Fox News Live guest claimed Limbaugh named MacBeth "about 30 seconds" after "phony soldiers" comment -- but it was nearly 2 minutes
SUMMARY: On Fox News Live, after hearing a segment of Rush Limbaugh's controversial comments characterizing service members who advocate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq as "phony soldiers," guest Carrie Lukas of the Independent Women's Forum asserted, "If you go on for another, about 30 seconds, you hear Mr. Limbaugh start talking about Jessie MacBeth." In fact, a 1 minute and 50 second discussion occurred between Limbaugh's original "phony soldiers" comment and his reference to MacBeth.
During the October 2 edition of Fox News Live, after broadcasting a segment of Rush Limbaugh's controversial September 26 comments characterizing service members who advocate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq as "phony soldiers," Carrie Lukas, director of policy for the conservative Independent Women's Forum, asserted, "If you go on for another, about 30 seconds, you hear Mr. Limbaugh start talking about Jessie MacBeth, who is a man who the left has made very prominent because he came out and said that our soldiers did horrible things, burned bodies of Iraqis, and this was broadcast all over the place. And now it turns out that Jesse MacBeth lied about his credentials." Fox News anchor Jon Scott did not respond to Lukas' claim about the timing of Limbaugh's comments about MacBeth. In fact, as Media Matters for America documented, a 1 minute and 50 second discussion occurred between Limbaugh's original "phony soldiers" comment and his reference to MacBeth. The full audio can be heard here.
During a discussion of the controversy with Democratic strategist Doug Schoen, Lukas stated: "What I would encourage my fellow guest to do is actually to read the transcript of what Rush Limbaugh said, because that's what I have done. I was actually listening at the time, and this is an absolutely fabricated story." She went on to suggest that Fox "go ahead and play the clip from Rush Limbaugh, because Rush Limbaugh has it prominently displayed on his website." In fact, as Media Matters has documented, during the September 28 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Limbaugh purported to air the "entire" segment in question from the September 26 broadcast of his show, but the clip he then aired had been spliced, without any indication to listeners that they were hearing a cropped version of the audio. Excised from the clip was 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. Also, Limbaugh posted on his website a transcript (subscription required) of the first segment of the first hour of his September 28 broadcast, but as Media Matters has noted, the transcript (subscription required) does not include most of the conversation between Limbaugh's "phony soldiers" remark and his discussion of MacBeth -- or even indicate that any conversation took place: Limbaugh's transcript does not provide any notation or ellipsis to indicate that there is, in fact, a break in the transcript of the September 26 clip he used.
After Fox aired Limbaugh's "phony soldiers" comment, Schoen asserted: "Pretty clear, isn't it? 'Phony soldiers,' it's right there. Wasn't referring to one specific soldier." Lukas then asserted, "If you go on for another, about 30 seconds, you hear Mr. Limbaugh start talking about Jessie MacBeth."
From the October 2 edition of the 12 p.m. ET Fox News' News Live:
LUKAS: If I can just jump in, because this conversation is just patently ridiculous. What I would encourage my fellow guest to do is actually to read the transcript of what Rush Limbaugh said, because that's what I have done. I was actually listening at the time, and this is an absolutely fabricated story. Rush Limbaugh said --
SCHOEN: It isn't. That's what he said.
LUKAS: He said absolutely --
SCHOEN: He used those words.
LUKAS: He used the words "phony soldiers" to --
SCHOEN: "Phony soldiers." It's there, just read the transcript.
LUKAS: Sir, to describe someone who was actually a phony soldier --
SCHOEN: No.
LUKAS: -- someone who had lied about their record.
SCHOEN: He didn't refer to specific soldiers.
LUKAS: Sir, he did not.
SCHOEN: He spoke generally. That's just the fact.
LUKAS: Then, why don't we -- I would encourage Fox to go ahead and play the clip from Rush Limbaugh, because Rush Limbaugh has it prominently displayed on his website. None of the Democrats -- Sen. Tom Harkin is not quoting Rush Limbaugh. They are only quoting this one term -- "phony soldier" -- taken completely out of context.
SCOTT: Carrie, we will meet your challenge and play that clip right now. Hang on.
[begin audio clip]
CALLER: 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.
[end audio clip]
SCOTT: All right.
SCHOEN: Pretty clear, isn't it? "Phony soldiers," it's right there. Wasn't referring to one specific soldier.
LUKAS: Well, continue -- if you --
SCHOEN: I think it's very clear what he said, and that he owes an apology.
LUKAS: Well, if you continue -- first of all, you don't know who that caller is referring to. If you go on for another, about 30 seconds, you hear Mr. Limbaugh start talking about Jessie MacBeth, who is a man who the left has made very prominent because he came out and said that our soldiers did horrible things, burned bodies of Iraqis, and this was broadcast all over the place. And now it turns out that Jesse MacBeth lied about his credentials.
