On Hannity & Colmes, Limbaugh again misrepresented his "phony soldiers" controversy
During an interview on the October 18 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, Rush Limbaugh offered another version of the conversation preceding a remark he made on the September 26 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show characterizing service members who support U.S. withdrawal from Iraq as "phony soldiers." On October 18, Limbaugh said that during the September 26 broadcast he spoke with a caller to his show who "claims to be a Republican and claims to be a soldier, we're losing, why don't I just admit we're losing? Why can't we get out of there and save the soldiers, and so forth?" Limbaugh then said that a second "guy calls after that and says, you know, I hate these guys. The media always goes and finds these guys that do not support the mission. And these guys that never served, and they're just fake. And I said, yeah, the phony soldiers." In fact, at no point preceding his "phony soldiers" comment in the September 26 conversation did either Limbaugh or the caller mention "guys that never served" who are "just fake." While Limbaugh subsequently posted a transcript of the Hannity & Colmes segment in which the words "And these guys that never served, and they're just fake" do not appear within quotation marks, Limbaugh gave no indication on Hannity & Colmes that the caller on September 26 did not actually say those words.
During the September 26 broadcast, Limbaugh discussed with a caller a conversation he had with a previous caller, "Mike from Chicago," who said he "used to be military," and "believe[s] that we should pull out of Iraq." The second caller, whom Limbaugh identified as "Mike, this one from Olympia, Washington," asserted that he had "a retort to Mike in Chicago, because I am a serving American military, in the Army." The caller stated that "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." After Limbaugh said that "it's not possible, intellectually, to follow these people," the caller replied: "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 then interjected, "The phony soldiers." Neither mentioned "guys that never served" or said "they're just fake" before Limbaugh's reference to "phony soldiers."
On Hannity & Colmes, Limbaugh offered the following description of his September 26 conversation with the caller:
LIMBAUGH: Let me make it as brief as I can. I had a call on my program on a Wednesday. I guess this was about two weeks ago now. I'm still amazed how long this has survived.
And two days prior to that, NBC -- or ABC's World News Tonight had done a story on Jesse MacBeth, the phony soldier, one of the many people who's never served, didn't even survive through boot camp, and claimed he had been in Iraq, claimed he had been a Green Beret, and a Purple Heart and all this, and saw all these atrocities, sort of like John Kerry in Vietnam.
And on the day of the questionable call, I had done a morning update on Jesse MacBeth. And I think this is Wednesday when this all happens. The guy calls and claims to be a Republican and claims to be a soldier, that we're losing, why don't I just admit we're losing? Why can't we get out of there and save the soldiers, and so forth?
Another guy calls after that and says, you know, I hate these guys. The media always goes and finds these guys that do not support the mission. And these guys that never served, and they're just fake. And I said, yeah, the phony soldiers. Two words that I uttered have been now magnified and blown up into, like, hundreds of thousands of words by now.
A transcript (subscription required) of the Hannity & Colmes segment on Limbaugh's website punctuates his description of the conversation as follows:
LIMBAUGH: Another guy calls after that and says, "You know, I hate these guys. The media always goes and finds these guys that do not support the mission." And these guys that never served, and they're just fake. And I said, yeah, "the phony soldiers."
The actual conversation went as follows:
LIMBAUGH: Another Mike, this one in Olympia, Washington. Welcome to the EIB Network. Hello.
CALLER: Hi Rush, thanks for taking my call.
LIMBAUGH: You bet.
CALLER: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 --
As Media Matters for America documented, Limbaugh has previously offered several inconsistent explanations for his September 26 comments.
Later in the Hannity & Colmes interview, co-host Alan Colmes noted that when Limbaugh aired the exchange "a couple of days later, you edited out about a minute and 35 seconds of time." As Media Matters documented, on his September 28 broadcast, Limbaugh aired an edited audio clip from his September 26 broadcast. 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 "phony soldiers" comment and his mention of Jesse MacBeth, an anti-war activist who 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. Limbaugh did not disclose on the September 28 show that the audio had been spliced.
Limbaugh replied to Colmes that the edits had been made "for the purposes of my website," and asserted that the editing was done because the caller, "after discussing the phony soldiers, went into a discussion of weapons of mass destruction. At the time he's doing that, I am talking to my producer on the other side of the glass on the IFB [intercom], I'm saying, 'Find the commentary I did yesterday morning on Jesse MacBeth,' who, by the way, whose birth name is Jesse Al-Zaid." Limbaugh continued: "This guy is going on. He's got diarrhea of the mouth about weapons of mass destruction. I'm asking people to find this commentary so I can illustrate what I mean by phony soldiers." Limbaugh added: "I finally told this guy, I said, look, weapons of mass destruction is a moot point now. Whether they're there or weren't there, it's not relevant because the situation in Iraq has gone way beyond that. We just edited that out. It had nothing to do -- there was nothing hidden. There was nothing I was trying to cover up."
Contrary to his assertion that "there was nothing hidden," during the September 28 broadcast of his radio show Limbaugh said that his selectively edited audio clip of the exchange was "the entire transcript" of the segment. Prior to airing the edited clip, Limbaugh said: "Here is, it runs about 3 minutes and 13 seconds, the entire transcript, in context, that led to this so-called controversy." After the clip ended, Limbaugh stated: "That was the transcript from yesterday's program, talking about one phony soldier. The truth for the left is fiction that serves their purpose, which is exactly the way the website Media Matters generated this story."
As Media Matters documented, the transcript (subscription required) of the September 28 broadcast posted on Limbaugh's website does not make clear how much time elapsed between his "phony soldiers" remark and his discussion of MacBeth on September 26 -- or even that any time did elapse: Limbaugh's September 28 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. By not indicating this gap, Limbaugh made it appear as though his MacBeth remarks came almost immediately after his "phony soldiers" remark, falsely supporting his claim that his "phony soldiers" comment was a reference to MacBeth.
In addition, Limbaugh falsely asserted that "on the day of the questionable call, I had done a morning update on Jesse MacBeth." Later in the interview, Limbaugh correctly noted that after his conversation with the caller to whom he made his "phony soldiers" remark, he "started in repeating a commentary on Jesse MacBeth that I had aired the previous morning."
Further, Limbaugh asserted that Media Matters "is a Hillary Clinton front group, which is designed to get her elected president." In fact, Media Matters is an independent, progressive organization and is not affiliated with any candidate or political party.
From the October 18 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes:
HANNITY: Thanks very much. Look, first of all, you've got to tell us, what's the update here, in terms -- I understand it's up to $851,000, this smear letter that you're auctioning off.
LIMBAUGH: Eight hundred and fifty-one thousand, one hundred dollars. It's amazing. It's just absolutely -- this is more fun than I've ever had in my life.
HANNITY: Look, you know, for those that don't fully and completely understand the whole story here, Rush, why don't you just explain it to them?
LIMBAUGH: All right, let me make it as brief as I can. I had a call on my program on a Wednesday. I guess this was about two weeks ago now. I'm still amazed how long this has survived.
And two days prior to that, NBC -- or ABC's World News Tonight had done a story on Jesse MacBeth, the phony soldier, one of the many people who's never served, didn't even survive through boot camp, and claimed he had been in Iraq, claimed he had been a Green Beret, and a Purple Heart and all this, and saw all these atrocities, sort of like John Kerry in Vietnam.
And on the day of the questionable call, I had done a morning update on Jesse MacBeth. And I think this is Wednesday when this all happens. The guy calls and claims to be a Republican and claims to be a soldier, that we're losing, why don't I just admit we're losing? Why can't we get out of there and save the soldiers, and so forth?
Another guy calls after that and says, you know, I hate these guys. The media always goes and finds these guys that do not support the mission. And these guys that never served, and they're just fake. And I said, yeah, the phony soldiers. Two words that I uttered have been now magnified and blown up into, like, hundreds of thousands of words by now.
I have, in 20 years of my broadcast career, have never denigrated a serving serviceman, regardless his political opinions whatsoever. I was strictly talking about these fakes, these phonies that never served and claimed that they did, saw all these atrocities that they didn't see. And it happened to happen a week or so after the "General Betray Us" ad, so the left totally had that backfire on them, after [Gen. David] Petraeus showed up at the congressional hearings, the Senate and the House. The American people loved the guy.
The MoveOn.org ad in The New York Times just backfired totally. So they had to deflect that, and they thought they would focus on me. And this led to Senator [Harry] Reid [D-NV] accepting the words of an organization called Media Matters for America, which is a Hillary Clinton front group, which is designed to get her elected president, and went to the floor of the Senate, read a letter, asked as many senators as possible to sign it condemning me, and asking the syndication partner of mine, Mark Mays, the CEO of Clear Channel, to also condemn me, make me apologize, spank me, this sort of thing. And we got hold of the original letter. Mark Mays gave it to me. We put it on eBay to auction it off. We're up to $851,000 because this -- Sean, this is just a -- one of the most -- in my lifetime, one of the most focused abuses of power that I've ever seen.
