Limpbaugh clubs "phony soldiers"

[high fly]

http://mediamatters.org/items/200709270010

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.




Rush wanted to serve, but unfortunately had a pilonidal cyst
http://images.google.com/images?q=Pilonidal+cyst&hl=en&rlz=1T4TSHB_enUS208US208&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=X&oi=images&ct=title This is pretty gross - probably too disgusting for work...






.

[foodcourtdruide]

It is such an idiotic and insane way of thinking, yet he has millions of listeners each day, some of whom parrot his every word.

[Death Metal Moe]

It is such an idiotic and insane way of thinking, yet he has millions of listeners each day, some of whom parrot his every word.

Yup.

I wish there was an intervention available for Conservative radio fans. When I detached myself for a few weeks, I just looked back at what I was doing and was disgusted. These fucking hosts are the worst.

[foodcourtdruide]

Yup.

I wish there was an intervention available for Conservative radio fans. When I detached myself for a few weeks, I just looked back at what I was doing and was disgusted. These fucking hosts are the worst.

They really screw up the political discourse in this country. They present the extreme side on almost every issue, which often isn't even the Republican point of view.

[LiddyRules]

They really screw up the political discourse in this country. They present the extreme side on almost every issue, which often isn't even the Republican point of view. And the Democrats just cower in fear afraid to take people like Limbaugh on so they just nod their head and hope not to get on Limbaugh's bad side. These people have beat the Democrat's ass for over a decade and the Democrats still haven't figured out a way to take them on. And the non-extreme Republicans want to win so they won't go against the party line or the pundits (but who can blame them?).

[IamFogHat]

http://mediamatters.org/items/200709270010





Rush wanted to serve, but unfortunately had a pilonidal cyst
http://images.google.com/images?q=Pilonidal+cyst&hl=en&rlz=1T4TSHB_enUS208US208&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=X&oi=images&ct=title This is pretty gross - probably too disgusting for work...



The best part of this thread is that you felt that that link was probably too disgusting for work.

[Tenbatsuzen]

And the Democrats just cower in fear afraid to take people like Limbaugh on so they just nod their head and hope not to get on Limbaugh's bad side. These people have beat the Democrat's ass for over a decade and the Democrats still haven't figured out a way to take them on. And the non-extreme Republicans want to win so they won't go against the party line or the pundits (but who can blame them?).

What are you fucking TALKING about? There's an entire RADIO NETWORK for liberal views. It's not Rush's fault that no one listens.

[Thrice]

What are you fucking TALKING about? There's an entire RADIO NETWORK for liberal views. It's not Rush's fault that no one listens.

I'm glad SOMEBODY responded to that. I wanted to but I was too busy cowering in fear.

[DarkHippie]

What are you fucking TALKING about? There's an entire RADIO NETWORK for liberal views. It's not Rush's fault that no one listens.

Even I don't listen to Air America

[Midkiff]

Rush is a fat cunt.

[scottinnj]

Yup.

I wish there was an intervention available for Conservative radio fans. When I detached myself for a few weeks, I just looked back at what I was doing and was disgusted. These fucking hosts are the worst.

Same Here. Thank God for Ron and Fez and O and A. Rush is old hack radio now. I had my car in the shop a while back, borrowed a car without XM and listened to terrestrial radio for a week. Caught a couple of Rush Limbaugh episodes, which I used to never miss in the 90s. I couldn't believe how dumb he sounded. I still am a conservative, but the delivery, Jesus Christ he was like Mancow!

[high fly]

And the Democrats just cower in fear afraid to take people like Limbaugh on so they just nod their head and hope not to get on Limbaugh's bad side. These people have beat the Democrat's ass for over a decade and the Democrats still haven't figured out a way to take them on. And the non-extreme Republicans want to win so they won't go against the party line or the pundits (but who can blame them?).

What the hell are you talking about?
People have been taking on Limpbaugh going back to when he was making racist remarks while covering the Kansas City Royals.

And when it comes to ass beating, that's what the Republicans got in the last election because of their support for this disaster Bush has brought on us in Iraq. The Republicans will get another ass beating next year if they don't abandon ship.


But Liddy, you touch on a key point here.
People like Limpbaugh and Manatee have placed winning above the national interest.
They are not bothered that 3,800 Americans are dead because the Bush administration could not bring itself to be honest with the American people.
As long as they remain in power, it doesn't matter how many of our finest citizens have to die or how many trillion dollars get fluished down the toilet.

To be more to the point, in this case winning justifies sliming the careers of those who have joined our military.
Winning justifies entering charges of being a "traitor" into the regular political discourse when faced with someone who has a different opinion.

Sliming someone's military career and service is dispicable when it is a case like the MoveOn.org ad, Limpbaugh's comments, the Not-So-Swift-Boaters or anyone else when it is made upon such flimsy evidence and for such obvious political gain.


Certain words have power and deep meaning to them that is lost by misuse, and we must be careful to not rob them of their meaning. "Traitor" is one, "holocaust" is another, and so are all the dumbass Hitler references.

No matter which side of the political fence you are on, this shit has got to stop.

[TheMojoPin]

What are you fucking TALKING about? There's an entire RADIO NETWORK for liberal views. It's not Rush's fault that no one listens.

There's an obvious difference in how the extreme Right radio hosts have effectively galvanized the modern neo-con movement into something the Republicans have been able to mobilize and point in their direction whenever they need them and then how the Left supposedly "has" Air America, which exists as a seperate entity that has little to nothing influence with any active Democratic political movements, and the Democrats are completely scattershot when it comes to responding to these type of attacks. If you honestly think the two are even remotely close in structure and scale, you're completely avoiding reality. So in short, his point in that the Democrats haven't figured out a way to cohesively or successfully respond the to Right's media machine and influence, he's 100% correct. If you honestly think Air America does that, you're only kidding yourself.

[LiddyRules]

There's an obvious difference in how the extreme Right radio hosts have effectively galvanized the modern neo-con movement into something the Republicans have been able to mobilize and point in their direction whenever they need them and then how the Left supposedly "has" Air America, which exists as a seperate entity that has little to nothing influence with any active Democratic political movements, and the Democrats are completely scattershot when it comes to responding to these type of attacks. If you honestly think the two are even remotely close in structure and scale, you're completely avoiding reality. So in short, his point in that the Democrats haven't figured out a way to cohesively or successfully respond the to Right's media machine and influence, he's 100% correct. If you honestly think Air America does that, you're only kidding yourself. Thanks Mojo, you explained my point better than I could.

[foodcourtdruide]

There's an obvious difference in how the extreme Right radio hosts have effectively galvanized the modern neo-con movement into something the Republicans have been able to mobilize and point in their direction whenever they need them and then how the Left supposedly "has" Air America, which exists as a seperate entity that has little to nothing influence with any active Democratic political movements, and the Democrats are completely scattershot when it comes to responding to these type of attacks. If you honestly think the two are even remotely close in structure and scale, you're completely avoiding reality. So in short, his point in that the Democrats haven't figured out a way to cohesively or successfully respond the to Right's media machine and influence, he's 100% correct. If you honestly think Air America does that, you're only kidding yourself.

