Purporting to describe "how this thing started," North mischaracterized Limbaugh's "phony soldiers" conversation
On the October 5 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, during a discussion of Rush Limbaugh's September 26 "phony soldiers" comment, Fox News military analyst Oliver North asserted: "What's important ... is people remember how all this started. Back on September 16th [sic], a caller describing himself as Mike, who said he was a soldier, was complaining about, quote, 'soldiers who come up out of the blue and talk to the media like this.' And Rush says, 'Phony soldiers,' and Mike says, 'Right, the phony soldiers.' And then they go on to talk about phony soldiers like those who were prosecuted out there in Washington state for falsifying their military records, claiming to be things that they weren't." In fact, after Limbaugh made his "phony soldiers" remark, he and the caller did not "go on to talk about" soldiers who were prosecuted in the state of Washington. The caller went on to discuss the purported presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, with Limbaugh responding. Limbaugh then thanked the caller for calling, and the caller is not heard again on the broadcast. Only after this did Limbaugh bring up Jesse MacBeth on his September 26 radio show, 1 minute and 50 seconds after making his "phony soldiers" comment. MacBeth pleaded guilty to one count of making false statements to the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs for pretending to be an injured Iraq war veteran.
From the September 26 broadcast of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:
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 want to be over in Iraq. They understand their sacrifice, and they're willing to sacrifice for their country.
LIMBAUGH: They joined to be in Iraq. They joined --
CALLER 2: A lot of them -- the new kids, yeah.
LIMBAUGH: Well, you know where you're going these days, the last four years, if you signed up. The odds are you're going there or Afghanistan or somewhere.
CALLER 2: Exactly, sir. And -- and my other comment was -- and the reason I was calling for -- was to report to Jill about the fact that we didn't, didn't find any weapons of mass destruction. Actually, we have found weapons of mass destruction in chemical agents that [inaudible] been using against us for awhile now.
I've done two tours in Iraq. I just got back in June and there were many instances of -- since [inaudible] not know what they're using in their IEDs [improvised explosive devices]. They're using mustard artillery rounds. The vx-artillery rounds in their IEDs.
Because they didn't know what they were using, they didn't do it right, and so it just kind of -- it, it didn't really hurt anybody but there are -- those munitions are over there, it's just -- it's a huge desert. If they've buried it somewhere, we're never gonna find it.
LIMBAUGH: Well, you know, that's a moot point for me right now --
MIKE: Rush --
LIMBAUGH: -- the weapons of mass destruction. We gotta get beyond that. We're, we're there. What -- who cares if, if -- we all know they were there and, and Mahmoud [Ahmadinejad, Iranian president] even admitted it in one of his speeches here about -- talkin' about Saddam using the poison mustard gas or whatever it is on his own people -- but that, that's moot, right? What, what's more important is all this is taking place now in the midst of the surge working.
And all of these anti-war Democrats are getting even more hell-bent on pulling out of there, which means that success on the part of you and, and your colleagues over there is, is a great threat to them. It's just, it's frustrating and maddening, and it is why they must be kept in the minority.
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.
One of them was Jesse MacBeth. Now, he was a "corporal," I say in quotes - 23 years old.
[reading from "Morning Update" (subscription required)]
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, though. 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, a 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 -- 44-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 of the drive-by media and the Democrat Party as to who a genuine war hero is.
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 of the left is fiction, is what serves their purpose. They have to lie about such atrocities 'cause they can't find any that fit the template of the way they see the U.S. military.
In other words, for the American anti-war left, the greatest inconvenience they face is the truth.
From the October 5 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends:
GRETCHEN CARLSON (co-host): The latest wave of protests against conservative radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh, there's now threats to take him off the Armed Forces Radio Network.
BRIAN KILMEADE (co-host): That's not going to make many people happy. Joining us right now from Washington to discuss this is War Stories host and a good friend of Fox & Friends, Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North. Colonel, how do you think the men and women that you deal with in all your visits into the theater and that you see stateside would feel about not hearing Rush on the network, the radio network?