[...]
COLMES: Let me talk to you for a second about the phony soldiers comment, because those who criticize you have pointed out you said "soldiers," plural, and that when you played it back a couple of days later, you edited out about a minute and 35 seconds of time. So it wasn't clear initially you were talking about one particular soldier.
LIMBAUGH: I did not edit -- here's what we edited out, for the purposes of my website. You know, Alan, brevity is the soul of wit. That is what Shakespeare said. The second caller, after discussing the phony soldiers, went into a discussion of weapons of mass destruction.
At the time he's doing that, I am talking to my producer on the other side of the glass on the IFB, I'm saying, "Find the commentary I did yesterday morning on Jesse MacBeth," who, by the way, whose birth name is Jesse Al-Zaid. Find me that commentary. This guy is going on. He's got diarrhea of the mouth about weapons of mass destruction. I'm asking people to find this commentary so I can illustrate what I mean by phony soldiers.
We edited -- that was about a minute and a half or a minute and 45. When we put the transcript up -- and I finally told this guy, I said, "Look, weapons of mass destruction is a moot point now. Whether they're there or weren't there, that's not -- it's not relevant because the situation in Iraq has gone way beyond that." We just edited that out.
It had nothing to do -- there was nothing hidden. There was nothing I was trying to cover up. You've got to stop listening to these partisans and these propagandists at Media Matters for America. They are nothing but a bunch of hacks who are producing the prime time at MSNBC. If they ever went dark, MSNBC -- er, Media Matters, MSNBC would have nothing to say.
They do -- Alan, you have a radio show, and I have a radio show. You have a website. I have a website. All you have to do is turn on the radio to listen to each of us or go to our websites.
The drive-by media does not listen to my show, does not go to my website. They take for granted whatever Media Matters says about what I said is true. It is irresponsible. It's journalistic malpractice, and it's silly. We edited that out simply for the sake of brevity and to stay on point. When we got to the -- when I found the commentary, when they printed it out to my printer behind me, that's when I got rid of the call, and that's when I started in repeating a commentary on Jesse MacBeth that I had aired the previous morning.
Wouldn't anyone watching H&C for context already forgiven Rush? What's next, an appearance on the 700 club?
He is a big p*ssy for constantly talking around it. At the very least he won't be throwing rhetoric bombs for awhile.
A blowhole of lies...
Media Matters nails him again.
Hmm.... I notice that none of the media(except foxnews) has covered Rush's auction of the smear letter (at least as of this posting). The thing sold for over $2 million and not even a mention!
Must be that anti-conservative bias.
Rueter's covered it, but they left out the details that expose the loony lefties for what they really are.
I checked CNN, MSNBC, CBS, USATODAY; no results came on a search for Limbaugh Auctioin. If this were the other way around, it would be repeated ad nauseum.
Maybe because they don't ever use the word "Auctioin" in any of their stories?
Don't know, just a hunch...
Ha Ha. Look for yourself.....see what you find.
you beat me to it
lol
Yeah they should cover the Oxymorons cover his ass PR stunt so you ignorant hiveminders will be happy. Sure that is their job.
Perhaps you should get all of the facts before you make yourself look foolish.
Perhaps YOU should stop pretending that what ever the Oxymoron TELLS you and the rest of the hivemind to believe are actually FACTS.
The only fact you're certain of is "Ditto master." Bhaaaaah, bhaaaaah.
Even worse, why is Limbaugh comparing Kerry to Jesse Macbeth?
"And two days prior to that, NBC -- or ABC's World News Tonight had done a story on Jesse MacBeth, the phony soldier, one of the many people who's never served, didn't even survive through boot camp, and claimed he had been in Iraq, claimed he had been a Green Beret, and a Purple Heart and all this, and saw all these atrocities, sort of like John Kerry in Vietnam."
MMFA missed out on that one-- it's giving L. too much credit to assume he's validating Kerry's war experience-- just listen to L.'s tone on the tape-- it's mocking.
I heard Senator Reid commenting from the Senate floor, that the letter the Limbaugh auctioned off was for a very worthwhile charity.
Limbaugh is matching the winning bid of $2.1 mill, and I am wondering when the signers of the "Limbaugh letter", are going to make good on their promise to "Support the Troops"
Hilary and Obama and Reid and Kennedy are all signers of the letter.....and they are all dirty, filthy rich.
I am waiting to see their support of the troops by making a noticable contribution to what Senator Reid described as a Worthy Cause.
I am holding my breath.
The only people misrepresenting what Limbaugh said is Media Matters for Hillary. We troops know that Limbaugh was referring to Jesse MacBeth and other phony soldiers, the American people know it, and MMFA knows it.
If you want to take on offensive comments, Media Matters for Hillary should criticize Pete Stark's attacks on the troops delivered from the House floor yesterday. If MMFA really wants to show its support for us in uniform, they would start going after Stark, Redi, and other Democrats who have attacked the troops.
Proud to be part of the 20%, aren't you?
You dont know ANYTHING until the Oxymoron TELLS you what it is. Pete Stark is not a member of the media. Try to keep up. Rush said what he said. Just because then he told you members of the hivemind what to believe about it really isnt relevant to anything
Solon:
I feel sorry for you and the other Media Matters myrmidons. How empty your lives must be to spend your lives attacking the troops and their supporters, such as Limbaugh.
Dear Koolaid... please show me one instance where anyone here has attacked the troops. You are a liar...just as Rush Limbaugh is. Wait, don't tell me...you're a person of faith, too, as Limbaugh claims he is right?. You morally defective people are a joke...a pathetic joke.
Don't sweat it Koza, I didn't have to look too far to find this one:
Irony 101 wrote:
Koolaid, if you're too dumb to realize that the mission on which you've been sent is based on lies then you need all the help you can muster. You should be thanking us for looking out for your dumb arse. Sorry, dude, thanks for serving..but you are mixed up.
Yeah, he thanked you for serving, AFTER he called you dumb.
KoolAid Kid = The Troops?
Bushlies, you're getting lazier.
What's the matter, Bush Lies (love your name)? Is Koolaid too dumb to answer for himself?
I was at dinner. But I see that someone proved you were a liar already. You should send your resume to Media Matters for Hillary.
You are joking, aren't you?
"...the mission on which you've been sent is based on lies...You should be thanking us for looking out for your dumb arse."--Irony
How is this attacking the troops?
WE ARE TRYING TO GET THE TROOPS OUT OF THERE ALIVE. Dumb arse is a bit harsh, but I can't see where it's an attack on the troops.
Please explain.
Sadly he is not joking he really is that stupid. THAT is what passes for logic in the hivemind.
Irony was right you are ignorant and morally defective. So you thought Komamoron was THE TROOPS? I guess the hivemind has to believe what the hivemind is told to believe. Reality just doesnt enter the picture
Limbaugh does not support the troops. Limbaugh only supports himself. He does that through lies.
Limbaugh is worse than even that. MMFA actually left out the most compelling evidence here that he's lying. On September 28, L. expanded his phony soldiers comment to include REAL soldiers-- where's his defense on that one? See earlier MMFA story headlined:
Limbaugh expands group of "phony soldiers" to include Vietnam veteran MurthaWow, I can't believe a moonbat would actually bring the discredited Murtha into the discussion.
How is Murtha discredited?
The way all facts are established among the Limborg. Rush told him so.
Murtha called our Marines murderers before they even had a trial. The cases against most of those same Marines have been thrown out and the remaining cases are in the process of being thrown out.
That is why that corrupt tub of lard has been discredited.
Wow, I cant believe someone as stupid as you thinks we are having a discussion. We are just batting you around for fun and practice.
$4.2 million says that you're absolutely incorrect.
Not half as sorry as I feel for you ignorant morons that dont even know what you believe until the Oxymoron TELLS you. If you ever learn to think for yourself you MIGHT be lucky enough to have my life. I love being me ask anybody.
Come on, Solon, you're slipping!! You didn't get the word "hivemind" into that post. Oh, and you've been flagged again (big shock, right?)
Flag away Limborg I am betting you arent flagging Komamoron for HIS insults. Hypocrite
Stark said ON THE HOUSE FLOOR that soldiers were being sent to Iraq to have their heads blown off for the President's amusement!!
Do you support that statement, Solon? I wouldn't be surprised if you do.
I wouldnt have said amusement but why should I answer for Stark? Of course it wouldnt suprise you. You are willing to believe the most ignorant and moronic things just because Rush told you to. Its good practice for believing something just because you WISH it were true.
It was a supid statement, one I personally condemn.
Here--I'll repair it so that it's accurate:
...soldiers are being sent to Iraq to have their heads blown off.
We have no way of knowing if this amuses George W. Bush or not. I would hope not, but who knows? The rest is inarguably factual.