SCHOEN: But he wasn't talking about Jesse MacBeth --
LUKAS: He was a phony soldier.
SCHOEN: -- when he said, "phony soldiers."
SCOTT: Well --
SCHOEN: He was talking about generally a group of people who he said weren't worth being treated seriously and regarded as real soldiers --
LUKAS: Yes, people who --
SCHOEN: -- something he should apologize for.
LUKAS: People who lie about their record should not be treated as real soldiers. If you're not a real soldier, you are a phony soldier. The AP actually used that term, when describing men who had been lying about their record.
SCHOEN: I must tell you, if you're in Iraq fighting, whether you agree or disagree with American policy --
LUKAS: Absolutely, and no one --
SCHOEN: -- you are a real soldier. And Rush Limbaugh owes all soldiers an apology for his outrageous comments.
LUKAS: Rush Limbaugh would agree with you, sir, that anyone who is fighting in Iraq is a real soldier. What he was talking about is people who aren't real soldiers at all, and you know that.
SCHOEN: You're just mischaracterizing it.
Wow , FOX does have some way with changing the truth. Just becuase FOX says it does not mean it is true.
You forget, it was someone from fox who recently said they don't have to report the truth on air for all to hear. Remember?
Four years ago, lawyers for Fox News asserted in a court of law that they have a right to distort and falsify the news, and an appeals court JUDGE agreed with them, thus throwing out an earlier wrongful termination judgment against Fox.
Darn that liberal judiciary!
Pete, I think you are about to get a visit from the foxtapo. By posting the actual article, you took them out of context!
Wow!
It wasn't "30 seconds,"; it was one minute, 50 seconds!
An absolutely stunning and mindblowing example of "conservative misinformation"! Amazing work, MM!
</sarc> (Roll eyes)
Yeah, god only knows that you can recite the gettysburgh address in that time frame. Obviously not enough time to make a difference...
Fact check:
The case was about a local affiliate of the Fox network, not the Fox News Channel. Big difference. It could have easily been a CBS or NBC affiliate.
It also appears that the case had more to do with whistleblowing than "falsifying the news."
"The case was about a local affiliate of the Fox network, not the Fox News Channel. Big difference."
Correction noted, but not as big a difference as you'd like to think it is. While it was not Fox News Channel, it was an affiliate owned and operated by Fox Broadcasting Company, a division of Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation.
"It could have easily been a CBS or NBC affiliate."
This is speculation, not fact.
Hey Shoes,
I don't know where you got your info, but the article from Pete says FOX. The reporters were from an affiliate but the lawsuit was with FOX.
And no, it wasn't just about whistleblowing, it was about being able to lie in a "news" report.
...wow - a whole 60 seconds difference!
Prediction: Rush will keep his highly rated show on Armed Forces radio and will coninue to get as more listeners in an hour of EIB than bankrupt Air America gets in an entire year.
Here is an honest question - Is George Soros so upset with an honest man of integrity like Rush Limbaugh who cannot be bought that he is willing to spend anything to smear and destroy Rush? Message to Soros - All your money will not be able to destroy Limbaugh. You can continue to keep funding MM and their ilk. It will not work.
Detox Stat!
LUKAS: Rush Limbaugh would agree with you, sir, that anyone who is fighting in Iraq is a real soldier. What he was talking about is people who aren't real soldiers at all, and you know that.
He does ? Sure like John Kerry was smeared by him, like Congressman Murtha was smeared by him , by one of my true American Heros Max Cleland was smeared by him. Who and where does FOX get people like this Lukas lady?
They have a recruiting booth outside Sociopaths Unanimous.
Pill popping pundit Lush Bimbo gets caught trashing soldiers, now the dittoheads and Bush enablers are out in force to say that he didn't say what he so clearly did say.
They remind me of cockroaches scrambling around when the light is turned on.
They remind me of cockroaches scrambling around when the light is turned on.
At least cockroaches can be seen, these right wingers sneak around and smear people.
lukas: "you don't know who that caller is referring to". sure you do, "they never talk to real soldiers". it's "...soldiers who just come up out of the blue and talk to the media". rush agrees: "phony soldiers".
A quote from Hillary Clinton:
""institutions that I helped to start and support like Media Matters and Center for American Progress."
OOPS! Media Matters was started by Hillary Clinton! Now how are you defenders of this lying, smearing website ever going to defend that?
Audio: http://newsbusters.org/static/2007/10/2007-10-01HillaryMediaMatters.mp3
Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbzC6-N9mwM
And this has what to do with the price of tea in China?
Obviously nothing, just another attempt to derail the topic. Is happening alot on here again lately.
Yup, the Dittobot trolls are out in force, since their gurus are being shown to be liars and cowards.
OK, I finally gave in and checked the link to the Hillary Clinton speech.