NORTH: Well, Armed Forces Network has a number of very popular radio and television shows. Mine's on TV over there. I suppose [Sen.] Harry Reid [D-NV] will want War Stories off. The fact is it's not going to come off. Harry Reid's grousing about this is not going to change a thing. What's important, Brian, is people remember how all this started. Back on September 16th [sic], a caller describing himself as Mike, who said he was a soldier, was complaining about, quote, "soldiers who come up out of the blue and talk to the media like this." And Rush says, "Phony soldiers," and Mike says, "Right, the phony soldiers." And then they go on to talk about phony soldiers like those who were prosecuted out there in Washington state for falsifying their military records, claiming to be things that they weren't.
OK, that does it!
ollie north's opinion is what we need? He's unbiased and objective? I'd say if anything, he's so close to rush, that ollie's in line for rush's radio gig, the day rush finally overdoses.
I have a suggestion: Let's appoint an independent arbitrator, or judge, to investigate just what it is rush said, and then issue an objective and unbiased account of this matter.
I nominate ken starr for the job.
And we should beleive Ollie North because?
'cause he was so proud of shredding all those Iran-Contra documents that he put on his marine uniform...
He shredded those documents so care-fully, that now he is a talker for the Fox t.v.
...And lied to congress about it. Just what the dr. ordered, get a liar to defend a liar.
Come on, you know once you put a military uniform on you're incapable of lying.
No, how this thing started was Rush spouting propaganda about MacBeth being one of several "phony soldiers" who were being paraded around by the mainstream media and 'the left" as heroes.
This has been repeated by all of the visiting Dittoheads for the last week.We've been asking for examples of these "heroes" for as long, with no response.The existence of these peopple is the bedrock of the entire position of Rush and his fans.I can only interpret the lack of any evidence of the existence of these same people as the wholesale, complete and unconditional surrender of the Dittobot Army.
Without this evidence, it's apparent that Rush is a liar, and his fans are fools.Again, I've retracted the declaration of victory from last night, and am giving all dittobots until Sunday midnight to avoid surrender of their entire bullsh*t program.I'm gracious to the point of being Christ-like.
Now , Go, DittoMonkeys!! Bring us the phony soldier heroes!
Media Matters'..........train........running........out........of........steam. Story........losing......momentum. MMFA...........being..........exposed........as........moonbat......crybabies. Rush.......getting.......free......publicity........and.......even........larger....... audience.
<Sound of backfire>
Hey, the Dittobots are going down first!
David Brock and his band of sissies at MMFA have been going down (literally) for years.
Kevin, you sound like a schoolyard bully trying to goad another 4th grader. Grow up.
Boo hoo, you're a bully Kevin, sniff sniff.
Jeez, these liberal whiners kill me.
Awesome thoughts there, Brutus. Thanks for sharing.
Sound of backfire might have been from the manure you've been spreading around. It does come back to the source. (Don't light a match 'til it clears)
Bush_Lies, you seem to be cutting and running from the terms of your imminent surrender.Your desperate attempts to lionize Rush are only making your admission of defeat more obvious. Please don't make me rescind the grace period.
I'm not lionizing Rush. I don't even like him. But let's imagine for a moment that this whole ordeal is really the way MMFHRC makes it out to be......That Rush REALLY meant that ANY soldier who opposes the war is a "phony"---
SO WHAT? Rush is a private citizen voicing his views over the corporate-owned airwaves. What's the big deal? It's not like he's a United States Senator intimating that uneducated people get "stuck in Iraq".
Um....you mean the PUBLIC-OWNED airwaves, I'm sure.
No, I mean "corporate-owned".
FM, AM, and broadcast are owned by the public.
The day that the PUBLIC AIRWAVES are not considered Public Property, and instead considered to be owned by "corporations", is the day I set up a transmitter mast in my yard, and start transmitting 100,000 Watts of WHITE NOISE right across the spectrum.
Because who will care?
And if the "corporations" who supposedly owned the PUBLIC AIRWAVES complained, and said I was infringing on their property, then I'd just say back that they were doing the same thing to me, with their broadcasts.
How many transmitters does the "public own"? How much of the signal that transmits Rush's program does the "public own"?
the public owns none of the transmitters. you are free to run out and buy as many as you like. but, if you want a license to allow you and you alone to broadcast on a certain frequency, you must ask the permission of the government, otherwise known as the american public.