THERICK:
We DO have some evidence about what "amuses" the President.
For one thing, he gets downright giddy in Pressers in which he is avoiding answering simple questions about life and death decisions he might make, while drumming up fearmongering about the coming World War III. He giggles and smirks and claims to be having a wonderful time, meanwhile our soldiers continue to die.
For another thing, remember when it was known and accepted that the Bush Administration's hysterical assurances that Saddam had vast stockpiles of WMDs was dead wrong ... he made a little film about it with Bush in the starring role, looking under his desk and behind the curtains in the Oval Office, looking for those darn WMDs. Laughing it up, while our kids were being blown up.
So, the evidence is strong that Bush is very amused by WAR, and that has to mean all the death and destruction which goes along with it.
To be fair, he may be faking his amusement ... it may be that his handlers have chosen the smirking supercilious persona as the best one to adopt for public consumption (the one he is most comfortable with). But as a sociopath, he might be unable to be either amused, or depressed, or have any normal emotion whatsoever about the plight of the soldiers at all. The sociopath is only concerned with self and things that DIRECTLY affect the self.
You're right again my friend. I also have heard stories that when he was a kid he'd blow up frogs with firecrackers. I don't know if this is true. But, while watching one of his speeches, I could have sworn that he licked his lips when speaking of enemies who met their fate in Afghanistan.
Sorry Rick. I really ought to read further before I step on peoples responses
Hey, no problem. I thought your comment was brillient!
I haven't done the research myself, but there are reports out there on the internet that George W. Bush enjoyed blowing up frogs with firecrackers when he was a child. Since we know that every serial killer ever identified has had similar behavior in his background, it's only intellectually honest to congratulate the CiC on becoming the most successful serial killer (so far) of the 21st Century.
I think that might meet the Rushian standards of responsible commentary. Yes? No?
True and it amused him to stick firecrackers in frogs and blow them up when he was a kid.
I support Stark, Dodd is good too. I need to remember to call Washinton this weekend on it. Per Randi (sorry I misspelled that elswhere)Rhodes, 1-800-828-0498 & 614-2803 will get you to The House of Representatives. If you'd like to give an opinion on those or other issues.
The only people misrepresenting what Limbaugh said is Media Matters for Hillary. We troops know that Limbaugh was referring to Jesse MacBeth and other phony soldiers, the American people know it, and MMFA knows it.
If you want to take on offensive comments, Media Matters for Hillary should criticize Pete Stark's attacks on the troops delivered from the House floor yesterday. If MMFA really wants to show its support for us in uniform, they would start going after Stark, Redi, and other Democrats who have attacked the troops.
You obviously don't know squat. Rush keeps lying to you, and you keep coming back for more. When are you gonna wake up and face the truth?
We troops know the truth. You Media Matters myrmidons are the poor, gullible fools.
We troops know the truth.
Really, Koolaid...what truth is that? And where did yoy divine this truth, from Rush Limbaugh? From George W. Bush? You are are another right wing nut job who happens to be wearing a uniform. Thanks for serving, anyway.
Thanks for serving, anyway.
Kozakid may be one of those who's only in the military because is unable to hold down a civilian job. Or the judge gave him a choice - join the army, or go to jail.....
Yes, this is the attitude thr Media Matters myrmidons have, isn't it? Thank for being honest and demonstrating that this "phony soldiers" issue that Media Matters for Hillary has been ginning up is phony.
This from a guy who keeps quoting a lame Bozell phrase.
Do you even know what a myrmidon is?
If you do, and are STILL a Limbaugh fan, then irony is truly dead in this world.
"Do you even know what a myrmidon is?"
Yes, Media Matters has many here and in the media.
So then no. Its just a word the hivemind uses so you spew it in ignorance. Nothing new.
And admit it. You had to look up the word. It has been used long before Bozell came on the scene.
Neal Boortz originally coined the phrase "Media Myrmidons". Shows how much that guy knows.
I admit I made a mistake.
Boortz, Bozell, whatever. They're all just a bunch of big foreheads to me.
The point is, anyone that knows the meaning of the word, and yet continues to spout Rush Limbaugh talking points has absolutely no sense of irony.
Nomen est omen.
Boortz & Bozell: a brace of boorish bozos.
Limbaugh does not support the troops. If you think he does, then you are either terribly naive or intellectually challenged. And here is a little tip for you, I don't know what "troops" you belong to, but try not to speak for anyone other than yourself. I know I would not want you speaking for me.
I think $4.2 million proves that Limbaugh cares far more for the troops than the Democrats do.
4.2 million is a trifle. Limbaugh does not care about the troops. Or is your understanding of "caring" solely confined to money? Limbaugh uses the military for his purposes, they are a prop for him. And you would speak of trifles.
KOZA:
The $4.2 million represents exactly what a great many offenders of the public are sentenced to in court: A FINE and COMMUNITY SERVICE.
In street terms, Rush felt, and rightfully so, that his offense called for "BLOOD MONEY", defined as:
1. compensation paid to the next of kin of a slain person, prompted by guilt.
2. money obtained ruthlessly and at a cost of suffering to others.
3. Money paid by a killer as compensation to the next of kin of a murder victim.
4. Money gained at the cost of another's life or livelihood.
As an unabashed cheerleader for Bush's WAR, Limbaugh is responsible for the outcomes OF that war, including nearly 4000 dead American soldiers, 30,000 maimed horribly for life, and untold thousands of innocent Iraqis who have been "liberated to death."
Limbaugh's responsibility extends far beyond the war casualties ... as if that were not bad enough ... but supporting Bush supports policy which has made America LESS SAFE, and has destroyed our ability to work with other nations to make a better world.
But, the job of propagandist for the Rightwing pays very well, and the $2 million Limbaugh allegedly had to pony up represents only about 10% of his yearly salary, about what a church might expect as a tithe (Rush doesn't attend church).
So, this little stunt will serve to assuage Rush's guilt while attempting a circus-act distraction to try to muddy up the clear meaning of his words.
Blood Money, sadly, does not "make anyone whole", it cannot undo the harm caused by one's irresponsible sponsorship of wrongheaded and failed policy.
(P.S. Harry Reid's signature is worth $2 mil? Who knew?!? You go, Harry!)
"I think $4.2 million proves that Limbaugh cares far more for the troops than the Democrats do."
It's a very expensive CYA (or a great tax write-off). Very effective with "poor, gullible fools."
Since he sold a letter GIVEN him while it only cost 2 million he can take the entire 4 million off his taxes making the whole thing practially free to him.
See you discredited yourself with your first two words. I think. No you dont. You dont have the equipment. You tune into the Limborg and he TELLS you what you think. A few million shows he thinks he needs to do some damage control. How many times has Rush gone to Iraq to entertain the troops? Franken has gone what six times? Yeah you THINK the Oxymoron cares about soldiers because that is what he TOLD you to think. The thing is that isnt THINKING, its being brainwashed. You may ASPIRE to thinking, perhaps one day you will accomplish it but that day is not THIS day and has not happened as yet.
"we the troops" Ha. You certainly aren't speaking for me, or any of the Soldiers I know.
He's not a soldier, he's a "Marrine"! :-)
It is possible to support those we send to war at the same time that we oppose the war.
And the right has done plenty to disparage the reputation and patriotism of any soldier or vet who is against this or any other war.
Those of us in unifrom don't see it that way. When you criticize the mission and belittle our efforts, you're definitely not supporting us. You're supporting the enemy.
Well said, Koza!
By which you mean nice regurgitation of the Limborg hivemind talking point. Sure.
Koolaid, if you're too dumb to realize that the mission on which you've been sent is based on lies then you need all the help you can muster. You should be thanking us for looking out for your dumb arse. Sorry, dude, thanks for serving..but you are mixed up.
Of course, NOBODY can back up the claim that the mission is based on lies. They just say that to demonize the legally elected President of the United States, George W. Bush.
George W. Bush is an incompetent leader, a former drunk whose mental stability is questionable, and who lied to get us into an experiment in neocon world domination. And American soldiers have died because of Bush.
See what I mean? Demonize, attack, etc. But don't back up the claims that he lied us into war. Why not? Because it CAN'T BE DONE.
Here, Irony, I'll help you out. Here's an example of a LIE:
"I did not have sexual relations with that woman."
No, Bushie, here's an example of a HUGE LIE:
"When you criticize the mission and belittle our efforts, you're definitely not supporting us. You're supporting the enemy."
Ok First off, Crying about the stink on Clinton's C*ck was a complete WASTE OF TIME, and distracted our politics and media from the growing threat brewing in Afghanistan.
Remember when Clinton sent those 40 Cruise Missiles into Afghanistan? Remember the Republicans who screamed "WAG THE DOG!!"?
Second, you don't think Colin Powell infront of the UN General Assembly with not actual photos, but ANIMATED REPRESENTATIONS of the supposed mobile weapons labs wasn't fishy? Or how this administration uses men of the uniform like a 5 year old hiding behind mommie's skirt?