She's talking about organizations that have come together over the past few years to question the mainstream media ( about 2:30 into the video), and she refers to groups she helped start and/or support, like CAP and MMFA. I think this has been jumped on by the right-wingers as proof of the Soros/ Clinton/ MMFA conspiracy.
I don't know if HC was directly involved in starting MMFA, I'd guess a lot of people were.I would imagine the Clintons would be as eager as anyone to expose the Republican machine.
And what does it prove anyway? That Hillary Clinton is a liberal? Oh my...
If the suggestion is that Hillary Clinton exercises control or influence over MMFA then why has MMFA pointed out each time when Barak Obama when he's been unfairly attacked by the right?
MMFA consistently denies any affiliation with Hillary Clinton.
Just a couple of examples:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200710020002
http://mediamatters.org/items/200708130006
The fact is, since Media Matters is obviously affiliated with a particular candidate (Hillary Clinton) they should lose there status as a 501(c)(3) organization. They consistently assert that "Media Matters is not affiliated with any political party or candidate". This is demonstrably untrue since Hillary Clinton started Media Matters.
If you've got an airtight legal case against MMFA, why are you wasting your time here?
You should be talking to the IRS or your state attorney general.
If you're this passionate about it, take your evidence to someone who's job it is to enforce regulations.
Whatever, troll. There's a huge difference between her saying she supports what we do and her sending us tons of money.
Um, buddy, you need to learn how to read. I don't know about affiliation or any of that stuff, but this is what Sen. Clinton said: "
""institutions that I helped to start and support like Media Matters and Center for American Progress."
It's not just supporting MediaMatters, it's STARTING it.
I helped start Bill Clintons' presidency by voting for him, but I was never able to tell him what to do.
Neither could Hillary.
I am still not sure what any of this has to do with the thread?
I am still not sure what any of this has to do with the thread?
Doris, it has nothing to do with anything. When you start to bring to light, the lies and hyprocricy of the right they go back to their tried and true enemy, any and all thing Clinton. It's a way to change the subject from what the "so called biggest supporter" of the troops said about soldiers who don't agree with his politics.
It has to do with every thread that has ever been posted on Media Matters. They consistently deny any influence by or affiliation with Hillary Clinton, yet, Hillary claims that she "helped to start" Media Matters. Don't you think that in light of MM's denials of political affiliation, that Hillary's admission that she helped to start Media Matters is important?
If you want an example of distorting what a person says, you just provided it.
How is accurately quoting someone a distortion?
Hillary Clinton: "We are certainly better prepared and more focused on, you know, taking our arguments, and making them effective, and disseminating them widely... in a lot of the new progressive infrastructure, institutions that I helped to start and support like Media Matters and Center for American Progress."
nope, taken out of context. not buying your garbage today.
HA! What a hilarious response in the midst of all this Limbaugh stuff. That is just priceless. THANK YOU!!!!!!!
Portnoy, It has to do with you, Computer and few others who have gone from topic to topic "cutting & pasting" the sames statements regarding Hillary & MMFA and David Brock.
You don't want to discuss any topic you want to derail honest debates with your rants about MMFA, Hillary and David Brock. Bye-Bye
Oh! The cry of "off topic"! When unable to defend or rebut the truth about Hillary Clinton's Media Matters organization, you try dismissing it by saying it's "off topic". Nice try.
Portnoy, I hear a roomer that yer funding comes from Mordor.
If O'Reilly had any brains he would start right here. We all know Hillary and Soros started Media Matters. That is their weak point that is why they constantly deny any connection to either. Nice find and Hillary is an idiot for admitting it in public.
Agreed. Wherever Computer is, thanks be to him. It's been clear that Media Matters is a part of the Clinton team and has been since it's inception. And since Sen. Clinton herself bragged about having started Media Matters, that's undeniable proof that they are her puppets.
Oh, you are soo funny. delusional, yet funny. and even if it were true, so what?
like they say, ya got nuttin'.
I'll spell it out for you. Media Matters consistently claims that they are not affiliated with any political candidate or party. Since they were started by Hillary Clinton, this claim of theirs is an outright lie. They consistently deny any tie to the Clintons or to the Democratic party. These denials are lies. Media Matters is now and has been since its inception, an arm of the Hillary Clinton attack machine.
Is that why MMFA regularly attacks Obama? Oh, sorry...MMFA doesn't attack Obama. In fact, MMFA has defended Obama.
Hillary Clinton started Media Matters. Therefore, Media Matters is affiliated with a particular candidate, contrary to their numerous denials of any affiliation.
Gee, I thought David Brock started MMFA. But I guess in reich world saying you support something is the same as saying you started something. Thanks for enlightening us on the ever changing definitions.
I'll just re-post what I posted to you earlier. you seem incapable of reading/hearing Sen. Clinton say the word "STARTED".
""institutions that I helped to start and support like Media Matters and Center for American Progress."