Even satellite TV is regulated by FCC thus creating oligopolys. From the dishtv site:
The DISH Network has several satellites, making it a popular choice for people in a variety of locations. Providing satellite TV service to customers is a matter of getting a DBS license, also known as a direct broadcast satellite license, with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).
The FCC then grants access to a particular location for the satellite to operate. The DISH Network has several satellites in orbit, placing them since 1992.
Wow pit, how much does it cost to put one of these DBS birds up and start my own sissified left wing media empire?? If you have to ask...
One thing must be said for Dish Network. They run LinkTv and FreeSpeech TV in their lineup, real liberal media channels. I have regular cable now and have been debating signing back up for dish just so I can watch Democracy Now again.
Corporations own the radio stations not the airwaves the stations broadcast on. They are public always have been. Now if he was on sattelite it'd be different.
I think satellite slots are regulated by the guvmnt also, thus making satellite broadcasting a monopoly in actual use. See "Cutthroat: High Stakes & Killer Moves on the Electronic Frontier" for the whole story. Find out how Murdoch, Turner, Mallone et al manipulate the FCC for thier own gain (surprised right?)
GREAT!! Does that mean that I can demand that you remove your "No Blood For Oil" bumper-sticker? After all, you are driving it on MY roads?
Oh, and stop pushing your socialist agenda over your wireless phone to all your friends, since it's being broadcast across MY airwaves.
Dude....you have GOT to get with the program.
Really. Do some research, learn what you're talking about, and make better arguments.
It's cool if you want to change the laws that the FCC enforces, but you don't seem to even know what they are.
the difference would be one affects the public and the other affects only you.
The government in the public interest can demand you drive at a safe speed. In a safe vehicle, ONLY after you obtain a license, And license your vehicle and obey traffic laws if the Airwaves were HALF as regulated as the streets we wouldnt be having this conversation.
Good prove to us ALL that you dont know what you are talking about
http://www.fcc.gov/Speeches/Tristani/spgt808.html
I wanted to start with a question a lot of people around Washington have been asking: why should broadcasters be treated any differently under the First Amendment than other media voices like newspapers?
The short answer is because the Supreme Court said so. In Red Lion, the Supreme Court said:
The Court added: "There is no sanctuary in the First Amendment for unlimited private censorship in a medium not open to all."(2)
I know what a lot of you are probably thinking. Yeah, sure, Red Lion. Hasn't that case, and the whole scarcity rationale it relied on, been thoroughly discredited? Isn't Red Lion just one of those Warren Court relics that would never be upheld today? If you only looked at law reviews and the stuff coming out of Washington think tanks, you might think so. But apparently word of Red Lion's demise hasn't reached the only audience that matters -- the Supreme Court. In both the 1994 Turner decision and the 1997 Reno decision, the Court expressly reaffirmed Red Lion and the scarcity rationale as justifying more intrusive regulation of broadcasters than newspapers and other media. I don't think the Commission should be in the business of questioning the Court's judgment.
Instead, Congress decided to grant certain citizens the right to speak freely over the public airwaves and to deny all others that right.
Let me make clear that I think Congress got it exactly right. Our system of broadcasting -- relying on private entities acting under an obligation to serve the public interest -- is the finest broadcasting system in the world. But the point here is that broadcast licenses are government benefits conferred on certain citizens and not on others. It's preferential treatment. It's as if the government set up a megaphone in the park for the exclusive use of certain citizens, and then stationed a policeman next to the podium to ensure that none of the non-speakers was allowed to interfere with the selected group's exclusivity.
In other words, no one has a First Amendment right to monopolize a broadcast frequency. Unlike newspaper owners, every broadcaster knows going in that his ability to pursue his private interests are constrained by the obligation to serve the public interest.
Thank you, solon. I thought it was just going to be me and DEM for a minute there.
I almost stayed out from frustration this point has been made AND PROVEN so many times its just ridiculous. Besides you guys were doing a good job
I'm getting tired of explaining this to every dittohead who blathers on about "free speech."
They're better off just repeating whatever Limbaugh says since he claims he can't be defeated in realm of ideas and they believe it.