Or how about this one, coming out of DiCK Cheany's mouth on how Saddam Huessain was connected to 9-11? Meeting with Al-Qeada operatives in Prague?
------------
But On a serious note, for those who have or continue to serve the US regardless of your politics...THANK YOU. You've got more balls than me to strap up and set out into a warzone.
But be wary of those who thump their chests the loudest in "support" of the troops.
If Limbaugh really supports the troops, why in the 4 or 5 years this war has been kickin off has he not screamed into his golden EIB mic about proper body army and supplies, or how the wounded got screwed at Walter Reid, or how a d*uche like Paul Bremmer was put in charge of reconstruction and how Bremmer seriously f'ed up the rehab process for Iraq.
He could of done alot more with just speakin on those issues than that awful "Adopt a Soilder" nonsense he had going on.
Please, belive your own eyes, ears, and mind....not that of a failed Kansas City baseball scout with a drug problem.
----------
Tune in Tuesday & Thursday @ 10pm EST for Plastino Politics on www.blogtalkradio.com
You're lying about "Wag the Dog."
When Clinton retaliated against al Qaeda after they bombed two U.S. embassies in Africa in August 1998, Republicans offered nothing but support for Clinton. According to an August 21, 1998 Washington Post article, “President Clinton won warm support for ordering anti-terrorist bombing attacks in Afghanistan and Sudan yesterday from many of the same lawmakers who have criticized him harshly as a leader critically weakened by poor judgment and reckless behavior in the Monica S. Lewinsky scandal.”
According to the article House Speaker Newt Gingrich said, “I think the president did exactly the right thing. By doing this we're sending the signal there are no sanctuaries for terrorists."Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott called the attacks "appropriate and just," and House Majority Leader Richard K. Armey said "the American people stand united in the face of terrorism."And, contrary to the Clinton’s claim that Republicans thought he was doing to much to counter al Qaeda, Sen. Orrin Hatch said, “In the past I was worried that this administration didn't take this threat seriously enough, and didn't take Osama bin Laden seriously enough; I'm going to support him, wish him well and back him up.”Porter J. Goss, who was then chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, echoed Hatch. “If anything, this was somewhat overdue, and I'm not talking days, but months and years. This needs to be the first punch we land. We need to land more."Unfortunately, this first punch against al Qaeda would also be the last punch that Clinton threw at al Qaeda. Even with Republican support and support from two-thirds of all Americans[2], Clinton decided to throw no additional punches at al Qaeda. Instead, he opted to throw a few punches at Saddam Hussein in December 1998 during the preemptive attack known as Operation Desert Fox. After throwing those punches, he then decided, without congressional or UN approval, to throw punches at Slobodan Milosevic in Kosovo during the spring of 1999.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/react082198.htm
I applaud you, Koza. I'm sure you realize that the moonbats on this site subscribe to that old liberal state of mind: "Don't give me FACTS! My mind is already made up."
What facts that a couple of prominent Cons werent as stupid as a whole lot of Republicans were? You are such a moron. Perhaps since YOU only believe what Rush tells you to you that means we cant REMEMBER what happened at the time. Here is a clue just because YOU are ignorant doesnt mean we are. It is without any reasonable dispute that many Reps were saying JUST that about Clinton. Back away from the kool-aid it is ruining your already substandard brain
Solon:
I provided a link to a Washington Post article that included numerous quotes from Republicans who supported Clinton's retaiation against al Qaeda (albeit, a weak retaliation based on bogus intelligence) in August 1998. These Republicans also expressed a desire that Clinton would take additional steps against al Qaeda, a desire that was left unfulfilled.
Maybe you show us where a Republican in the leadership said that Clinton went to far with his response.
I already did that. You are changing the goalposts here. THIS is what you said.
When Clinton retaliated against al Qaeda after they bombed two U.S. embassies in Africa in August 1998, Republicans offered nothing but support for Clinton. >>>>>>>>>>>
This to refute the claim Republicans accused Clinton of wag the dog when he attacked Iraq. I dont see anything about Republican leadership only Republicans. I already cited a whole SLEW of ELECTED REPUBLICAN officials saying EXACTLY that. So ya got nothin. You were flat out wrong. The GOP WAS attacking Clinton with wag the dog rhetoric.
Bushl-ies-and-I-love-him-for-it, when you're done applauding your little tin soldier, you might want to check out some facts (not "facts", as heard on the Excrement in Fraudcasting network) regarding Wag the Dog.
Do you ever get tired of making fools of yourselves? Wait, don't answer that.
Think Progress is the blog of the Center for American Progress, a Soros-funded group headed by CLINTON'S FORMER CHIEF OF STAFF. CAP also provided Media Matters with office space when it started.
The fact is that the GOP leadership stated that it was behind Clinton in August 1998 when Clinton launched retaliatory strikes against al Qaeda. There were a few backbenchers who raised the possibility, just as you have a few backbenchers in the Democrat Party (just as Pete Stark) who offer odd views.
The Wag the Dog charge from the GOP became more prominent when Clinton moved from going after al Qaeda and launched a preemptive strike on Iraq during his impeachment trial.
Don't give me Facts, my mind is already made up.....hmm....wonder who in our current administration could that statement to be applied to?
Starting to ring a bit like 2003?
Republicans offered nothing but support for Clinton. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So the question is are you a liar or just a fool or both?
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/23/wag.dog/
At that time, some GOP lawmakers used the phrase "wag the dog" to describe Clinton's military actions, saying he was using conflicts abroad to deflect attention from the domestic scandal.
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/25/wag-the-dog/
Rep. Jim Gibbons (R-NV):
Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA):
Former Sen. John Ashcroft (R-MO):
Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX):
Former Sen. Dan Coats (R-IN):
Former Rep. Dave Weldon (R-FL):
Former Rep. Bob Barr (R-GA):
Sorry, Solon. That one was so easy, I put up the link before seeing you'd already put up two.If these dittohead phony soldiers would put a little effort into it, that wouldn't happen.
Oh no, did I just attack the make-believe troops?
;0)
If they had the intellectual capacity to do a five second google search to see whether or not their hivemind talking point had any validity we wouldnt have to double up on thier spankings. Oh well, another day another floor to mop with a dittohead
Solon:
Your CNN link does not bolster your argument. I already dealt with the Think Progress propaganda piece.
No you didnt. You didnt even come CLOSE. You TRIED to denigrate Cap but each individual quote was independently sourced. You are claiming Arlen Spector is a back bencher? John Ashcroft? No you didnt refute anything it wasnt even a good try and YES my CNN article DOES back up my claim. That is that YOU were wrong when you said Republicans OFFERED NOTHING BUT SUPPORT for Clinton. You were wrong and did NOTHING to rebut me showing without a doubt that you WERE wrong.
Intelligence from multiple sources shows that Iraq is continuing efforts to deceive inspectors by moving weapons of mass destruction material around the country to avoid detection. Baghdad is also working to discredit intelligence information being provided to the inspection teams by the United States and our allies.
The inspections are not working. Dribbling out of a warhead here, a missile there, may give the appearance of disarmament, but it is not reducing Saddam's capabilities. It is not eliminating the threat. He gives a little to save a lot, but we've caught on to this game.
My fellow citizens, at this hour, American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger.
The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We've removed an ally of AL Qaeda, and cut off a source of terrorist funding.
Lies, lies, lies.
Nope!
YES.
Yup
It has BEEN done. On Sept 7. 2002 when Bush said. "I would remind you, when the inspectors were in Iraq when they were finally denied access, an IAEA report came out saying Iraq was six months from a (nuclear) weapon I dont know what more you need" He LIED. There was no such report. Didnt exist. The IAEA said so the next day, they also said their ACTUAL position was that they had destroyed Iraqs nuclear capability in 91 and saw no evidence it had been reconstituted. Now when you make up non existant reports out of whole cloth THAT IS LYING. When you claim an anodyzed coating is proof the aluminum tubes were for Gas Centrifuges when in fact that coating would have to be removed to use tham that way it is LYING. Not a mistake of intelligence, not a slip of the tongue it is LYING. There is no reasonable argument those are NOT lies. Rent a clue
All extremely weak arguments. NONE of which would prove that the President lied. Your opinion is noted.
Sure to you. Since Rush didnt TELL you to believe it. I notice that you didnt even TRY to refute the arguments. Only on Planet Hivemind is showing that Bush MADE UP A REPORT THAT DIDNT EXIST not considered pretty definitive evidence that he was LYING. Not even a good try by you.
Oh, by the way, I forgot to point out the hivemind tactic of pretending an FACT is an opinion. It is NOT my opinion that Bush said those things on Sept 7. 2002, in a joint press conference with Tony Blair THAT is a verifyable FACT, nor that the IAEA DENIED there was any such report, that is also a verifyable FACT. It really isnt my fault you arent bright enough to know the difference. It isnt my fault that to YOU a fact is whatever Rush tells you and everything else is an opinion.