QFT!

[sailor]

Limpbaugh and Manatee

really? wow. next, write something about bu$h.

[scottinnj]

Sliming someone's military career and service is dispicable when it is a case like the MoveOn.org ad, Limpbaugh's comments, the Not-So-Swift-Boaters or anyone else when it is made upon such flimsy evidence and for such obvious political gain.


THANK YOU!
QFT! QFT! QFT!

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

[scottinnj]

What are you fucking TALKING about? There's an entire RADIO NETWORK for liberal views. It's not Rush's fault that no one listens.


You forgot MSNBC. The only "conservative" on that channel is the mealy-mouthed moderate Joe Scarborough.

The sad part of Air America is that it tanked so bad, the network was sold for a mere 6.5 million, because the buyers had to spend so much money getting the payroll up to date.

[Midkiff]

http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb274/cuntymcslut/im-in-ur-medsin-cabnit-steelin-ur-d.jpg

[TheMojoPin]

You forgot MSNBC. The only "conservative" on that channel is the mealy-mouthed moderate Joe Scarborough.

The sad part of Air America is that it tanked so bad, the network was sold for a mere 6.5 million, because the buyers had to spend so much money getting the payroll up to date.

Air America is failing because most of its content is simply bad radio, period. One of the main reasons Rush et al were able to have such a grip on so much of the populace is that they at the very least do or did put out radio shows that would at leach catch your interest. Air America is just bad, politics be damned.

And don't try and paint MSNBC as a "liberal network." Again, the Left has nothing even close to the representative mouthpiece that the Right has with Fox News. People seem to want to equate Olbermann's show as somehow defining all of MSNBC...that's the only possible way someone could see is being "liberal" as a whole.

[Death Metal Moe]

http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb274/cuntymcslut/im-in-ur-medsin-cabnit-steelin-ur-d.jpg

::giggle::

[scottinnj]

And don't try and paint MSNBC as a "liberal network." Again, the Left has nothing even close to the representative mouthpiece that the Right has with Fox News.

Dude, you have got to be kidding. Fox News is to the Republicans what MSNBC is to the Democrats.

There is no difference in the partisanship the two networks emote. MSNBC is left wing, Fox News is right wing.

[LiddyRules]

Dude, you have got to be kidding. Fox News is to the Republicans what MSNBC is to the Democrats.

There is no difference in the partisanship the two networks emote. MSNBC is left wing, Fox News is right wing. Except Republicans use Fox News to their advantage while Democrats run and hide from MSNBC.

And the Democrats are a lot more like moderates than actual left wingers. The Republicans have no problem waving the right wing banner and they and FOX are in a comfy little bed together. The Democrats hide from a left wing or liberal label and have yet to use a single media source in the intertwined way Republicans do. The Democrats and Air America might have more similar values than something like Democrats and FOX but they never united. And so many lefties see Democrats as "their" party just because they're not Republicans. It has more to do with "enemy of my enemy is my friend"/"lesser of two evils" than true ideological similarities. And that is why I think the Democrats are really weak.

[scottinnj]

Except Republicans use Fox News to their advantage while Democrats run and hide from MSNBC.



I hate to disagree with all of you, because it is a matter of perception. But how many debates have MSNBC televised for the Democrats? A couple more then Fox has for the Democrats.

Democrat candidates have run from Fox because of pressure from Moveon on MediaMatters.

Or indirectly, George Soros. <evil conspiracy laugh can be heard from cyberspace>

It isn't really an argument for which party is using the media the best. It is just a fact that
Fox on the whole wants a Republican President in 2008
MSNBC on the whole wants a Democrat President in 2008

[TheMojoPin]

It isn't really an argument for which party is using the media the best. It is just a fact that
Fox on the whole wants a Republican President in 2008
MSNBC on the whole wants a Democrat President in 2008

So what? That doesn't somehow make them comparable in function or political influence.

[LiddyRules]

Story has legs as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has publicly slammed Limabugh and wants Congress to issue yet another condemnation against Limby.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/01/reid.limbaugh/index.html?section=cnn_latest

[TheMojoPin]

OK, this whole "congress scolding the media" crap is getting worrisome.

[LiddyRules]

OK, this whole "congress scolding the media" crap is getting worrisome. Exactly why the moveon.org controversy bothered me so much.

I really can't believe Congress is getting into this whole "eat our own" thing. Of all the problems in this country- at home and abroad- Congress is focusing on people who say mean things.

[sr71blackbird]

I kind of like how guys like him and even Oreilly are not going down easy. If we all really care about censorship, we should all be applauding this, whether we agree with them politically or not.

[badmonkey]

Story has legs as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has publicly slammed Limabugh and wants Congress to issue yet another condemnation against Limby.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/01/reid.limbaugh/index.html?section=cnn_latest

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00344

The same Harry Reid that voted "Nay" on S.Amdt. 2934 "To express the sense of the Senate that General David H. Petraeus, Commanding General, Multi-National Force-Iraq, deserves the full support of the Senate and strongly condemn personal attacks on the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all members of the United States Armed Forces."

Not surprised at all. The rest of the 25 that voted nay?

Akaka (D-HI)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Byrd (D-WV)
Clinton (D-NY)
Dodd (D-CT)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Levin (D-MI)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Murray (D-WA)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)

"Just as patriotism is the exclusive realm of neither party, taking a stand against those who spew hate and impugn the integrity of our troops is a job that belongs to all of us." --Harry Reid

Fine words when you can use them to attack Limbaugh, but last week you refused to speak out against MoveOn.org in defense of Petraeus?

On Thursday, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, a veteran of the Vietnam War, called the comments a "disgusting attack." "In a single moment on his show, Limbaugh managed to question the patriotism of men and women in uniform who have put their lives on the line and many who died for his right to sit safely in his air-conditioned studio peddling hate," Kerry said in a statement

Guess Kerry doesn't really have a problem with people attacking members of the military afterall? Oh right... we already knew that.

Reid and Kerry make it too easy, but it's all worth it as long as it makes the other party look bad I guess. All members of both houses of congress should be sent back to kindergarten for basic education in how to play nice with the other children.


Badmonkey

[TeeBone]

Is this the P.O.T.U.S. 08 thread?

If so, I like it.

[torker]

Q:Where does Rush Limbaugh keep his armies?

[scottinnj]

Guess Kerry doesn't really have a problem with people attacking members of the military after all? Oh right... we already knew that.


Dude, I was right with you until that. As much as I campaigned against Kerry in 04, and defended Bush against the phony National Guard story, I loathed the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth for going after Kerry's Vietnam service. As a veteran, I bet there are people I served with who could make up stories about me if I ever ran for public office. But I have an equal amount of friends I served with who would say the opposite. The Kerry situation was a "he said, he said" situation, and the only truth that was ever present in that debate was Kerry's DD214, which had Three (3) Purple Hearts, Two (2) Bronze Stars and One (1) Silver Star. There is no question those awards were given to him.