Yes, thank you, Solon for pointing out that the Congress decided grant certain citizens the RIGHT TO SPEAK FREELY (Sure sounds like one of them there constitutional amendments, don't it?). Now, I realize that they must act in the "public interest". Well, looking at the size of Rush's audience (and Billo's and Sean's), it SURE looks like the "public" is "interested" in what they have to say. Not so much for Randi Rhodes, Al Franken and the whole Air America/NPR crowd. "Public interest" = Give the people what they want. Guess what, the "people" don't want leftist talk radio. The people DON'T want Randi Rhodes - side note: Randi Rhodes just the other day called President Bush a "tweaker" who "went AWOL because he didn't want to pee in a cup". No condemnation from Congress? She needs to get off the air! Contact your local Randi Rhodes affiliate station and DEMAND her removal. Bottom line: The "Public Interest" IS being served by Rush Limbaugh exercising his "right to speak freely" on the "public" airwaves.
You have no point. Rush's audience is NOT the majority of Americans. You FALSELY claimed that the airwaves were CORPORATE OWNED. I showed you that you were FLAT OUT WRONG. It isnt up to any small minority to decide what is and what isnt public service it is for all of us to decide democratically. I personally dont care how it shakes out. The thing is YOU are trying to stifle the debate by claiming this bone ignorant free speech non issue. The Supreme Court ruled, cited in the very article I posted, that there IS no free speech right for the public airwaves. YOU are trying to say there IS no democratic input allowed that those who would bring up the public service issue and make the democratic argument that they arent being served are doing something WRONG. That is bilge.
Exactly what part of THIS dont you understand?
In other words, no one has a First Amendment right to monopolize a broadcast frequency. Unlike newspaper owners, every broadcaster knows going in that his ability to pursue his private interests are constrained by the obligation to serve the public interest.
Again I dont care how the democratic argument about their use shakes out but there is a DEFINITE RIGHT to have the discussion. Continuing to harp on free speech and censorship when the issue is raised is just stupid
It's worth it to jump in, and point out that what that poster said, and what you responded, is central to the whole issue of what MMFA does: That some of it actually involves the use of our Public Property, the PUBLIC AIRWAVES...
...and some of it does not.
The difference is so important, that I'd like to see MMFA start categorizing this stuff into two distinct categories:
1. PUBLIC AIRWAVES our Public Property broadcasts on the television and radio bands
And 2. Everything else.
Because it's a significant distinction; one that that poster tried to intentionally confuse, and that you immediately corrected.
Well, then, using THAT logic, why aren't newspapers and magazines held to the same standards?
Because publishers own the presses, pay people for distribution, pay for content, and pay taxes for any public commodity (like roads) that they use in the process.
They get nothing free from the public. Make sense yet?
I'd recommend visiting the FCC website, or wikipedia, to learn how it works in a bit more detail.
also, remember to go to WIKIPEDIA, not CONSERVAPEDIA, because you might get sold some obscure reference to Fox News and the FCC from the book of Genesis or something.
The FCC's website is right in my favorites folder, and I hit it regularly. And while few things could be more valuable in these matters, than knowing how the FCC works, and what it does, the fact is their website is (intentionally I think) so poorly designed, in respect to learning about them and accessing information, that it's almost useless.
To simply find out about FCC Regulations alone, takes difficult clicks through vague links, and all you end up with is being directed to Title 47 of the U.S. CFR (Code of Federal Regulations)...
...which always leaves me thinking "Gee, you guys aren't exactly eager and user-friendly, in educating the People about FCC Regulations"
I'd like to see a new broom sweep clean the present five Commisioners; and if they needed someone to make the website more informative and user-friendly, I'd volunteer for that.
Because it's useful information in these matters, that concern us.
This is getting more like a Civics 101 class with every post.
I can't believe how ignorant some dittoheads are.
Because they don't use the PUBLIC AIRWAVES, that's why.
But my newspaper is delivered to me over the PUBLIC ROADWAYS. MY ROADWAYS. Why can't I demand that their content be censored.
You make a powerful and sensible argument; you must be a lawyer... O.J.'s lawyer.
For which they pay TAXES, both directly and in the form of the gas tax. However the airwaves are the very resource being EXPLOITED in the one case to make their obscene amounts of money. In the other the roads are just the way to distribute them and IT is a way EVERY SINGLE AMERICAN HAS ACCESS TOO. Which OBVIOUSLY is not true about our airwaves.
Wait? Are you saying that they don't pay a DIME to use the airways? Re-read your earlier post, Solon!!