It's not just supporting MediaMatters, it's STARTING it.
And I'll just repeat she modified "start" with "helped to".
What's the difference? She helped David Brock to start Media Matters. She's freaking bragging about how she helped to start Media Matters. Media Matters claims to be "non-partisan", yet Clinton claims she helped to start the organization. They were conceived by Hillary and are an arm of her political organization.
In your world, maybe. Us thinking folks know the difference between start and support. You are just trying to make something out of nothing because your hero's are trashing soldiers just for being liberal and have to backpeddle now. Your hero's are stunned and amazed that black people use silverware and dress nicely to eat out and they have to backpeddle on that racist rant too. Soo funny that you claim that something like that is just a little pooh pooh offense that is being taken out of context and then proceed to take Hillary out of context. You can't defend one, so you try to deflect by creating another. But we are on to you, so try peddling your snake oil somewhere else cause we ain't buying it.
You really have trouble with the word "start". It's like you just skip over it when it appears in Hillary's quote. I'll paste it again and place the word in bold for you.
Hillary Clinton: "We are certainly better prepared and more focused on, you know, taking our arguments, and making them effective, and disseminating them widely... in a lot of the new progressive infrastructure, institutions that I helped to START and support like Media Matters and Center for American Progress."
You're projecting all over the place. That's what your lot has been doing since the whole MoveOn mess. But at least MoveOn wasn't started by Hillary Clinton. Or maybe it was, but she hasn't gotten around to bragging about it yet. And anyone with half a brain knows that Rush was talking about soldiers who falsely claimed to have been in combat and he used Jesse MacBeth as his example of just such a phony soldier. I can't believe you are still holding on to the lies that Hillary Clinton's organization is feeding you.
That's funny, cause all the projecting I see is coming from your direction. This one little word is proof of her starting MMFA! You'll sign off on one little word as proof and then turn around and deny 2 whole minutes of speaking has any meaning. No, you're the one projecting. Try something else, this line of attack is about as effective as farting in a bathtub.
I've quoted Hillary in full. The transcript is there. The video is there. The audio is there. Anyone with a brain knows that Limbaugh was discussing bona fide phony (as in, not actual) soldiers. That's why he used the word "phony" (as in, not genuine or real; intended to deceive or mislead; intended to defraud) and that's why he went immediately to the story about MacBeth, which he had previously discussed on a Morning Update and was also in the news via an ABC report on "phony heroes" that week.
No, anyone with a brain knows he's backpeddling big time because he knows he meant soldiers who oppose the war. He's whined that the MSM didn't call him to get his take before reporting, but MSNBC showed on air that they have had an open invitation for him to come on and do just that but he won't accept. And Limbaugh brings further skepticsm on himself because he purposely edits the tapes to remove content - cover up, anyone? So too bad for you, your rush is a liar, he's been caught red handed, and being incable of defending him you throw out a red herring based on one word that really doesn't prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that what you claim is true.
Nice talking to you.
I did just defend him and you couldn't rebut my argument, so instead you just said that Rush was talking about "soldiers who oppose the war" with no proof whatsoever to back it up. You also said that Rush "purposely edits the tapes to remove content - cover up, anyone?". I ask you, what in the content that was removed was in any way relevant? It was a tangential discussion about WMD in Iraq. They started off on the topic of fake soldiers, moved to WMD, the caller hangs up, and Rush goes back to the original topic, using MacBeth as an example of what a "phony soldier" is. You cannot refute or rebut that because those are the facts. You also cannot refute or rebut the fact that Hillary Clinton helped start Media Matters and Media Matters has consistently denied any affiliation with her. You lose on both counts, I don't blame you for giving up.
I did just defend him and you couldn't rebut my argument, so instead you just said that Rush was talking about "soldiers who oppose the war" with no proof whatsoever to back it up.
The proof has been posted here for 3 days, you just refuse to believe it. You have lost on every count, so rather than taking it like a man, you keep trotting out the same old childish defense of "look over here!". Nice try, but us grown ups are on to you.
You are just silly. Media Matters posted a transcript that cut off the end of Rush's comments. They had a total disregard for the context of his comments. They lied about his comments. And you and the rest of the lemmings here believe it, solely because you hate Rush's politics. It's a shame that you either refuse to or are unable to think for yourself. But keep on telling yourself that you've won the argument. Whatever gets you through the night.
I don't have to tell myself that, it's in print for everyone to see. Limbaugh cut the tape, it's all over the internet for everyone to see, you refuse to believe your own eyes. Deny away, buddy!
But you did lose.
And I'll ask you again since you didn't/couldn't answer the first time: What did a tangential conversation about WMD (that was the part that was cut by Rush) have to do with anything? What do you accuse him of hiding by editing out an irrelevant portion of the recording? I really want to know Snoopy! Please answer.