Your lack of a substantive reply is also noted. Set to Solon.
Previous post directed to Bush Lies response to Solon.
"Here, Irony, I'll help you out. Here's an example of a LIE: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman," - Bush Lies
Just curious, Bush Lies: how many people... American troops included... did THAT lie get killed?
Now, on the other hand we have: "The British Government has learned that Sadam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
We also have confirmation (in the form of the Downing Street Memos) that Dubya' the Dim & his neo-con vassals were 'ginning up' (i.e. LYING) about what our own intelligence people were telling them about WMD in Iraq. I f you and the Koolaidkid haven't figured out by now that these imperialistic sociopaths lied us into this war in furtherance of their hair-brained scheme to dominate the world's oil supply, then your heads are so far up your own asses that not even the jaws of life could ever hope to pry them loose.
I'm just sayin'...
"But don't back up the claims that he lied us into war. Why not? Because it CAN'T BE DONE."
What you mean is that it can't be done to your satisfaction. You're clearly one of the 24%. That doesn't mean that rational people don't recognize that we've been lied into a war. The first proof absolute came with the leaking of the Downing Street Memo. This was an "eyes only" record of a meeting (23 July 2002) involving senior British security and intelligence personnel. In it the head of MI6 (Foreign Intelligence) reported on a recent meeting he'd held with the Bush Administration. He reported that Washington had decided on war, in spite of Bush's public pronouncements, and that, "intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."
http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/memos.html
The memo also lists a number of actions, including a secret bombing campaign, that the Americans and British were undertaking in order to provoke a reaction from Saddam which could be used as a casus belli.
The entire upper echelon of the administration went on a Sunday talk show offensive hyping Saddam's WMD program which they knew was, if not non-existant, well behind the programs of Syria, North Korea and Iran. In an especially foul example of dishonesty, Cheney used a New York Times article as a confirming source for one of his allegations. He neglected to mention that his office had been the "background" source for the (inaccurate) information in the article. Cheney also said, on camera, that there was "no doubt" that Saddam had reconstituted his WMD program, anand that it was "pretty well confirmed" that Mohammed Atta had met in Prague with an Iraqi intelligence operative. He later denied, also on camera, making those statements.
(This is too easy.)
Finally, remember Paul O'Neill, Bush's first Treasury Secretary? He left early on, when he saw that the Bush agenda was war in Iraq and class war at home. He says in his book (with Ron Suskind), The Price of Loyalty, that Bush came into office determined to attack Iraq.
This is from an interview Bush gave in 1999, when he was a candidate for the nomination."One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as commander in chief. ...If I have a chance to invade Iraq, I had that much capital, I'm not going to waste it. I'm going to get everything passed I want to get passed, and I'm going to have a successful presidency."
There you have it. Two years before 9/11 this SOB, who'd used connections to avoid combat, is talking about having "A CHANCE" to send other men, women and children to their deaths so that he can "be seen as commander in chief."
So his greatest is lie his insistence that he was trying to avoid war, and was going to give diplomacy a chance to work. That was his big lie then, and it's his big lie now, in regard to Iran.
I take it back. This wasn't easy. It's hard to keep from putting my fist through the wall, thinking off all the people who've been destroyed so that this moral midget can be "seen as commander in chief."
Beautifully put, Concho.
Yet, his approval rating is HIGHER than the democrat controlled Congress, so what does that say about them?
Look, I'm not saying that GWB is a good President: He's not going after the true enemy (OBL), he has increased the size of government more than any other President in history, he has been ineffective in getting any meaningful legislation passed........MY GOD, he's a democrat!!
It's simpler than that, Bushie. As I said before...George W. Bush is an incompetent leader, a former drunk whose mental stability is questionable, and who lied to get us into an experiment in neocon world domination. And American soldiers have died because of Bush.
Yes, you said that before. Thanks for the re-post. Your opinion is noted.
Uhh, Bushie...did I mention that American soldiers have died because of Bush's incompetence in experimenting with a grandiose plan of world dominance? Our troops were part of a neocon experiment, in case you didn't get it...
BTW, did I mention Bush is a dry drunk who can't put together a coherent sentence? Yep, gives me a warm feeling inside knowing he's President.
Nothing burns with a hotter flame than a liberal's hatred of George Bush. Would you feel warmer inside if he had a couple of cigars, joints, a saxaphone and a man for a wife? What if he was a violent rapist? Would you like that?
My, my , Bushie... you do have some twisted issues, pal. Have you ever sought professional help?
You are a liar. The country would feel better with Clinton as president than Gump. You were comparing approval ratings Clintons were MUCH higher than Gumps and never fell anywhere NEAR as low as his. You say Hillary is a man. I say YOU are ignorant beyond belief
Do you suppose Juanita Broderick and the family of Vince Foster would feel better?
Do you think repeating that IGNORANT propaganda really MEANS anything? Just because the tinfoil hat hivemind crowd wants to LIE about Foster and has ZERO evidence to support Broaderick who a JUDGE didnt take seriously that it means something? Oh I know it does to those of you whose Limborg assignment is to believe and regurgitate it but I mean people with actual functioning cerebral cortexes? What really gets me is how PROUD you are of your abject stupidity.
"A man for a wife"...you may be talking about your next Commander-in-Chief. Keep talking like that an Rush will have to call YOU a phony soldier.
An old story. Most everyone thinks all politicians stink except THEIRS, the ones THEY voted for. So that stat is apples and oranges however Bushs approval rating is about 25% which pretty much matches Nixons when he left the White House in disgrace. A more meaningful statistic
Nice excuse.
WWWAAHHHH says Bushie stop blowing my hivemind talking points out of the water WAAAAHHHHH, its known as logic, Sorry, I should have known there was no possibility you could understand it.
Nice excuse? Oh, that was cutting. Do you stay up nights honing your rapier-like wit?
The low pols, which are lower for the GOP, reflect anger at the Dems for failing, pretty much, to stop shrub.
In case your out of touch,you might check your chain of comand. A major RNC muckety muck just quit. Last count 17 GOP legislators will voluntarily join him to either spend more time with their families, or get down to making MORE money. You never know maybe you got promoted.
"Yet, his approval rating is HIGHER than the democrat controlled Congress, so what does that say about them?"
Look a little deeper, Bushleague. Congress as a whole has even lower approval numbers than Bush, it's true. But that's when Republican'ts and Democrats are taken together. Separate them out, and Democrats in Congress have higher approval numbers.
Yes I can. I have proven Bush lied about Iraq over and over. When he sent spurious reports to Congress about the aluminum tubes when he sent Condalizzard Rice out to claim the anodyzed coating PROVED they were for Gas Centrifuges when that coating would have had to be removed to USE them as Gas Centrifuges. When in a joint press conference with Tony Blair he pulled an IAEA report that never existed out of his ass and claimed it said the polar opposite of the IAEA position. There is an actual factual reality outside of the hivemind. One day you MAY encounter it.
You've proved nothing. Noone has proved anything. If they had, he would have been impeached. But guess what?
Yes I did. Many times. Things happen that you are not TOLD to believe by your hivemind masters. Impeachment is a political action there are reasons other than he deserves it that factor in. Raygun broke the law. That was proven. He violated the Boland amendment and ADMITTED it. We HAD his signiture on a paper authorizing it yet he wasnt impeached, the grounds were undeniable, but the Dems didnt think it was in the countrys best interest and Raygun was a lame duck. So just because Gump hasnt been impeached is not proof there are no grounds. This is very simple logic, its an embarassment to have to hold your hand and walk you through it like a six year old
Again, your opinion is noted.
And my FACTS are called opinions because YOU arent bright enough to know the difference.
If you say so. Need a kleenex?
Not as much as YOU need some functioning braincells. I will admit your stupidity IS impressive
The prospect of President Dick Cheney renders George W. Bush impeachment-proof.
I'm the last person who would belittle your service. And I can honestly say that I have no idea what the mission is anymore.
I guess you agree with the second paragraph in my response since you assume anyone who doesn't agree with you is siding with the enemy.
Why don't you try speaking for yourself. This "we" business is BS. You don't speak for 'the troops' anymore than the Rush does.
True that.
My brother has been to Iraq, twice, (with the 243rd Engineering) and his opinion differs greatly from kozakid's.
Funny how that works.
kozakid, if you are in fact in the military, thank you for your service. If you're overseas right now, I hope you come back safe to your family.
Also, stop being a d-bag who thinks he speaks for the troops.
You dont speak for everyone in a Uniform. Just because that is what the Oxymoron TOLD you to believe doesnt mean it is any reflection of reality. Only the stupidest of the stupid could possibly buy that saying I dont think we should be fighting this war says something bad about those who are fighting it and had no say in whether it is fought or not. Every American policy is done in MY name and with MY tax dollars I darn sure have a right to voice my opinion about it.