If Swift Boats Veterans for Truth wanted to debate his post-Vietnam behavior, fine. His public statements and throwing the awards over the White House fence and his voting record in public office was a perfectly legitimate debate LOST because of the smear campaign SVBfT lobbied at Kerry.

[epo]

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00344

The same Harry Reid that voted "Nay" on S.Amdt. 2934 "To express the sense of the Senate that General David H. Petraeus, Commanding General, Multi-National Force-Iraq, deserves the full support of the Senate and strongly condemn personal attacks on the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all members of the United States Armed Forces."

Not surprised at all. The rest of the 25 that voted nay?

Akaka (D-HI)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Byrd (D-WV)
Clinton (D-NY)
Dodd (D-CT)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Levin (D-MI)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Murray (D-WA)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)

"Just as patriotism is the exclusive realm of neither party, taking a stand against those who spew hate and impugn the integrity of our troops is a job that belongs to all of us." --Harry Reid

Fine words when you can use them to attack Limbaugh, but last week you refused to speak out against MoveOn.org in defense of Petraeus?

On Thursday, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, a veteran of the Vietnam War, called the comments a "disgusting attack." "In a single moment on his show, Limbaugh managed to question the patriotism of men and women in uniform who have put their lives on the line and many who died for his right to sit safely in his air-conditioned studio peddling hate," Kerry said in a statement

Guess Kerry doesn't really have a problem with people attacking members of the military afterall? Oh right... we already knew that.

Reid and Kerry make it too easy, but it's all worth it as long as it makes the other party look bad I guess. All members of both houses of congress should be sent back to kindergarten for basic education in how to play nice with the other children.


Badmonkey

A. This whole argument of Moveon & Crash Limbaugh is stupid and the Congress shouldn't have bothered with the deal when the Republicans introduced it last week. This is a game of one-upsmanship that the neo-cons started and now the democratics are gonna finish.

B. Save your false outrage about John Kerry. It's fake and it's tiresome.

C. If this goes to a vote, your outrage should go to the members of your party who vote YES on one of the condemnations and NO on another. I know that's how I'll judge this trainwreck.

[badmonkey]

A. This whole argument of Moveon & Crash Limbaugh is stupid and the Congress shouldn't have bothered with the deal when the Republicans introduced it last week. This is a game of one-upsmanship that the neo-cons started and now the democratics are gonna finish.

B. Save your false outrage about John Kerry. It's fake and it's tiresome.

C. If this goes to a vote, your outrage should go to the members of your party who vote YES on one of the condemnations and NO on another. I know that's how I'll judge this trainwreck.

Scott: You're exactly right and I did mean his post-Vietnam behavior. The testifying at congress and accusing the soldiers of warcrimes not whether he earned his medals. I'm not going to pretend to debate the valor of his service record in Vietnam. That's between him and the military and not for me to judge. Somebody thought he deserved medals and they got pinned on his uniform. That's probably all we really need to know.

epo: False outrage? Kerry returned from Vietnam and accused his fellow troops of war-crimes. If you listen to his congressional testimony, he said he commited war crimes. His actions say he's got no issue with trashing of people in the military.

You can save your false outrage for Limbaugh and all the congress is stepping on our freedoms crap for their condemnation of MoveOn. This is an attempt to shut Limbaugh down because mediamatters disagrees with him politically. Didn't like it when it was Imus and O&A, but suddenly it's fine with you for somebody to go after Limbaugh because you disagree with him. Freedom of speech my ass.

Badmonkey

[scottinnj]

Scott: You're exactly right and I did mean his post-Vietnam behavior. The testifying at congress and accusing the soldiers of warcrimes not whether he earned his medals. I'm not going to pretend to debate the valor of his service record in Vietnam. That's between him and the military and not for me to judge. Somebody thought he deserved medals and they got pinned on his uniform. That's probably all we really need to know.



Then we are on the same page.

[Yerdaddy]

Dude, you have got to be kidding. Fox News is to the Republicans what MSNBC is to the Democrats.

There is no difference in the partisanship the two networks emote. MSNBC is left wing, Fox News is right wing.

I'm sorry buddy but this is the claim that's been made a thousand times here and never ever backed by evidence. You'll have to prove that MSNBC is the left-wing equivalent of Fox "News". I and others have been challenging conservatives to back the claim up for years and we're still waiting. The fact is that not only is MSNBC or the "mainstream media" not predominantly liberal, (and certainly nowhere near as liberal as Fox is conservative), but the mainstream news agencies are fundamentally different from Fox "News" in terms of content, (with the cable news agencies being closer than network news or print media). Fox is predominantly opinion (pursuasive style of delivering its content) and that content is overwhelmingly conservative. It is not in fact predominantly a "News" agency but a conservative advocacy organization, based on its content and style of delivery. You cannot make the same claim of any mainstream news organization.

I've made that same argument a hundred times over the years and no conservative has even tried to challenge it. Therefore the burden of proof is on conservatives who make the equivalency claim to back it up with proof. MSNBC is not the liberal equivalent of Fox "News".

[Yerdaddy]

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00344

The same Harry Reid that voted "Nay" on S.Amdt. 2934 "To express the sense of the Senate that General David H. Petraeus, Commanding General, Multi-National Force-Iraq, deserves the full support of the Senate and strongly condemn personal attacks on the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all members of the United States Armed Forces."

Not surprised at all. The rest of the 25 that voted nay?

Akaka (D-HI)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Byrd (D-WV)
Clinton (D-NY)
Dodd (D-CT)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Levin (D-MI)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Murray (D-WA)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)

"Just as patriotism is the exclusive realm of neither party, taking a stand against those who spew hate and impugn the integrity of our troops is a job that belongs to all of us." --Harry Reid

Fine words when you can use them to attack Limbaugh, but last week you refused to speak out against MoveOn.org in defense of Petraeus?

On Thursday, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, a veteran of the Vietnam War, called the comments a "disgusting attack." "In a single moment on his show, Limbaugh managed to question the patriotism of men and women in uniform who have put their lives on the line and many who died for his right to sit safely in his air-conditioned studio peddling hate," Kerry said in a statement

Guess Kerry doesn't really have a problem with people attacking members of the military afterall? Oh right... we already knew that.

Reid and Kerry make it too easy, but it's all worth it as long as it makes the other party look bad I guess. All members of both houses of congress should be sent back to kindergarten for basic education in how to play nice with the other children.