No I didnt say any such thing why would I what is the relevance? Are you really this dense or just argumentative. The newspapers are NOT exploiting any resource that EVERY AMERICAN does not have access to. They are an information business not a transportation business for one thing and for another EVERY SINGLE AMERICAN has access to the roads. This is very simple. STILL the road usage is HIGHLY regulated. You havent come within miles of an actual point or cogent argument with this scattershot looking desperatly for something to say approach. Whether or not they pay a fee for licensing, they still MAKE THEIR MONEY exploiting our resource which EVERYONE does not have access to.
Again from the Red Lion Supreme Court decision
[A]s far as the First Amendment is concerned those who are licensed stand no better than those to whom licenses are refused. A license permits broadcasting, but the licensee has no constitutional right to be the one who holds the license or to monopolize a radio frequency to the exclusion of his fellow citizens. There is nothing in the First Amendment which prevents the Government from requiring a licensee to share his frequency with others and to conduct himself as a proxy or fiduciary with obligations to present those views and voices which are representative of his community and present those views which would otherwise, by necessity, be barred from the airwaves
THERE IS NO FIRST AMENDMENT ARGUMENT. The SC has made that clear.
They EXPLOIT our resource which only SOME citizens have access to. They HAVE a public service obligation it is a democratic decision what that is. This cannot be simpler.
You are absolutely correct. They do have obligations. They must abide by FCC regulations. Rush does so on a daily basis. There is no infraction. There is no violation. There is no reason to remove him from the "public airwaves". BTW, about these "public airwaves", when were they built? How much did it cost to construct them? How much money does it cost to maintain them every year? Do airplanes have to make sure that they don't fly through them?
Because they DONT use a public resource? Could this be any simpler? You didnt think the trees the paper is made of or the printing presses were publicly owned did you?
Oh sweet Irony! Rush's defence is "Look at the context, I was talking about a specific soldier!" and you bring up Kerry's botched joke, which if YOU LOOK AT THE CONTEXT WAS ABOUT ONE SPECIFIC PERSON!
Gads what a moron.
Oh? What "one specific person" was Kerry talking about? GwBush? I seem to remember GWB getting better grades than John Kerry. Besides, if you so readily accept that Kerry was referring to just one person, then why is it so hard for you to accept that Rush was talking about just one person? Double-standard?
"Besides, if you so readily accept that Kerry was referring to just one person, then why is it so hard for you to accept that Rush was talking about just one person? Double-standard?"
Rush was referring to more than one person. MacBeth is not the only phony soldier who has been exposed.
"Oh sweet Irony! Rush's defence is "Look at the context, I was talking about a specific soldier!" and you bring up Kerry's botched joke, which if YOU LOOK AT THE CONTEXT WAS ABOUT ONE SPECIFIC PERSON!"
Actually, if you look at the context of Kerry's "botched joke," it is obvious that he was referring to the troops. To say he was referring to Bush would not work with the context:
"Education -- if you make the most of it and you study hard and you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well," said Kerry, a Massachusetts Democrat. "If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."
Bush has degrees, including an MBA, from two Ivy League schools. In addition, he's president, which means he did about as well as you can do. Bush also received better grades than Kerry. How in the world could he have been referring to Bush?
Only a dishonest moonbat would argue that Kerry was not referring to the troops. And guess what? The troops knew who Kerry was talking about. See http://www.hoax-slayer.com/soldiers-answer-kerry-comment.shtml
"...and you make an effort to be smart..."
not
"...or you make an effort to be smart..."
You missed that part.Bush didn't meet all of the qualifications.Good try.
I think you're missing the obvious: that MMFA is like a tennis player, that only hits the ball if it's been hit to them.
Why did Fox resort to ollie, and broadcast yet another in an endless series of rush defenses?
I know why: Because this whole thing has really hurt rush publicly, and his reputation and ratings both, are suffering for it.
Or why else call in ollie?
Dem you are THE poster!!
"I think you're missing the obvious: that MMFA is like a tennis player, that only hits the ball if it's been hit to them."
Rush..... bots..... slowly..... crawling..... back...... under..... rock..... ugh.....