Try not to speak for anyone other than yourself. It demeans others when you arrogantly assert what they believe.
KOZAKID says, "Those of us in uniform don't see it that way. When you criticize the mission and belittle our efforts, you're definitely not supporting us. You're supporting the enemy."
Ah, but what about THIS:
"On Aug. 19, seven active duty soldiers of the 82nd Airborne Division wrote an op-ed in The New York Times called “The War As We Saw It.” The piece expressed skepticism about “recent press coverage portraying the conflict as increasingly manageable”: "The claim that we are increasingly in control of the battlefields in Iraq is an assessment arrived at through a flawed, American-centered framework. […] In the end, we need to recognize that our presence may have released Iraqis from the grip of a tyrant, but that it has also robbed them of their self-respect. They will soon realize that the best way to regain dignity is to call us what we are — an army of occupation — and force our withdrawal."
OR THIS:
"Three retired U.S. military officers have sharply criticized Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's handling of the war in Iraq and called for his resignation....
Retired Major General John Batiste said Rumsfeld did not tell the American people the truth
Major General, Paul Eaton, blamed Rumsfeld for deploying insufficient numbers of troops for the Iraq mission
Retired Colonel Paul Hammes said the administration failed to supply U.S. troops with the best equipment for the job.
OR THIS:
"Twelve ex-captains from the US army who served in Iraq between 2003 and 2006 wrote a rare editorial Tuesday calling for either a US withdrawal or a return to the draft."
OR THIS:
"Retired lieutenant general Ricardo Sanchez, assailed President George W. Bush's strategy, lamented that the war was "a nightmare with no end in sight," and denounced US political leaders as "incompetent."
NOW, KOZAKID, these are all people either current IN uniform, or having recently retired after serving in WAR. They all are in UNIFORM, and are criticizing our mission (Bush's mission) and belittling the efforts (incompetent civilian leadership has led to a nightmare).
Do you, like Limbaugh, consider these men to be "phony soldiers" and ENEMIES of this nation? (An enemy of this nation, YOUR TERM, would indicate a traitor, and traitors can be executed ... especially in time of war. Would you now call for capital punishment for these people? These soldiers and sailors speaking out AGAINST the current war effort? Hmmm?)
(P.S. When you say "those of us in uniform", you realize you're claiming to speak for ALL people in uniform? And these examples show that to be a FALSE statement ... a LIE? Yes?)
I guess he would also take back the burial flags from the grieving families of the three contributers to "The War as We Saw It" who've been killed in action.
I consider them misguided soliders. Note that a group of eight soldiers responded to the seven soldiers who had their piece in the NYT. The NYT refused to publish it.
I am sure they consider YOU a misguided whatever you are. Seven bucking the official government line is a story. Eight conforming to that line isnt, for all we know they got the ASSIGNMENT from their superiors to write the NYTimes and carry Bush water.
Again, you do not speak for everyone in uniform, so quit making blanket statments
"When you criticize the mission and belittle our efforts, you're definitely not supporting us. You're supporting the enemy."
Kid, you and Bushlie really need to do some reading and thinking about what it means to be an American, and what it is that makes this country great. Hint: It ain't GDP, SUV's or RPG's.
Start with this, from former Republican President Theodore Roosevelt. This was, by the way, delivered at the height of WW1, by a CiC who'd actually been a soldier.
" To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."
What kinf of unifrom does a Marrrine wear?
Wow... what an ignorant statement.
Ever hear of a man by the name of Lifton Marks? I just attended a meeting this week pertaining to the mental health needs of our military returning from combat zones in Iraq and Afghanistan. He was there.
You may or may not know Col. Marks is the recently retired Command Chaplain for the Multi-National Force in Iraq. He is also a Vietnam vet. Responding to a psychiatrist -- surprisingly a professional -- who espoused the diatribe you have in this statement, he said that attitude is a tremendous disservice to the troops serving us in the theater from which he just returned.
He says the supposition that soldiers serving in Iraq all want to be there is a misguided and terrible assumption by professionals who have to deal with mental health issues that arise. It undermines diagnosis and treatment plan.
This man in his position knows more than many the psyche of those serving in Iraq. He says there are those who support the mission. But there are also those who are there who don't... or who once were but are exhausted... or those who absolutely don't, but are there because they are loyal and it it there duty. And the definition of "duty" is: something that one is expected or required to do by moral or legal obligation.
As you can see with your own eyes, it has nothing to do with whether or not you agree with the reason you're there.
So, your claiming you speak for those in uniform is... assuming your best intentions... flat-out wrong and misguided... or with an assumption of your worst intentions... deceitful and despicable.
Please... you may speak for yourself and even for buddies you know hold your viewpoint. But you nor anyone should claim to hold the absolute opinion of those in uniform, because that's just an outright false argument.
I did listen to Pete Stark, and there was no attack on the troops involved.
If you want to see the essence of a politician's irresponsible attack on the troops, Google "Bring it on."
LIMBAUGH: Eight hundred and fifty-one thousand, one hundred dollars. It's amazing. It's just absolutely -- this is more fun than I've ever had in my life.
Now that is a whopper, it sold for $210,000. Why they have to lie about some crazed fan paying that outrageous sum defies sanity. Anyone with internet access can see for themselves the final selling price.
Item number: 260170172469
Winning bid:US $2,100,100.00 Ended:Oct-19-07 10:00:00 PDT
Now I've sold a few things on ebay and it was fun, but I would say not even in the top 1000 most fun things I've ever done. But then again, I've never embarassed myself so completely that 41 US Senators took time out their day to write me a letter telling me what a shill I am.
It was not Limbaugh who was embarrassed about the letter. Pinky Reid and the other 40 Democrats made fools of themselves with that letter. We troops know who Limbaugh was referring to. If Pinky and the other 40 had bothered to ask us instead of relying on the lies of MMFA (none of whom ever served in uniform), they could have saved themselves the embarrassment caused by Limbaugh's stroke of genius with the eBay auction.
We troops would like to thank Sen. Ben Nelson and the other Democrats who respected the troops enough not to go along with Pinky's foolishness.
Rush LIED about the selling price of the letter. Maybe he has lied about other things? Your opinion of Rush does not change reality, he lies, lies , lies some more, takes a few breaths, and then....
Lies some more! All day every day, he keeps lying and lying.
Take a valium, Media Matters myrmidon. Rush did not lie about the selling price.
He didn't lie about the price. It was UP TO 850,000 when he gave the interview. It finally sold for 2.1m. Do your homework before you spout off about lies. You sound like a New York Times journalist.
I think you meant New York Post, but I guess New York Times works too.
Especially that Judy Miller...
KOZAKID:
It's really too bad that you haven't had the opportunity to SERVE with your heroes. Think of the sheer ecstacy of being in a combat unit alongside Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, Cheney, and GW HISSELF! All folks who couldn't be bothered with the military (Bush of course avoided combat in the middle of VietNam, opting for stateside duty).
How proud you would be, elbow to elbow with all those grand chickenhawks, marching down a hostile road in Iraq, knowing "Rusty" Limbaugh had your back, with "Eagle-eye" Cheney manning the shotgun on your flank!
You DEFEND these guys???? With what criteria? For Crissake, Col. Sanders routinely said, "I love what you guys are doing for me" to the chickens he fed down the chute. They were making him RICH, sacrificing themselves for his own wellbeing. Is that the kind of adoration you experience? Unbelievable!
I didn't see Bill Clinton there either. He was too busy smoking dope and leading communist-organized protests on foreign soil.
KOZAKID:
You have no rebuttal or refutation of what I said. You can only say "Clinton" ... which is of course an irrelevant distraction to the point being made.
The question remains, WHY do these people who are prosecuting and cheerleading this WAR deserve your support?
You obviously have no answer, about THEIR character, or your own.
Can't say I'm surprised. There can BE no defense for what you try to do, supporting these chickenhawks (and lying about Clinton).
If you would have paid attention, Hannity asked Rush for an UPDATE. The auction hadn't ended when he gave the interview. It ended earlier today while he was on the air (1 P.M. EST). So, he didn't lie about the selling price. I felt like you needed to know that. I'm trying to combat liberal misinformation.
You'll have to forgive the Media Matters myrmidon. If he doesn't get his "facts" from Media Matters for Hillary, he's lost.
Sorry, I don't understand how auctions work I guess. Up until today I thought the bidders bid the price up and up, so if the two people quoted here:
HANNITY: Thanks very much. Look, first of all, you've got to tell us, what's the update here, in terms -- I understand it's up to $851,000, this smear letter that you're auctioning off.
LIMBAUGH: Eight hundred and fifty-one thousand, one hundred dollars. It's amazing. It's just absolutely -- this is more fun than I've ever had in my life.