Badmonkey

And of course you won't acknowledge the fact that while a majority of Democrats voted to condemn moveon.org's insult of the general NO Republicans have or will condemn Limbaugh's insult of the soldiers in Iraq. It's just one of the million demonstrations that to you and to most Republicans in office and in the public the soldiers are merely tools to further your political agenda. Loyalty to ideology and/or party comes before the country, our soldiers or any principle. It's to the point where it's painfully obvious to any objective spectator and yet you people keep fighting and fighting for the banner of conservatism uber alles. You won't say shit when the majority of US casualties in Iraq are from IEDs fashioned from explosives that Republican war planners left unsecured in numerous weapons depots during the invasion. You said dick when the soldiers were having parents shipping them body armor and were inventing "Hillbilly Armor" for their vehicles because the Republican-controlled Pentagon failed to supply them with the armored Hum-Vees they needed to protect them. You had nothing to say when the Washington Post broke the story that wounded soldiers were living in shit conditions and recieving inadequate medical care at Walter Reed and other military hospitals. And when it was reported recently that delivery of the most effective protection for soldiers against the IED, the MRAP vehicle, was being delayed by as much as a year (after already being delayed by months) and the procurement officer in charge of the program offered up the excuse that it was because the vehicles were "targets" of insurgents - as though any other vehicle or in fact an American uniform itself was a "target" of insurgents - you and the conservative mainstream said DICK! AND ALL OF THIS SILENCE IS SIMPLY BECAUSE THERE'S A REPUBLICAN IN THE WHITE HOUSE!

You can piss and moan about the statements of Democrats all you want. But when YOUR party actually fucks over soldiers you demonstrate what you really care about.

And I don't give a fuck about the statements at issue in this thread or Congress wasting time fighting their ideological battles. All I want is for the people of the dominant political ideology of today - conservatives - to snap the fuck out of your war against liberalism and take care of the soldiers that you actually can help! If YOU had shown a little anger at the Bush administration for neglecting to protect American soldiers from the beginning there wouldn't be an armor shortage in Iraq today and Walter Reed would have never been run by political ideologues like every other executive branch institution because the White House would have been afraid of YOU! We might not even be losing in Iraq today if you hadn't been so willing to trust the Fox "News" mantra that everything was tits and beer in Iraq for the first three years and it was the "mainstream media" that was lying about all the bad stuff because they hate Bush. It's your blind loyalty in the face of everything that scares the shit out of me the most in America.

Maybe some day conservatives will have discredited themselves so much that liberals can dominate so pervasively that they go batshit insane. When that happens I'll obsessively rail against them. But right now it's you conservatives. Pull your fucking heads out please. For the troops, if nothing else.

[Zorro]

And of course you won't acknowledge the fact that while a majority of Democrats voted to condemn moveon.org's insult of the general NO Republicans have or will condemn Limbaugh's insult of the soldiers in Iraq. It's just one of the million demonstrations that to you and to most Republicans in office and in the public the soldiers are merely tools to further your political agenda. Loyalty to ideology and/or party comes before the country, our soldiers or any principle. It's to the point where it's painfully obvious to any objective spectator and yet you people keep fighting and fighting for the banner of conservatism uber alles. You won't say shit when the majority of US casualties in Iraq are from IEDs fashioned from explosives that Republican war planners left unsecured in numerous weapons depots during the invasion. You said dick when the soldiers were having parents shipping them body armor and were inventing "Hillbilly Armor" for their vehicles because the Republican-controlled Pentagon failed to supply them with the armored Hum-Vees they needed to protect them. You had nothing to say when the Washington Post broke the story that wounded soldiers were living in shit conditions and recieving inadequate medical care at Walter Reed and other military hospitals. And when it was reported recently that delivery of the most effective protection for soldiers against the IED, the MRAP vehicle, was being delayed by as much as a year (after already being delayed by months) and the procurement officer in charge of the program offered up the excuse that it was because the vehicles were "targets" of insurgents - as though any other vehicle or in fact an American uniform itself was a "target" of insurgents - you and the conservative mainstream said DICK! AND ALL OF THIS SILENCE IS SIMPLY BECAUSE THERE'S A REPUBLICAN IN THE WHITE HOUSE!

You can piss and moan about the statements of Democrats all you want. But when YOUR party actually fucks over soldiers you demonstrate what you really care about.

And I don't give a fuck about the statements at issue in this thread or Congress wasting time fighting their ideological battles. All I want is for the people of the dominant political ideology of today - conservatives - to snap the fuck out of your war against liberalism and take care of the soldiers that you actually can help! If YOU had shown a little anger at the Bush administration for neglecting to protect American soldiers from the beginning there wouldn't be an armor shortage in Iraq today and Walter Reed would have never been run by political ideologues like every other executive branch institution because the White House would have been afraid of YOU! We might not even be losing in Iraq today if you hadn't been so willing to trust the Fox "News" mantra that everything was tits and beer in Iraq for the first three years and it was the "mainstream media" that was lying about all the bad stuff because they hate Bush. It's your blind loyalty in the face of everything that scares the shit out of me the most in America.

Maybe some day conservatives will have discredited themselves so much that liberals can dominate so pervasively that they go batshit insane. When that happens I'll obsessively rail against them. But right now it's you conservatives. Pull your fucking heads out please. For the troops, if nothing else.


Trying to establish a moral equivalency between these two stories is like comparing apples to screwdrivers. The best way to handle Limbaugh was the Tom Harkin method "maybe he's on drugs again". Limbaugh feeds off everything else...

[Death Metal Moe]

I wish they'd just leave Rush alone. He's gonna milk this with his fucking audience as much as he can and make himself look like a victim here. He's going to work his core audience up into a froth making them think he's being silenced and his speech is being limited.

[TheMojoPin]

You can save your false outrage for Limbaugh and all the congress is stepping on our freedoms crap for their condemnation of MoveOn. This is an attempt to shut Limbaugh down because mediamatters disagrees with him politically. Didn't like it when it was Imus and O&A, but suddenly it's fine with you for somebody to go after Limbaugh because you disagree with him. Freedom of speech my ass.

Am I excused since I actually DID enjoy it when people went after Imus and O&A? OK, thanks.

And again with the "freedom of speech" bit. Mediamatters and Rush Limbaugh are private citizens. "Freedom of speech" exists to protect our right to free speech from government infringement. The scary freedom of speech issue here is our elected officials ruling to condemn Rush and MoveOn.org for their opinions, not conflicts between private citizens.

[epo]

epo: False outrage? Kerry returned from Vietnam and accused his fellow troops of war-crimes. If you listen to his congressional testimony, he said he commited war crimes. His actions say he's got no issue with trashing of people in the military.

You can save your false outrage for Limbaugh and all the congress is stepping on our freedoms crap for their condemnation of MoveOn. This is an attempt to shut Limbaugh down because mediamatters disagrees with him politically. Didn't like it when it was Imus and O&A, but suddenly it's fine with you for somebody to go after Limbaugh because you disagree with him. Freedom of speech my ass.

Badmonkey

Nice Slippery Slope Argument!

A. I have no outrage in the Rush/Move On case. I think it's stupid and childish...rather I it interesting those who cheer for one & boo the other, that goes for Congress and the populus. This has been such a distraction case anyways...red meat for the animals so we have something to pay attention to other than the real issues of the day.