So you want me to repost what's been posted here for 3 days now vs. taking a few minutes to read it for yourself. That's pretty lazy...
No silly, I want you to post an original thought. One generated by you and not simply cut and pasted. And, btw, there has been no post by mmfa explaining how the irrelevant tangential conversation about WMD that Rush took out is in any way relevant to the comment he made about phony soldiers like Jesse Macbeth who lie about their service and/or atrocities they've witnessed.
Counselor, I mean Portnoy, really, just reread the previous threads, it's all hashed out over and over again. And say hello to Mutaldisdain if you see him.
Just answer the question please. If it's so easy to answer, then go ahead and answer it. I'm dying to know.
still refusing to re-read what's already been said, eh? Not surprised, cause you're just trolling like a 5 year old looking to pick a fight.
I thought it was Soros? Get your talking points together.
I suggest you read up on the Shadow Party.
Computer: You are making a leap of logic. Hillary Clinton said that she "helped to start" Media Matters. What does that mean? It could mean that she was at a meeting with some progressives, and someone, maybe even Hillary, suggested that what was needed to attack the right-wing media pundits was a web-site pointing out inaccuracies in the right wing media (which is exactly what MMFA says its mission is, and is not that hard to do, by the way). She may even have been instrumental in helping donors come to MMFA to get it off the ground. But that does not mean that MMFA and Hillary are "affiliated" now, or that Hillary has any control over MMFA. There is no doubt that MMFA's work helps all progressives, including Hillary. But you are suggesting that since she "helped MMFA get started" (whatever that means exactly) that that means conclusively that MMFA is "affiliated" with Hillary and should lose their 501(c) status. That is not how it works Computer, as I think that you probably already know.
She said it was an institution she helped to start. MMFA claims not to be affiliated with her. When someone helps to start your institution, that certainly belies an affiliation of some sort. The whole thing really should be investigated (not by the government, but the media).
As I recommended to Computer, take your evidence to either the IRS or your state attorney general and petition them to open a case against MMFA. Hopefully, you won't get laughed out the door.
Or travel to Washington and lobby your Congressman to start an investigation.
And I make such suggestions because O'Reilly already "investigated" MMFA in regard to Soros and all he came back with was red arrows.
There is more of a connection between Hillary and Media Matters than there ever was between Bush and the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.
Now THAT was the funniest statement of the day! THANK YOU!
I still can't figure out what the "connection" is though.
She gives MMFA money? She dictates MMFA's focus? She's an MMFA fellow? She frequently brings MMFA staffers donuts and bagels? She works in MMFA's mail room?
What's the connection?
Starting an organization is one heck of a connection. Are you unsure of Ray Kroc's connection to McDonald's too?
No, I'm not unsure of Ray Kroc BECAUSE ALL I HAVE TO DO IS VISIT THE MCDONALD'S WEBSITE AND READ ABOUT THEIR HISTORY IF I'M NOT SURE.
I can't do that with regard to MMFA because her name is not mentioned anywhere under 'About Us'.
So all we have left is MMFA's steadfast denial of an affiliation, and Hillary's blurb about helping to start MMFA, and I'm asking WHAT ARE THE NUTS AND BOLTS OF THE AFFILIATION??
You're the prosecutor, and your case is paper thin.
Pete, I'm sure more information will come out as this story evolves. I know you're just about to pee yourself because you're so excited about it.
What I do find intriguing is that when I google Hillary's quote or just a portion of it, I don't see it mentioned anywhere on any progressive blog or website. It appears lefties don't want to go anywhere near it.
Portnoy: Actually, the McDonald brothers from California started McDonald's, Ray Kroc took the idea after trying to sell them a milkshake mahine and developed it on a nation-wide basis. Assume the McDonald brothers completely sold out to Kroc (I am not sure of the actual arrangements between Kroc and the brothers, so do not take this to mean that I am giving historical facts). Would the McDonald brothers still be "affiliated" with McDonalds because they "started" it? The answer is, of course, no. The bottom line is that Hillary may have been involved in "starting" MMFA, but that does not mean she is currently "affiliated" with it. I would also note that it does not appear that this is a deep, dark secret--Hillary is the one who said it, right?
Have you ever heard Media Matters claim Hillary started the organization?
Asking John Podesto a few questions might prove pretty interesting.
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6709
Leather: Interesting article, and I have no reason to doubt its accuracy. What, if anything, is surprising in the article? I would have figured that liberals decided to fight back against some of the right wing medis, and who better to do that but David Brock, a former participant in the right wing machine? How is this different than all the right wing "think tanks?" And why are you and Portnoy and others acting like this is all such a deep secret? Hillary was the one who said she helped create MMFA, so she is not trying to hide it, is she? But, like I said above, merely because she may have helped start it does not mean that she is "affiliated" with MMFA in a legal sense, any more than Bush was "affiliated" with the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth or the Heritage Foundation or the Rutherford Instititute, etc., etc..
