Just because the rightwing attack machine closes ranks behind Limbaugh and convinces people he was right THIS TIME, IF that is what happens, doesnt mean this wasnt worth doing. There will be others and eventually people will stop taking Fox news word for it. As long as they are right they should keep exposing the mans monumental hypocrisy
MMFA is losing this argument in the media & with everybody I've talked to [an unscientific poll to be sure] but I'm not seeing any of this hurting Limbaugh at all. If anything, MMFA's campaign has backfired & brought Limbaugh a great deal of support.
Time to give it a rest guys and go looking for another target.
Jeter, I have not posted on this thread cause listening to Rush makes my ears bleed but last night I went back and not only looked at the actual transcript (not Rush's edited one) but the real one as will as the actual call. What Rush said in response to Mike Caller #2 was "phony solider". When he next spoke about Jessie he called him a "fake solider". Now I find is kind of interesting that Rush will use the term "phony" when speaking to Mike Caller #2 and then use "fake" when speaking about Jessie but yet Rush swears that when he said "phony" he was talking about Jessie. Fake actually seem to apply to Jessie.
As far as giving up, not a chance. Rush, Bill and other do not get a free pass to continue to question the patriotism of Americans who disagree.
I for one don't want Rush, Bill or Sean off the air, they are the gift that keep on giving when they open their mouths. I want the public to see that this is a man who was too lazy to serve his country in Vietnam questioning those that have served in Iraq. I want THAT to be front and center!
See? I told you this fight is lost. The Cable TV talking heads are regurgitating the official Rush Limbaugh version. Note that they never say "apparently" or that "Rush claims" or "Rush argues". They are simply repeating the assertion that Rush was referring to Jesse Macbeth, when the context of the conversation does not support that.
Of course, this is no surprise. When someone is paid $30,000,000 a year to lie, he has to be quick on his feet. Getting Rush to admit a mistake or a lie is like nailing Jello to the wall.
Nerzog, I just watched Hardball with Chris and he didn't let Rush's comment slide. He also did not mention the excuse that Rush gave about talking about someone else. He had Ed Schultz and Harris. He actually stopped the tape of Rush when he said "phony soliders" and forced Heidi Harris to admit that no one had the right to call soldiers who disagreed with administrations policy a "phony". For once Chris didn't cut Ed Schultz off at all.
"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."
That's the immediate context, in case anyone missed it. Rush came back later and mentioned MacBeth, probably realizing his error and trying to back and fill.
So, if Rush was only talking about one soldier, why is Melanie mOrgan spouting off about Rush being right and that all the soldiers like seitz are phony soldiers? Hmmm?
Probably because Melanie Morgan and Rush Limbaugh are two different people with two different opinions. Just a wild guess.
Off base as usual, Leather...
Hmmm, I wonder if Gen. Clark will be called a phony soldier by Limbaugh for saying this?
Probably, since Rush loves to smear anyone who disagrees with Bush and the GOP propaganda machine.
but if he does. shouldn't we ignore him saying it? since you suggested mmfa can only lose by taking on limbaugh?
J , just ignore mefirst, he tried to Smear me this morning also. The guy is obviously a troll.
it's always one of you jumping in to help each other deflect. why is it that jlyons cannot answer a legitimate question based on what she said? it's her statement. let her defend it.
Caseyspring, Sueeld and JLyons = Same person
Ok Pearl, whatever you say. You are a genius.
This is getting old, but it's an easy thing for him to clear up. Both sides should fall back and maybe Rush should think twice before he attacks another person for a slip of the tongue.
That would require Rush acknowledging a mistake, and that ain't gonna happen. He's going to turn this around and try to use it to crush MMFA...and the Corporate Media Whores are going to play along.
Goodbye, Morning Joe. I'm switching to decaf. I'd like to elaborate more, but I'm tired of watching Mika cover her ears every time adult material is presented.
BAck to the story. MSNBC BLANTLY misled the viewers regarding the issue. The transcript was documented widely and had been played on numerous airwaves of what RUSH said.
He has tried to back pedal, spew more BS and then the talking heads at MSNBC repeat RUSH position with out even reading the original context.
MSNBC final note basically - was to hit MEdia Matters.
Did Rush apologize for his comments, or explain that his comments could be taken a certain way but it wasn't his intent? Or, did he just say people are taking things out of context or lying about what he said? Rush has never been one to sugar coat things. He has slandered just about everybody except maybe white men who agree with him. I have a problem with his being on Armed Services Radio and repeating the lie over and over again that Liberals want the troops to fail, and that Liberals are hoping the terrorists win. Is that going to uplift troop morale? I've heard him say these types of things, and I rarely listen to his show. Rush distorts and exaggerates things until they don't resemble reality in any way and incites his audience. I don't know how anybody who claims they are from the party of "high moral values" can listen to his rantings.
I expect attacks on MMFA to increase. Attacks on various parts of the Progressive Blogisphere an emerging tactic. MMFA is a leading edge, it's going to be taking some heat. Other sites will be recieving equal pressure. I really doubt that the Axis of Weasels want to be anywhere near a courtroom.
What happens next. Well a chance to quote Terry Prachett. Sodomy non sapiens. Which may translate as ,b#ggerred if I know.
I expect attacks on MMFA to increase. Attacks on various parts of the Progressive Blogisphere an emerging tactic.
Sadly I think you are right. They have seen how the progressives are better organized and can exchange ideas through this forum. They will do anything to discredit these sites. They are scared.