I do notice something interesting though...where is the outrage over the American Conservative's October 8th issue featuring General Petraeus (http://www.amconmag.com/2007/2007_09_24/article2.html)? The cover is entitled Sycophant Savior and the article rips Petraeus and his handling for being a "political general" rather than a military general. A conservative magazine that said exactly what MoveOn.org said....huh?

I don't want Congress to waste anytime with any of it...but it's interesting they haven't said shit about the magazine and their portrait of General Petraeus. Double standard much?

B. Rip on John Kerry for his post-war activities? Yawn. Seriously...how tiresome is this argument? Remember Kerry testified before Congress as a civilian, hence his opinions were his own. And those opinions, which you may not like, were directed at the LEADERSHIP of the military and not those in the military themselves. So you can stop this ridiculous neo-con talking point of "Kerry hates the military" as it's just wrong.

Kerry volunteered to fight for his country and then after doing so, attempted to defend the military in a way that he thought was right. And for anyone to rag on him for that doesn't understand freedom of speech.

C. What the hell does Media matters have to do with this anyways? You are simply attempting to name organizations to blame without merit in this case. Pointing fingers to point fingers. Did media matters say what Rush said? No Rush said it and media matters was one of a thousand organizations to point it out.

[A.J.]

I do notice something interesting though...where is the outrage over the American Conservative's October 8th issue featuring General Petraeus (http://www.amconmag.com/2007/2007_09_24/article2.html)? The cover is entitled Sycophant Savior and the article rips Petraeus and his handling for being a "political general" rather than a military general.


All Generals and Admirals are political. If they weren't, they wouldn't get to be Generals and Admirals.

My old boss ADM Mike Mullen just took over as CJCS yesterday. The comments I most often read about this were that "he knows Washington".

[Doogie]

What I find here is almost the 'military poser' mentality. People are speaking for guys that are over there doing a job. To say that people want to go their and fight cause that is what they believe in is a lil bit of a pipe dream too. Guys get orders, they go do what they have to do, and Godwilling come home.

What I see in this transcript is the attitude of frustration that is coming from this war being as protracted as it is. If you support it, you are a warmonger, zombie, follower, etc. If you oppose it you are a liberal (as if that is a disparaging term), a quitter, a traitor. My point being is there are a guys that are frustrated with having done two, three, hell four plus tours over there. And they are speaking their mind, something that Mr. Limbaugh should support their right to do, and not call them "phony soldiers."

Hell, I guarantee you go through any war where someone is winning, their is a unit of soldiers that are bitching. Even when they know the war is almost won. I didnt make that point to say we are winning, nor am I saying we are losing I am just showing you a soldiers perspective. To make it a little more personal, I never got deployed over there and am thankful for it. If I had gotten the call I would have of went there, did what I had to do, and hopefully come home. Before I left a couple friends of mine were going to sandbox 1 (Afghanistan) for a second tour cause the generals feel the Air Force should do their keep in this war. Even if some of our guys werent trained to fight as Marines and Army guys are.

Going back to the poser thing, we have a lot of people talking about military matters where they have knowledge, but no real experience or total understanding of how things work. So it is easy to critisize when you hear it. Rush must fancy himself a Patton, sans the West Point training and the colt .45 with the pearl handle.

Just one man's opinion.

[Furtherman]

Dude, you have got to be kidding. Fox News is to the Republicans what MSNBC is to the Democrats.

There is no difference in the partisanship the two networks emote. MSNBC is left wing, Fox News is right wing.

It is not in fact predominantly a "News" agency but a conservative advocacy organization, based on its content and style of delivery. You cannot make the same claim of any mainstream news organization.

I've made that same argument a hundred times over the years and no conservative has even tried to challenge it. Therefore the burden of proof is on conservatives who make the equivalency claim to back it up with proof. MSNBC is not the liberal equivalent of Fox "News".

Exactly.

Everybody I know who likes to parrot Fox News, I always tell them to watch Outfoxed (http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/1808583146/info).

Thankfully, I've been able to turn a couple people off to Fox News' bullshit. Others find it hard to believe, even though they're hearing testimony from experts and former employees. Like it or not, you won't find any other expose on any other televised mainstream news organization.

[foodcourtdruide]

More false outrage, this time from the dems.

[A.J.]

Rush must fancy himself a Patton, sans the West Point training and the colt .45 with the pearl handle.

"They're ivory. Only a pimp from a New Orleans whorehouse would carry a pearl handle."

http://www.homevideos.com/freezeframes2/Patton14.jpeg

[Furtherman]

More false outrage, this time from the dems.

Political pandering aside, Rush has NO RIGHT to label ANY man or woman who fought in Iraq a phony, no matter what their opinion.

People listen to that pill head?

[Doogie]

"They're ivory. Only a pimp from a New Orleans whorehouse would carry a pearl handle."

http://www.homevideos.com/freezeframes2/Patton14.jpeg

Ha ha ha...I realized my mistake as I saw your quote. Goddamn that had me loffing.

[foodcourtdruide]

Political pandering aside, Rush has NO RIGHT to label ANY man or woman who fought in Iraq a phony, no matter what their opinion.

People listen to that pill head?

It completely amazes me that people listen to him. I love that mediamatters acts as a watchdog over conservative radio and calls them on their B.S. ESPECIALLY after this statement, how could anyone take what he says seriously?

[Death Metal Moe]

I just read the posts about the whole "MSNBC is the Liberal equiveliant to FOX News" stuff from some people in this thread. I just don't see it.

I've found FOX to be sickeningly Conservative and CNN to lean way too far to the Left. But MSNBC always seemed much more middle of the road.

But I haven't watched TV in a couple years so maybe they changed.

[badmonkey]

And of course you won't acknowledge the fact that while a majority of Democrats voted to condemn moveon.org's insult of the general NO Republicans have or will condemn Limbaugh's insult of the soldiers in Iraq. It's just one of the million demonstrations that to you and to most Republicans in office and in the public the soldiers are merely tools to further your political agenda. Loyalty to ideology and/or party comes before the country, our soldiers or any principle. It's to the point where it's painfully obvious to any objective spectator and yet you people keep fighting and fighting for the banner of conservatism uber alles.

I didn't call out "all", "a majority", or even "most" democrats in my post. I called out Reid and Kerry on their hypocrisy. My dad is a retired USAF Colonel with well over 20 yrs of service. I was rejected by the Marines and AirForce due to a broken wrist that surgery wouldn't fix after doing a year of ROTC in college just in case it healed right. The military is a tool to further my political agenda? Kiss my ass. You know nothing about my history with the military. I guess the democrats aren't fucking over the military. I guess Clinton didn't close any bases or reduce the size of the military. I guess the Democrat led Senate unanimously approved a Bush loving liar to head up the troop surge in Iraq.