Portnoy, it sounds as if you're suggesting that Ray Kroc is a Zombie. That's following your logic that if somebody helped to start any organization, they must currently control it.
Please provide evidence of the Ray Kroc Zombie CEO, and you will be absolved of all past stoopidity.
I guess Volkswagen is affiliated with Hitler. Oops, I said Hitler.
When Hitler was alive and dictating to Volkswagen what kind of automobiles they produced, they were affiliated. But, you always post nonsense, so I don't think i'll waste my time with you.
To you, it's nonsense. To someone who can chew their own food, it doesn't need explaining.
You finally learned to chew your own food??? I'm so proud of you!
Neon, he's actually touched on it. If we're all very quiet, he might see through my "nonsense" and slowly light up that 25 watt bulb over his head.
OK, I'm an optimist,it may take a while.
Neon, he's actually touched on it. If we're all very quiet, he might see through my "nonsense" and slowly light up that 25 watt bulb over his head
HBL, you'd have better luck sticking his finger in the light socket. ;-)
farfignugen!
Ist verdamin Kublewagon. Ist round,und swell pizza!
The Hillary Clinton-John Podesta-David Brock links cannot be denied despite MMFA's revisionist attempts. This site is a result of coordinated attempts by "progressives" to squelch talk radio and any semblance of right-wing reporting in print and TV/cable.
Oh, too funny! And what is your side doing? Why, exactly the same thing they are accusing us of doing! The irony, oh, the irony!
The other side doesn't get tax exempt status (like mmfa) by falsely claiming to not be affiliated with any political candidate or party.
So how would it change the substance of their articles if their tax status were different? It wouldn't because they don't provide the substance, Limbaugh and O'Reilly do.
would you like some cheese with that whine? Sounds like it's your side's fault for being to stupid to set themselves up correctly.
No, the other side set themselves up honestly. But I know in Clintonland, honesty is not a virtue.
Your side is about as honest as charles manson. That honesty explains why 90%+ of all the crimes under federal investigation right now involve republicans.
That will be a big surprise to The Heritage Foundation, the AEI, and the Cato institute. To name but a few. You do realize that if Scaiths second devorce leaves him short, some of those folks will have to find a real job. They might even have to throw poor Scooter out
The GOOD news is that is is increasingly clear that the rightwing defenders of Limbaugh realize that they must blatantly LIE ... in empirically provable ways ... in order to try to excuse Limbaugh's clear words and meaning.
When the FACTS don't help you, it's a signal that you are in the wrong.
When you see somebody, or some group, routinely rely on distorting the truth, lying, and stating "facts" that are known to be untrue ...
... you know that THEY are in the WRONG.
I see this as a "DIXIE CHICKS" moment for the rightwing, for this reason: What the Chicks said was mild and innocuous, and the resulting hatred and outrage directed at them was wildly disproportional. Why was the reaction so vehement beyond all reason? The explanation was simple: Bush's image was SO DAMNED FRAGILE, his public persona such a contrived facade, that his supporters could not brook ANY criticism, no matter how small, lest the whole house of cards come crashing down. So they took the "bazooka to take on a gnat" approach, and blanketed the airwaves with Dixie Chick hatred, to serve as an example and a warning to ALL who might decide to criticize Bush, in ANY manner. The message: Speak against Bush, in ANY way, and the entire weight of Rightwing Media will fall on you and you will be DESTROYED!
Of course, this tactic "worked" for a while, but eventually the FICTION that was a competent Bush was soon revealed, and BUSH's popularity and job approval headed down the toilet. The TRUTH could only be slightly delayed, but not stopped.
The IMAGE that is Rush Limbaugh, champion of the rightwing, defender of "family values", solid conservative and wise man ... is all a FICTION, a facade of legitimacy which is FRAGILE beyond belief. Any puff of reality will bring down not only Limbaugh, but the whole industry that is Rightwing Bloviating. For this reason, NO MISTAKE can ever be acknowledged. No error can be allowed to knock that key card out of the fragile house of cards that's been painstakingly constructed.
Like Bush, Limbaugh's days of deception are numbered. Limbaugh has held on to the little credibility he has LONGER than Bush managed it, only because Bush could not claim to be a "comedian". Without his fallback of being "only an entertainer", "was being absurd on purpose", or was "only joking", Limbaugh's ship would have sunk long ago.
Adios, Rush. Look at it this way: In retirement, you'll have much more time for those Viagra junkets to the South American sex trade.
Great post.
I'm less optimistic though because I think they will be able to find/create another Limbaugh if need be.
What ever happened to the DIXIE CHICKS anyway? They don't even play them on the radio anymore.
Last year, they released an album that debuted at #1 on the Billboard, sold 526,000 copies in its first week of release, and won three Grammy awards.