Seems to me that the price could never have been 851k if the final price was 210k. What am I missing here?
What your missing is that you didn't read the very ebay link that YOU posted earlier. It says $2,100,100.00. NOT $210,000.
Holy excrement! That betyc is crazier than I could even comprehend, my bad, I'll go to the Habitat for Humanity benefit now and cool off with a beer or 6. I apologize for my errors, and look forward to getting my new glasses on the 25th. On this particular point, no lies, the other 10,000 times, still a liar.
Also, one more thing, then I'm out here I swear. IF Rush matches the 2.1m as he has promised (do I have that part right? ) I'll donate $20, the same amount I donated here.
Rush has vowed to match the $2.1m. He has said that he would match the selling price from day one. What you WON'T hear from ANY media outlet is that he also invited Harry Reid and the other 40 who signed that letter to join him in the fund-raising effort. As of today, he hasn't heard a single PEEP from ANY OF THEM!! He also invited Harry Reid to come on to his radio show and say to him face to face what he said ABOUT him on the floor of the Senate. He has gotten NO RESPONSE.
Reid got onto the Senate floor at Noon Eastern today (when the letter was up to almost $2 million) and gave a heartfelt speach about how the ebay auction was such a great thing and how when people put aside their differences good things can happen. Of course, NOBODY had set aside their differences before this speech. It was a weak attempt to claim some credit for the amount of money that Rush was about to hand over to the children of dead Marines and Policemen. Not a penny from Reid. Not a peep from the media.
This is a stroke of genius by Rush. Those 41 twits who put their names on that letter are despicable human beings who are drunk with their own power. They have lost sight of the fact that they are supposed to be servants to the people.
Let's put it through the Bullshlt detector and translator;
Rush Limbaugh: " I challenge my loyal suckers to match the amount I'm going to throw into my publicity stunt and damage control fund. Sure, I'm the fascist who smeared our troops for having opinions , and a million dollars to me is like a parking ticket to most of you, but I have enough faith in your ignorance that you'll come up with half of my CYA money"
Thanks for your opinion.
Your reality denial ability is noted
It wasn't really intended for you, Bushliesanditmakesmehorny- you've more than demonstrated your inability so tell fact from opinion, and your resistance to reality on this thread.
If I remember right, you used to at least try to keep up here. I think you're out of bullets.It has been entertaining watching your self-destruction, but it may be time to get another wacky screen name and start at zero once again.
Good luck.
You're correct, HBL... Limbaugh got his big, fat, cysty ars in a crack by demeaning the troops. He was obviously so worried about his image that his people had to come up with this gimmicky auction to bail him out. It's for a good cause, indeed...but Limbaugh's motives are entirely self-serving.
For the life of me I can't understand how all of the right wing bedwetters suck up to this draft dodging blowhard.
If someone weasels out of the military, what kind of magic bullsh_t do you need to sprinkle on yourself to become a 'real man" in the eyes of the guys who are fighting today.
One thing I know for sure, he'd have to wallow in a ton of it.
Hey, we're not talking about Bill Clinton here.
So you're saying that all of the right wing bedwetters are sucking up to Bill Clinton?
I must have missed that.
Of course not that wouldnt make sense. We are talking about Rushindownthedrugaddictionmountian
"Those 41 twits who put their names on that letter are despicable human beings who are drunk with their own power. They have lost sight of the fact that they are supposed to be servants to the people."
I'm assuming that you disapprove, as I do, of politicians taking time away from the public's business to intimidate political speech. I assume that you also, as I do, feel the same way about earlier Congressional attempts to intimidate Moveon.org's use of political speech.
Right, patriot?
LIMBAUGH: I'm still amazed how long this has survived.
Limbaugh is a lying piece of crap...but we already knew that. "Amazed" at how long the controversy has survived. Uhhhh, Rush maybe the fact that you wouldn't let it go and railed about it for weeks had something to do with its longevity.
And why didn't Alan Colmes ask Lying Limbaugh about his conversation with Mark from Chicago just moments before the "phony soldiers" comments. Absolutely pitiful...
IRONY:
I feel sorry for you and the other Media Matters myrmidons here. hy don't you join us in the military and do something useful with your life.
Koolaid, I feel sorry for you. You need all the help and protection you can get because you are obviously not very smart if you believe Rush Limbaugh represents anything associated with goodness. You are not very smart if you believe George Bush and the various reasons he gave for putting your arse on the line. You are a fool, Koolaid.
Beck joins in on Rush's side too, per a thread on FDL today. MMFA if you haven't seen it you should. I pity whoever has to dig through it.
Harry Reid and 39 or so other Democrats are now memorialized for their abuse of power against a US citizen. Harry then tries to take credit for the good that comes out of his travesty by using the word "we" in describing the money made on the EBAY auction. He also fails to mention that Ruch Limbaugh matches the high bid of $2,100,100 with an equal contribution.
Harry, you are a pathetic loser and you and your 40 fellow DemocRATS owe Rush Limbaugh a public apology. Your actions continue to work against the interests of our fighting men and women in the armed services.
Today I received my FOIA request for Russ Hudson Limbaugh III,(Sel. Ser Number 23-16-51-18) Selective Service Classification History.
Seems like old Rusty Limbaugh just didn't understand about what reporting to the SS any changes in his status meant. He carried a High School deferment from 2-24-69 till 11-23-69. His high school class graduated in May '69. How does one stay in high school to around Thanksgiving Day? Rusty then hopped right into college, where he held a college deferment till 11-24-70.
Receiving a 1-Y classification on Nov 24,1970, with this found in the "Remarks Column"; We have found no record which provides the speceafic reason the registrant was found "conditionally acceptable for service"
By Feb 21-1972 as the war was finally coming to a end for troops on the ground Rusty receives his vaunted 4-F rating!
Wonder what type of BS story, Rush has to say about the above!
WOW!!! Fascinating! Now let's hear about Harry Reid's military service.............oh, wait.
Better yet...let's talk about George W. Bush's alleged service and Dick Cheney's lack of it.
Or maybe Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton's service. How about Nancy Pelosi, or Barbara Boxer, or Barack Osama? Man, we could go on all night. Better yet, let's just tally it up: Who has more members in Washington with military service? The democrat party or the Republican party? This could be fun.
BTW, Irony, classic liberalism. "Yeah, Bush served in the military, but he really didn't." Demonize Bush, whatever it takes, right?
Maybe this will help.
[link to www.awolbush.com]
No, it won't.
Of course not FACTS mean nothing to the Limborg. Only the voice of the master of assimilation matters. You are a waste of precious oxygen
How many American deaths and Iraqi civilian deaths are Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer and Harry Reid responsible for, moron? How many are Bush, and Cheny responsible for/ And whose their cheerleader in chief/ Rush Limbaugh/ You just don't get and, short of an integrity transplant, you never will. Crawl back in your hole...
Well, Hillary, Nancy, Barbara, and Harry authorized the military action, so.............ALL OF THEM! Shared responsibility of course.
Yea, sure, Bushie...it was their idea to invade Iraq. Riiiiight...
Yeah, I guess that makes sense to the Limborg
Limorg, Hivemind, Oxymoron.........every darn post. *Yawn*
And yet you STILL dont get the point and KEEP regurgitating the talking points, avoiding plain facts and calling them opinions, and generally being the epitome of the hiveminder. Repitition is a wingnut hiveminders native language, I just dont believe you can possibly understand anything else. I am just trying to communicate with a substandard intellect.
Bill Clinton? 3000 on 9/11 alone.
What a crock of sh*t. In your pea brain, you believe that 9/11 happened because Bill Clinton didn't stop it even though he hadn't been President for 8 months. Nice try.
Is anything ever the fault of little Georgie? He had 8 months to stop this attack--8 MONTHS! But he did nothing. NOTHING ! Gee, it almost seems as though he wanted this attack to happen. I wonder why that might be you freaking idiot.
"BTW, Irony, classic liberalism. "Yeah, Bush served in the military, but he really didn't." Demonize Bush, whatever it takes, right?"
Second point first: Demonize Hillary, whatever it takes, right?
Main point:
I don't pretend to be able to speak for "the troops" of my time. I can truthfully tell you however, that a hell of a lot, if not the majority, of guys I served with (Sept 66 - June 68), both here and overseas, HATED NG's and AR's. Those guys used connections to get safe gigs and get credit for military service, while our asses were on the line. About twenty years ago the country remembered that, and Dan Quayle had a lot of questions to answer about how he got into the Guard. Bush, however, got a free pass from that imaginary liberal media of yours, both on cocaine and privilege. He said he hadn't gotten in to the Texas ANG through connections; we now know that to have been a lie. Then, while he was Governor of Texas, his records just happened to disappear. How convenient. So, actually, we know he got into the military, but we don' know that he served. We do know that he was AWOL for a required physical, and gave up flight status rather than take it. Yet you and the kid "respect his service" while denigrating the blood shed by real men like Jack Murtha, Max Cleland and John Kerry. Nauseating.