Nevermind, the plan of the Democrats for how to deal with Iraq is to invent a time machine so they can not invade Iraq in the first place. It must be nice to be able to say the other side is wrong and never have to say what you would do different or how you are going to fix it.

Bah..

Badmonkey

[epo]

I guess the democrats aren't fucking over the military. I guess Clinton didn't close any bases or reduce the size of the military. I guess the Democrat led Senate unanimously approved a Bush loving liar to head up the troop surge in Iraq.


How is supporting the military expanding bases or increasing the size of the military? That's like saying that I love my car so much I bought another for no reason. It's simply crazy talk!

For the record, after the Cold War, the Secretary of Defense in 1988 (Frank Carlucci) noted the need to close excess bases after the end of the Cold War. The Commission on Base Realignments & Closure (BRAC) was then born. I believe they have gone into 4 waves of base closings since 1988 as a consequence. Furthermore Donald Rumsfeld was a huge proponent of "right-sizing" the military.

I don't see how that has jack shit to do with "fucking over the military", but rather a proper management of the nation's resources. And blaming Clinton & the Democrats for that is udderly ridiculous.


Nevermind, the plan of the Democrats for how to deal with Iraq is to invent a time machine so they can not invade Iraq in the first place. It must be nice to be able to say the other side is wrong and never have to say what you would do different or how you are going to fix it.

Bah..

Badmonkey

I love this argument. Your kid messed up his room and now it's the parent's job to clean it up? On every level the Iraq War the Republicans are completely 100% to blame. They controlled every branch of government at the time and the Democrats had no say whatsoever. Furthermore Bush & Co. did a tremendous job of bullying them around to shut up and comply.

I agree that the Democrats should offer solutions and have offered a few along the way. However this administration has shit on every solution that has been offered by the other side of the aisle. The lack of bipartisanship is simply shocking and GW Bush has that hanging on his head as well on the tally sheet of a failed presidency.

[CofyCrakCocaine]

I am tersely unimpressed with both political parties for practicing politics in an atmosphere of what I dub, "Ballless Lethargy"- something both sides are guilty of (the Democrats certainly are more guilty of it due to the fragmentary nature of their political beliefs versus the consolidated power-base of uniformity that the Republicans enjoy; but times, they are a changing). That said, I would lean more towards supporting Democrats because for whatever screw ups Dems made in the past, Republicans could have fixed that problem in the long time they've had power and did nothing to alleviate it.

Closed down bases? Well, the Republicans had a massive opportunity to open up more bases and recruit lots more people voluntarily to the military post-9/11. Did they do that? No. In fact, I think the Republicans announced their intentions to close down a significant number of bases a couple years ago. So they did exactly what you damn the Democrats of doing- only the Republicans are doing this during war-time. I suppose because the guys who did this are Republican, they're doing it the right way and it's for the best, whereas when the Democrats did it, it was to weaken our defensive infrastructure and put our nation at risk (even though this was during peace-time).

Fox News Story (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,156370,00.html)
USA Today Story (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-08-24-base-closings-review_x.htm)
New York Times Story (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9805E2DD1E30F937A25756C0A9639C8B 63)

There's the evil Liberal and evil Conservative media's respective stories on the matter so we can all be happy and read the articles and think for ourselves, MAYBE. Then we'll re-examine the validity of Mr.Monkey's complaints against the Democrats in the sub-text of noting that he has not once mentioned this far more current issue for motivations unknown to us. (when pigs fly)

Also, just because you *wanted* to join the Marines and didn't wind up doing so doesn't give you any more validity to speak for the Marines as it does Rush Limbaugh (or Yerdaddy for that matter).

You are just saying you wanted to join the Marines for your own reasons. That's fine. But there's still plenty more out there who joined for whatever reasons... you aren't the be-all and say-all of Military spokesmen. Just for yourself. Each person joins for their own reasons/motivations/beliefs. I wanted to join because I wanted more discipline and I wanted to be part of something I'd be proud of. I'm sure people have joined for the political gain. Though that's usually when someone joins on as an Officer which requires a lot of planning and preparation and schooling and training (hard to imagine all that effort has zero political motivations for 100% of the world) ... In today's world, you become a general, you better have a little political ambition. That don't make you a bad person, in my opinion. It's how far you're willing to sink to make political gain that does that for ya.

Which is to say, you're a civilian. And you can have your opinions. But I agree with Doogie's sentiments about "military posers". I think Scott is one of the only people who has posted so far on this thread who has a military background and been in action. I could be wrong about that, I don't have everyone's biographies handy. But going on what I Know right now, Scott is the only one in a good position to make any semi-valid statements one way or another about people in the military. And he hasn't made any real judgmental comments about the soldiers one way or another. That's significant.

Even if he does have opinions against other soldiers, that still don't mean he speaks for everyone else in the Corps... or the Air Force... or the Navy... or the Regular Army... and so on... and it definitely does not mean those he doesn't speak for are "lesser/phony/faggy/traitorous" soldiers. That's why Rush is a fat pontificating douchebag who has no validity to what he says in this case- and I personally consider his persecuting veterans as 'traitors' and 'not real soldiers' because they are different from him politically the true treason. Just my take.

[badmonkey]

My point wasn't that I'm a military spokesman. My point was that I do have a tremendous respect for the military and the people that volunteer to serve this country in it's ranks. That respect comes from having grown up in the military around military bases and military people, having lots of friend and relatives in the military. My brother is currently in the Army. My brother-in-law died in Iraq.

Any outrage in there left for the people that spit on the marines in the airport or is there only room for that when it comes to Limbaugh? I didn't hear anybody complain about any of these statements made by Democrats that "support the troops".

"We've to get the job done there and that requires us to have enough troops so that we're not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous pressure over there.'' (http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6847696,00.html) -- Obama

"If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime--Pol Pot or others--that had no concern for human beings. Sadly, that is not the case. This was the action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners." (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2005_record&page=S6594&position=all) -- Dick Durbin

"Well, Soledad, this is what worries me. We're fighting a war about America's ideals and democracies ideas and something like this happens and they try to cover it up. They knew the day after this happened that it was not as they portrayed it. They knew that they went into the rooms, they killed the people in the taxi. There was no firing at all. And this comes from the highest authority in the Marine Corps. So there's no question in my mind. And I don't know how. That's what we have to find out." (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0605/30/ltm.06.html) -- John Murtha

May 17, Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) let the news slip out. In the middle of a rambling statement at the outset of a news conference on Capitol Hill, he said -- almost as an aside -- that what happened in Haditha was "much worse than reported in Time magazine." He asserted that the investigations would reveal that "our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them, and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood." "They actually went into the houses and killed women and children. And there was about twice as many as originally reported by Time." (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/03/AR2006060300710_pf.html) -- John Murtha


This makes interesting reading too if you're curious about who runs Media Matters. Feel free to look at the organizations in the bios
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-usclin074880328sep07,0,5183234.story

http://mediamatters.org/about_us/staff_advisors

Media Matters ties to MoveOn.org and George Soros (http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=%5CSpecialReports%5Car chive%5C200503%5CSPE20050303a.html)

http://www.americanprogress.org/aboutus

Good thing we have non-partison watchdogs like MediaMatters to tell us when we should be outraged.