Not too shabby for a group residing in your "Where are they now?" file.
OK - I wasn't being sarcastic. I spent the summer driving from New York to San Francisco and back - didn't hear them once.
Their music has been banned by the massive, right wing Clearchannel corporation.
Not surprisingly, right wingers are perfectly all right with this form of corporate censorship.
If anyone wanted to fairly present the context of Limbaugh's "phony soldiers" comment they would play the few minutes that preceded Limbaugh's comment...that would better show what prompted the remark. Limbaugh's after the fact reference to Jessie MacBeth struck me as CYA, after he realized he had gone too far in denouncing American soldiers who oppose the war. But. hey. how could Limbaugh help himself? He hates all liberals, which have been defined by the right as including anyone who opposes the war. Limbaugh's remark yesterday about Brian McGough, comparing him to a suicide bomber, demonstrates the disdain Limbaugh holds for anyone, including soldiers, who have views that are opposed to his. Considering Limbaugh's track record for twisting and interpreting the words of liberals to smear them how can anyone complain or defend Limbaugh even if the same is being done to him?
It's bad enough that MSNBC and Fox keep beatting this to death.
What really bothers me most as a Vet is they keep giving these,
"RIGHT WING CHICKEN HAWK COWARDS !" a platform to claim
that they are more Patriotic than even those who have faced the
real thing in combat!
RUSH, Thanks 2 U I now know that MM was started by Hillary Clinton and is funded partly by her. Your playing her KOS speech stating this says it all.
And isn't that what really matters? All this stuff about calling brave soldiers phony....feh! Small potatoes!
If you think Jesse MacBeth qualifies as a "brave soldier", I got news for ya...
No he wasn't, but the other "phony soldierS" (plural) that served in Iraq that Rush was referring to are brave.
Like who? Did he mention them by name? You're making an inference that simply doesn't exist. He referred to one soldier (Jesse Macbeth) as an example of the "phony soldiers" that he just mentioned not even 2 minutes prior. Are you really so blinded by partisanship that you'll continue to deny the truth?
<yawn>
I heard the whole thing, even the 2 minutes that Rush doesn't want us to hear, and his context tantrum is complete baloney.
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. (emphasis added)
CONCLUSION: Any soldier who comes up out of the blue and talks to the media is phony.
The caller made absolutely NO DISTINCTION about whether or not the soldier in question has been to Iraq or not.
The caller made NO REFERENCE to MacBeth, and Rush made no mention of MacBeth while talking to the caller, NONE.
deer rush,
Thaks 2 u i no haf 2 reed or think.me luv rush.
Go to the link below. I swear the guy you're making fun of has his picture on here.
http://icanhascheezburger.com/
Small issue of fact in support of Gumbaugh and his posse of prevaricators: as a test, I ran the Gumbaugh excerpt though my audio formatter (which I finally got working again). It turns out that I can squeeze that interval down to 30 seconds - the voices are so high-pitched that my ancient ears cannot discern words, resembling the ringtone version of Smile's Butterfly (ai-ai-ai, I'm your little butterfly; ai-ai-ai, where's my samurai?). Absolutely uncut, too - 110.4 seconds original, 30.1 seconds final. Butterfly @ 138 beats per second; Gumbaugh needed 207.
It can be done!
Actually - Rush talked about Jesse McBeth the day before he made the phony soldier comment. Those uf us who were listening knew exactly what he was talking about. Apperently MMFA listens daily - so they heard it too. Now I could get down in the gutter and make nasty joles about how libs don't have the attention span to connect the dots from one day to the next - but we know that's not true. MMFA deliberately omitted this fact so they could have a story. Rush in turn has exposed a link between Hillary and MMFA- whether rightfully or not - so it's credibility has been shot There are about 20 million people who listen to Rush every day - there are about what - 150 people who come to this website . MMFA appears to be little more than a fly on the butt of the elephant. (go ahead - I teed up the ball for a barrage of your jokes)
Let's move on. It seems to me that if you lefties spent as much time lobbying your congressmen and senators as you spend trying to trap Rush Limbaugh maybe we would have quit by now and the troops would be home. You guys own congress - they control the purse strings - all they have to do is defund the war and they will have to pull the troops. Why hasn't that happened yet?
Actually Rush named Macbeth in the morning update the day before the broadcast. Just a little fact mmfa conveniently neglects to mention. But of course they neglect to mention that fact - that would mean showing context. Hey but when did mmfa let a little thing like the facts get in the way of smearing.
the day before... that being the key. Totally different show.
Snoopy - in grade school did your teachers have to start each day recapping what you learned the day before? This would explain why you cant follow the conversation from one board to the next.
I don't mean to be rude but snap out if it - you're smarter than you are pretending to be.
Now there's some irony. You suggesting I had a teacher re-cap the previous day's info before continuing, yet you are suggesting rush was re-capping the previous day's discussion about what a phony soldier was. Did you really mean to look that dumb?