CONCHOBHAR
I couldn't agree more. I don't have a problem with the guys who went into the AR and NG who were willing to admit they did it to avoid Vietnam. I can respect them.
But as you said, many like Quale and GWB claimed to be supporters of the war that you and I had to fight.
That is hypocrisy at it's highest level.
The one thing that really still pisses me off, is the fact that at every meat during basic training and Infantry training, the NGs and ARs were always put before the draftees in line at the mess hall.
Should have read at "every MEAL" not every meat.
Although they did serve something that might have been some kind of meat.
Yes, John "the Bactine Kid" Kerry was quite a war heor.
It's good to see that a coward like you has recognized that fact.
When YOU get a Silver Star and a Bronze Star get back to us you ignorant, jealous piece of human garbage
Or Rahm Emanuel, who wore a tutu when other men his age were wearing military uniforms.
How many of the Media Matters sissies served in the military?
You're nothing more than one of those phoney soldiers that Rush was talking about. A real Marine would know how to spell Marine, and he wouldn't drag US citizens through the mud for any reason. You drag them through the mud because you disagree with them.
Prove you're a Marine and tell me what department issues your paychecks to you.
Senator Reid would not have been eligible for the draft during the War in Vietnam, having been born in 1939.
Most of your heroes evaded their own service. maybe if some had gone, they'd think differently about sending someone else to fight today.
Oh, but he would have been eligible to volunteer, right? But he didn't do that. BTW, the draft was in effect when pinky graduated high school, but he went right into college. Hmmmmm, maybe he and Rush aren't so different.
Don't believe me. Try this one on for size. Harry Reid was 18 years old when Elvis was drafted. So he was draft eligible. You're welcome.
He was eligible but how many people were drafted in 1957 and how many were drafted in 1969?
You're playing games.
You'd do anything to protect your heroes who had "other priorities" wouldn't you?
I'm not playing games. You lied and I corrected you.
No he didnt lie. YOU are stupid and cant even recognize a cogent point. NOT volunteering is NOT avoiding the draft.
He said Reid was not draft eligible. That is a lie.
You are right. He was wrong about that, so was I, completely wrong.
If you had even the most basic reading comprehension, you would have understood the following from my post:
"Senator Reid would not have been eligible for the draft during the War in Vietnam, having been born in 1939."
The key phrase being, "during the War in Vietnam".
And you call me a liar for that statement. Please, if you have anything meaningful to add to the discussion, please speak up. If you're just going to make wild accusations, no one's going to take you seriously.
Even with the qualifier "during the Vietnam War," you're still incorrect. Reid was of draft age during Vietnam.
Reid had as much expectation of being drafted as George W had of ever going to Vietnam.
None, Zero.
You have no idea what you're talking about.
Any Marine who would ridicule any service members injuries in combat might be still able to be called a Marine, but he loses the right to be called a man.
Such a person might be entitled to be called scum.
I think that ship has sailed. No one in their right mind could POSSIBLY take him seriosly.
Sure he was. All qualified men were eligible for the draft when Pinky Reid was of draft age.
Worrierking
In 1957,138,504 men were drafted. In 1969, 283,586, men were drafted
The population of Nevada in 1957 was roughly 293,000, verses New York's population of roughly, 20,006,183
Which state would have a larger percentage of men drafted at 18, Nevada or New York?
Thanks for the info, Mercado. I was going to do the research and then realized that no matter what I came up with, our friend would find a way to support Limbaugh.
I do know that in 1969 when I was drafted, they were drafting more than one hundred people per week from our largest cities.
I served with guys who had a lot worse physical problems than a pilonidal cyst, but at the time, medical deferments were not easy to come by.
Thanks, Mercado. I wouldn't waste any more time destroying BushliestomeandIswallow's posts.He/She is now on the official roster of those who are impervious to reality.But way to send him/her off with a bomb.
The fact that Rush is going outside the cozy confines of his studio speaks volumes. Rush NEVER does this. How often has he consented to an interview outside his own set parameters. Granted, Fox news is as close to home as he can be, but still, the weasel NEVER opens himself up to honest debate. Old Rush and his syndicators must be worried or he wouldn't be interrupting his evening oxy high.
Actually, Rush challenged Pinky Reid to a debate, but the latter chickened out.
Here's the summation for all of you guys:
The children of dead Marines and Policemen are going to (at least) receive $4.2 million dollars because Rush Limbaugh is a genius and Harry Reid is a complete waste of carbon and water.
"...because Rush Limbaugh is a genius..."
LOL...More like because Rush Limbaugh stepped on his dong by insulting the troops and then had to buy his way out of it.
At least some good will come out of it, though...
Rush is just the voice in your head. He is about as much a genius as Jeffery Daumer is a Saint.
Hey Solon, I really enjoy that 'hivemind' thing. Would you mind greatly if I used it a lot too? :-)
Share the wealth my friend
Do I have to pay royalties?
Public Domain. Star Trek is part of the cultural heritage
BUSHLIES:
Do you have any idea what the total medical bills were for the FROST children, as a result of that terrible car accident?
I'm guessing that $4.1 million would just about cover the medical treatment for just those two kids. A substantial chunk of money, to be sure, but it doesn't take much trauma these days to take the invoices up in the millions.
My point? As an influential media personality, it might be better for America for Limbaugh to address ACTUAL problems through workable policy discussion and proposal, than making a gesture which will only affect a tiny fraction of those with needs.
"Noblesse Oblige" just won't cut it.
I think it's time for Media Matters to move on. You're beating a dead horse and I can give you 2,100,100 reasons why the country thinks MM and the Dems are just foolish, silly caricatures over this issue. Give it a rest.
To claim at one point that you were referring to one person, and that at another point claim you were referring to that person and others like him isn't much on an inconsistency.
In the past, I have had respect for this web site. I hope future claims of inconsistencies are not going to be backed up with such flimsy evidence.
Misssssssss-ter Limbaugh's casting aspersions on someone else's alleged journalistic malpractice is like Lindsay Lohan casting aspersions on someone else for having a little drinkie -- it would be hilarious if it weren't so sad.
I particularly liked limbaughs statement about 'those who never served, you know, the phony solders.' The irony of that statement is amazing. And equally amazing that his audience swallows it.
I scanned the listings on this section and I think I can sum up 90% of the posts.
1. Bush is stupid
2. Anyone who listens to Rush can't think for themselves.
3. Lots of insults that are frankly pretty boring to read.
It would be much more interesting to hear people on the left actually rebut the substance of Rush's comments instead of just calling him an oxymoron and other such insults. Let me throw something out that I didn't see any comments on to hear what you guys think.
I saw a clip of a speach by Hillary in which she claimed that she helped start Media Matters for America. How is it that Media Matters bolds that section of Rush's comments as factually incorrect when Hillary herself is making these claims? Rush appears to be mearly taking Hillary's lead. Media Matters appears to be unfairly parsing Rush's words in this instance and Rush did a good job of turning the tables with his auction. Frankly I don't see the significance of whether Rush did a morning update the day before or the day of his phony soldiers comment - seems to be a lot of meaningless noise.
Perhaps Limbaugh and his dittoheads could take some time from their "phony soldier" b.s. to read Stars & Stripes, and listen to some "real" soldiers:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A32521-2003Oct15¬Found=true
Mary, I checked out your link.
Why do you hate America, the Baby Jesus and the flag? Bushlies and Kozakid are going to wet their Toughskins if they read that.
138000 troops in Iraq--1935 questionares-Let us conclude???
This is definetly the "Free Logic Zone""
It becomes that once you wingnuts show up. Apparantly you dont understand how polls are done. Adult education look into it.
Do you understand the term 'Statistical Sampling?'
If the poll read the oposite would you then agree with it?
Just admit you're in over your head, and we'll give you a helping hand. We try to educate the ignorant here at MMFA.
Adult Ed huh--Well it computes to be w/ .5 % error min sample would be 20000
I don't get what all the fuss is about. I listen to talk radio regularly and was listening Rush the day he made the original statement. I understood exactly what he was was talking about. The rest of the media is just tired of Rush killing them in the ratings and they are just waiting to pounce on anything and everything he says, whether it's true or not.
What about the context of Limbaugh's shows? It was obvious and apparent to everyone who listens to him regularly exactly who he was talking about. Context is everything.
If s-chip is expanded than the gov has found another way to take money from our paycheck. I am sick of being told what I should fund. I am not so sure why so many of you are so excited about being told where your money is going next.
Every time the gov..Rep.,or Dems. try to help us out we always seem to have to grab another Job to pay for their negligence with our tax dollars!!!!!
Lush may be a "short haired, pill-popping maggot", but he is not sicking his hand in your back pocket.
They need to take the current money that is their and expand the s-chip, not soke us for more of our money.
Free logic zone