Badmonkey

[epo]

Our generals in both the Army and Marine Corps have cared more about their precious careers and reputations than their soldiers and Marines under them. (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,298203,00.html) - FoxNews.com

Yawn.

[TheMojoPin]

My point wasn't that I'm a military spokesman. My point was that I do have a tremendous respect for the military and the people that volunteer to serve this country in it's ranks. That respect comes from having grown up in the military around military bases and military people, having lots of friend and relatives in the military. My brother is currently in the Army. My brother-in-law died in Iraq.

Any outrage in there left for the people that spit on the marines in the airport or is there only room for that when it comes to Limbaugh? I didn't hear anybody complain about any of these statements made by Democrats that "support the troops".

"We've to get the job done there and that requires us to have enough troops so that we're not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous pressure over there.'' (http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6847696,00.html) -- Obama

"If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime--Pol Pot or others--that had no concern for human beings. Sadly, that is not the case. This was the action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners." (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2005_record&page=S6594&position=all) -- Dick Durbin

"Well, Soledad, this is what worries me. We're fighting a war about America's ideals and democracies ideas and something like this happens and they try to cover it up. They knew the day after this happened that it was not as they portrayed it. They knew that they went into the rooms, they killed the people in the taxi. There was no firing at all. And this comes from the highest authority in the Marine Corps. So there's no question in my mind. And I don't know how. That's what we have to find out." (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0605/30/ltm.06.html) -- John Murtha

May 17, Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) let the news slip out. In the middle of a rambling statement at the outset of a news conference on Capitol Hill, he said -- almost as an aside -- that what happened in Haditha was "much worse than reported in Time magazine." He asserted that the investigations would reveal that "our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them, and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood." "They actually went into the houses and killed women and children. And there was about twice as many as originally reported by Time." (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/03/AR2006060300710_pf.html) -- John Murtha


This makes interesting reading too if you're curious about who runs Media Matters. Feel free to look at the organizations in the bios
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-usclin074880328sep07,0,5183234.story

http://mediamatters.org/about_us/staff_advisors

Media Matters ties to MoveOn.org and George Soros (http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=%5CSpecialReports%5Car chive%5C200503%5CSPE20050303a.html)

http://www.americanprogress.org/aboutus

Good thing we have non-partison watchdogs like MediaMatters to tell us when we should be outraged.

Badmonkey

Are you really using the whole "who supports the troops" argument? What are all those quotes and articles saying that's so terrible? I just finished reading them and I saw nothing that could possibly be taken as "bashing the troops" except by people who view anything except blind and total praise of anything even remotely related to the military as "attacking the troops." It's such a total non-point. People want to treat the military as if it exists in a vacuum where everything is positive and it ultimately has nothing to do with the bigger picture.

And who the hell was even arguing that MediaMatters was partisan in the first place? If you can prove their points wrong, do so. "Proving" that they lean Left does nothing to actually respond to any of their reports.

[A.J.]

For the record, after the Cold War, the Secretary of Defense in 1988 (Frank Carlucci) noted the need to close excess bases after the end of the Cold War. The Commission on Base Realignments & Closure (BRAC) was then born. I believe they have gone into 4 waves of base closings since 1988 as a consequence. Furthermore Donald Rumsfeld was a huge proponent of "right-sizing" the military.

Part of this too was/is the result of the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) that has taken place since 1997, 2001 and 2006 I believe.

Rumsfeld indeed wanted to "right-size" the military as well as "transform" it. The latter term refers to changing the process by which weapon systems go from conception to development to production. The Pentagon has been using the same Planning, Programming and Budgeting System (PPBS) that Robert McNamara instituted as SECDEF in the 1960s. The way technology is constantly evolving these days, the exisitng process is too slow to get the most modern technology to the warfighter.

[badmonkey]

Are you really using the whole "who supports the troops" argument? What are all those quotes and articles saying that's so terrible? I just finished reading them and I saw nothing that could possibly be taken as "bashing the troops" except by people who view anything except blind and total praise of anything even remotely related to the military as "attacking the troops." It's such a total non-point. People want to treat the military as if it exists in a vacuum where everything is positive and it ultimately has nothing to do with the bigger picture.

Murtha declaring marines guilty of murder without a trial.
Obama says the troops are just air-raiding villages and killing civilians.
Durbin compares them to Nazi's and says they have no care for human beings.
Oh... sorry...I stand corrected.


And who the hell was even arguing that MediaMatters was partisan in the firstplace? If you can prove their points wrong, do so. "Proving" that they lean Left does nothing to actually respond to any of their reports.

As often as I have been called out for sourcing politically biased groups, websites, newspapers, etc.... this response just makes me smile. The next time I quote a conservative, I will expect you to prove their point wrong rather than proving they are the biased unfiltered mouthpiece of the neo-con movement.

Our generals in both the Army and Marine Corps have cared more about their precious careers and reputations than their soldiers and Marines under them. (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,298203,00.html) - FoxNews.com

Yawn.

Excellent article. Did you read it? His complaint is that the generals won't stand up to people that are forcing them to fight a politically correct war and those generals should get the hell out of the way and let somebody that's ready to fight the war take over.

"So we now are so gun shy, so afraid and so massively politically correct, that we are treating combat like a police shooting. In most cities in this great country, if a police officer even shoots his weapon, he or she must face a board of inquiry. It makes the police officers crazy and causes all to look over their shoulders and to not trust their leaders -- but that is in a peaceful city, not a damn war zone."

Headline might say "Fox News Bashes Generals". Article says "Ex-Military Colonel sick of PC Bullshit Fucking With His Soldiers"

[NewYorkDragons80]

I think Rush is a hindrance to sane political discourse in this country, but this isn't quite what it seems. Jesse Macbeth was a soldier for a couple months who lied about serving in Iraq to help the anti-war cause. He's been Rush's talking point for a little while and the comment was most likely a reference to him. However, Rush is no stickler for context himself, so karma is at play, I suppose.

[NewYorkDragons80]

I've found FOX to be sickeningly Conservative and CNN to lean way too far to the Left. But MSNBC always seemed much more middle of the road.
As John McCain said to Chris Matthews, (paraphrasing) CNN is left of center, Fox is right of center and MSNBC depends on the host.

[foodcourtdruide]

As often as I have been called out for sourcing politically biased groups, websites, newspapers, etc.... this response just makes me smile. The next time I quote a conservative, I will expect you to prove their point wrong rather than proving they are the biased unfiltered mouthpiece of the neo-con movement.



This is not an opinion piece or mediamatters citing some off the wall statistic that would take a team of researchers to prove. They literally just have the transcript of what Rush said on his show.

[badmonkey]

ABC News Report on "Operation Stolen Valor" Monday, Sept 24, 2007
It's about "phony soldiers".