<sound of butts farting>
MMFA .... hit count..... going through the roof.... must get Soros and Hillary ........ buy more servers...... more bandwidth..... CNN, MSNBC, FOX, NBC ..... run segments featuring MMFA ..... gaining momentum like a logging truck descending east bound I-70 from Eisenhower tunnel.
It's now 2012.
We are still talking about Rush & phony soldiers.
MMFA has just posted their 3,726th thread on the subject.
Romney is President.
Hahahaha...that woke you all up ;-)
Romney? How'd that happen, did all the other wing nuts have a mass heart attack when it was announced Hillary won the Democratic primary?
It gets worse Snoop. Well worse for you.
The Yanks are going for their 6th straight World Series Championship.
Hehehe.
Yeah I forgot to mention Romney beat Hillary by a landslide. It was that cackle! Turned the country off ;-)
Yep, they were sold immediately after they were swept by the Indians in the 2007 playoff series, and moved from New York to Fargo, ND, where they seemingly can't be beat.
Yanks? Who are they? I thought we stopped using that term after WWI? Aren't they grunts now?
Just as I suspected, Jeter.
It only takes nine Yanks to bring you to a state of bliss. ;0)
Come on, that wasn't funny. Except the part about Romney being the prez.
J2, there is another Rush thread just posted. Quick, get ther fast. ;-0)
That would be the longest tennis match in history!
North:"And then they go on to talk about phony soldiers like those who were prosecuted out there in Washington state...
And? Ollie? Olllllllie? And? And the...ones....who....
"LIMBAUGH: They joined to be in Iraq. They joined --
CALLER 2: A lot of them -- the new kids, yeah.
LIMBAUGH: Well, you know where you're going these days, the last four years, if you signed up. The odds are you're going there or Afghanistan or somewhere."
Yes, Ollie. That's right. He was only calling phony the soldiers who signed to go to Afghanistan, or Iraq, or somewhere.
Fine analysis of the Limpaugh story, Ollie. Mighty fine. I've got some limbots around here that I think you'd like to meet...
You know you're scraping the bottom of the barrel when you've got to wake up Oliver North so early in the morning to do his part in the right wing echo machine.
Faux news gives our airwaves to Ollie
And he cheers on the tragic Bush folly
Now North covers for Rush
So that Rush can still gush
Over Bush like a demented collie.
This absolutely slays me.
The reich-wing insists that Iran is THE ENEMY. Technicality Ollie sold arms to Iran. So, in the reich-wing's eyes, Technicality Ollie is a TEXTBOOK traitor.
And they trot HIM out to defend the Pilonidal Pusbag?
Cue the Twilight Zone theme.
The Truth about what this has really become is that: Rush Limbaugh is Britney Spears... a celebrity in perpetual meltdown. No disrespect to Ms Spears intended.
The hypocritical sissies at MMFA just attacked Oliver North, a real Marine.
According to their bios, none of the MMFA sssies have served in the military. Where do they get off attacking a decorated Vietnam veteran such as North?
This whole thread exposes the left's "we care about the troops" claim as a lie. Look at the attacks on North, who served his country with valor during a Vietnam.
And betrayed the Constitution by operating a secret operation to sell arms to Iran in exchange for money to fund the Contras, in violation of Congress. He should be ashamed of himself.
Kevin + Ollie = TLF
Since the once indicted Ollie North did his bidding for the Reagan era right wing nut jobs, Ronnie's ol buddy Roger Ailes of Fox has made sure their water boy was well compensated for his troubles. As usual party loyalty over all else including the Constitution is the "coin of the realm" and encouraged in right wing loony land. Give that boy a "I'm a right winger wink, wink" Chinese made American Flag lapel and secret decoder pin.
"The hypocritical sissies at MMFA just attacked Oliver North, a real Marine."
"Attacked" = questioned the accuracy of his quoted statements about current events?
"According to their bios, none of the MMFA sssies have served in the military. Where do they get off attacking a decorated Vietnam veteran such as North?"
Out of curiosity, have you yourself served?
"This whole thread exposes the left's "we care about the troops" claim as a lie. Look at the attacks on North, who served his country with valor during a Vietnam."
Is anyone attacking North's service? Unlike the RW, no one here is in any way trying to discredit North's military service to make a political point (e.g. Kerry, Cleland, Gore, etc...).
- kevin1007