Follow along - I'll type slowly.
Rush talked about phony soldiers on Tuesday - SO - those who were listening on Tuesday knew what he was talking about on Wednesday. People can follow a conversation from one day to the next. Practice tonight and maybe tomorrow I won''t have to repeat this again.
That being the point, you are just repeating a lie hoping to make it true. Here, let me paste this slowly so you can follow it:
CALLER 2: No, it's not, and what's really funny is, they never talk to real soldiers. They like to pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and talk to the media.
LIMBAUGH: The phony soldierS. (emphasis added)
CONCLUSION: Any soldier who comes up out of the blue and talks to the media is phony.
The caller made absolutely NO DISTINCTION about whether or not the soldier in question has been to Iraq or not.
The caller made NO REFERENCE to MacBeth, and Rush made no mention of MacBeth while talking to the caller, NONE.
Did you get that? Absolutely NO CONNECTION to the day before. Not until he started talking about what's his name several minutes later.
I tried to dumb it down for you, hope you understood it this time around...
I'll try to type even slower for you.
On Tuesdays broadcast a topic of discussion was phony soldiers - thats right - there is an "s" at the end making it plural. He detailed the story of McBeth, Therefore When the Rush responded to the callers comment using the term "phony soldier" those of us with an attention span of more that 21 hours kenw he was talking about "not real- without truth" soldiers
He repeated the Jesse McBeth story on Thursday for whoever wasn't listening on Wednesday and those who apparently can't follow a subject from one day to the next (nudge-nudge-wink-wwink)
You can go to Limbaughs web site and listen to both last Wednesdays and Thursdays shows in their entirety. If you can't follow along then rest comfortably knowing you are truly a liberal.
I'm sorry to report that "typing slowly" does not mean anything tangible. I'm sorry that you have so much time to spend defending your phony hot air balloon hero.
The content you forget to include is that Bimbo repeatedly trashes people who have different opinions that the right wing he carries water for. Occasionally he goes too far even for some of his listeners. Except for dittoheads like you who worship him, apparently.
Mary - apparently you haven't read my other posts about defending Limbaugh - so I'll just tell you you are gravely mistaken.
However this story is so transparent that I sincerely doubt even the least intelligent of you lefties believes what they are saying.
Yep, pretty transparent. Limbaugh usually gets away with this stuff.
Now I've no doubt he was thinking of his huge important "fake soldier" story, but the caller gave him an opening to include all those other real soldiers who criticise the Bush policies. Bimbo has already admitted on air that he carries water for the Bushies.
And think of the larger picture. Does listening to this bombastic man day after day elevate your heart and mind?
Gee, I can go to Limbaugh's website and listen to the edited sanitized versions of his show that delete out the proof he wasn't talking about McBeth? You really are dumber than you type.
I typed that at the rate of 1 character a minute, hope that was slow enough for you to absorb what I said.
ZZZZZZZZZZ
apparently not.
There is seemingly no end to the talking-head think-tank apologists for anything Republican.
Is Bob Jones University reponsible for pumping out these misguided twenty-somethings?
Or, like most of the right-wingers, is she in it simply for the money?
"Defending the country that's trying to kick my family out is a thought that always runs through my mind."
That statement was made by Eduardo Gonzalez, a petty officer 2nd class in the U.S. Navy. So here's a predicament for you rush folks, you have a soldier which you claim to defend who's wife is gonna be deported due to some red tape which technically made her illegal. Oh, what to do?
So I'm sure you will send this information to Rush so he can prove his cred's and do everything in his power to help this soldier, because I know he will put the needs of the soldier above the politics of the right. Get going, people!
Conservatives know government is a huge bureaucratic mess. That's why we want a SMALLER government. Perhaps if government got out of the social services business and focused on things like defense and controling the borders this woman would be a citizen by now.
Let me know when you find a conservative capable of creating an efficient small government either here or abroad, OK?
Haven't found one yet but that doesnt mean we should stop looking.
OOOOrrrrr . . . if government got out of the illegal invasions business, and took care of vets' business, she'd be all set . . .
Gee, what a shock! Reich wingers are more concerned about illegal immigration than they are about one of the methods to become legal! No surprise here, we have a soldier who loves to serve being screwed over by racists. Oh well, just more proof...
And yet no one on the Right believes Gore invented the Internet. Of course, he never said that although the Right wants everyone to believe otherwise. I am sure once everything is sorted out this too will be incorrect.
If anyone is phony, it's Rush Limbaugh.
I encourage everyone-including retired and current military folks-to write a letter to the editor in your local publication about Limbaugh's "phony soldiers" comments. Include in your letter the name of the local advertiser who sponsors his show. In you letter, tell the sponsor will no longer do any business with them as long as they sponsor Limbaugh's show.