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/JwnW08uUCLY"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/JwnW08uUCLY" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

Nah... no way he could have been referring to anything like that. He covers news and current events on his show. He probably didn't even know of or talk about this story on his show.

He probably hadn't read this article (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/332642_fakevet22.html) and posted it as the background link on his website to this morning podcast on Sept 24th to be aired on Sept 25th, which was also played immediately after terminating the phonecall according even to the transcripts (http://mediamatters.org/items/200709280009?f=h_top) on MediaMatters.org.

Inconvenient Truth
The anti-war left has its celebrities, and one of them was "Army Ranger" Jesse MacBeth. Now, what made the 23-year-old "corporal" a hero to the anti-war crowd was not his Purple Heart or his being afflicted with post-traumatic stress disorder from tours in Afghanistan and Iraq.

No -- what made "Army Ranger" Jesse MacBeth 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 said he had witnessed in Iraq. American soldiers killing unarmed civilians -- hundreds of men, women, and even children. In one gruesome account, translated into Arabic and spread widely across the Internet, MacBeth describes the horrors this way: "We would burn their bodies... hang their bodies from the rafters in the mosque."

Recently Jesse MacBeth, the poster boy for the anti-war left, had his day in court. He was sentenced to five months in jail [and] three years' probation for falsifying a Department of Veterans Affairs claim; his Army discharge record, too. Yes, Jesse McBeth was in the Army. Briefly. 44 days. Before he was washed out of boot camp. MacBeth is not an Army Ranger; he is not a corporal; he never won the Purple Heart; he was never in combat to witness the horrors he claimed to have seen.

But don't look for retractions, folks -- not from the anti-war left, the anti-military Drive-By Media, or the Arabic websites that spread his lies about our troops. Fiction serves their purposes; the truth, to borrow a phrase, is inconvenient to them.

Read the Background Material on the Morning Update...

(Seattle Post-Intelligencer: Fake Veteran Gets 5-month Sentence) (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/332642_fakevet22.html)

You're right... no need to do any research. MediaMatters debunks itself. Brilliant.

Badmonkey

[foodcourtdruide]

Here's the conversation:

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.



The caller CLEARLY states that phony soldiers are soldiers that are not proud to serve in Iraq. Limbaugh doesn't disagree with him, just goes on to his next innane point. This is why I think Limbaugh meant that soldiers that ideologically disagree with him are phony soldiers. Also, do you believe they are talking JUST about MacBeth? If they were, they're insinuating that MOST soldiers interviewed are fakes like MacBeth was. Like the media is rampantly interviewing pretend soldiers. If there is more context that I'm missing, please let me know, but from what I see above I don't see how Limbaugh was talking about MacBeth.

[TheMojoPin]

Murtha declaring marines guilty of murder without a trial.
Obama says the troops are just air-raiding villages and killing civilians.
Durbin compares them to Nazi's and says they have no care for human beings.
Oh... sorry...I stand corrected.

Yes, they are clearly calling out those who have ordered or enagaged in military actions that, with some hyperbole obviously included, go beyond the usual "call of duty" in terms of what is "right" for our military to do. None of them are making blanket statements about all members of our military...they're talking about the worst aspects of our military. Unless you're saying that anyone in a uniform is exempt from any kind of condemnation and criticism, I really don't see what they said that was so horrible. You're spinning their quotes WAY beyond what they're clearly saying in those articles...clear to anyone that reads them without already making up their minds or desperate to find statements that can be tenuously spun in an attempt to make the speakers look like "soldier haters," which is a complete non-argument in the first place that pundits use to trap anyone daring to attempt to have a legitimate political debate or discourse.

As often as I have been called out for sourcing politically biased groups, websites, newspapers, etc.... this response just makes me smile. The next time I quote a conservative, I will expect you to prove their point wrong rather than proving they are the biased unfiltered mouthpiece of the neo-con movement.

Smile away. I have no problem doing this because I do it all the time. Same with guys like HBox and Yerdaddy. Simply pointing out a perceived bias is ultimately useless and hollow and does nothing to actually counter a point or argument.

[foodcourtdruide]

Here's the conversation:

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.



The caller CLEARLY states that phony soldiers are soldiers that are not proud to serve in Iraq. Limbaugh doesn't disagree with him, just goes on to his next innane point. This is why I think Limbaugh meant that soldiers that ideologically disagree with him are phony soldiers. Also, do you believe they are talking JUST about MacBeth? If they were, they're insinuating that MOST soldiers interviewed are fakes like MacBeth was. Like the media is rampantly interviewing pretend soldiers. If there is more context that I'm missing, please let me know, but from what I see above I don't see how Limbaugh was talking about MacBeth.

I'd also like to state that congress should stay out of this, and they should have stayed out of the moveon.org ad.

[angrymissy]

I'd just like to say that all I ever see on MSNBC is those Prison Specials and reruns of To Catch a Predator. THAT DAMNED LIBERAL CHANNEL!

[Sneaky Fucking Russian]

Man i hope Rush runs into one of the "Iraqi Veterans for peace" guys at a bar. They will show him what's fake.

[Yerdaddy]

I didn't call out "all", "a majority", or even "most" democrats in my post. I called out Reid and Kerry on their hypocrisy. My dad is a retired USAF Colonel with well over 20 yrs of service. I was rejected by the Marines and AirForce due to a broken wrist that surgery wouldn't fix after doing a year of ROTC in college just in case it healed right. The military is a tool to further my political agenda? Kiss my ass. You know nothing about my history with the military. I guess the democrats aren't fucking over the military. I guess Clinton didn't close any bases or reduce the size of the military. I guess the Democrat led Senate unanimously approved a Bush loving liar to head up the troop surge in Iraq.

Nevermind, the plan of the Democrats for how to deal with Iraq is to invent a time machine so they can not invade Iraq in the first place. It must be nice to be able to say the other side is wrong and never have to say what you would do different or how you are going to fix it.

Bah..

Badmonkey

Let me just point out that Badmonkey replied to my criticism that he devotes his energies to nitpicking the statements of individual Democrats and ignores the overall substantive issues that effects the lives and deaths of American soldiers by editing out my reference of substantive issues that effect the lives and deaths of American soldiers and further nitpicks new Democrats’ statements. And even on those he misses the significance to the military. Clinton closed bases therefore he hates the military. Never mind that the base closures, begun under Bush Sr. were a reflection of the end of the Cold War and the predominant threat being nuclear combat toe-to-toe with the Ruskies and it’s replacement with the kind of asymmetrical warfare we’re seeing in Iraq, and which in part we weren’t prepared for because we hadn’t closed enough bases and diverted those resources to developing the kind of military that was armed to fight an insurgency, (see the IED thread for the fact that MRAP technology is 30 years old but it’s only four years into the war that we began a concerted effort to equip a substantial portion of our troops with them.

Then he harps on the fact that Democratic critics of the war aren’t in power so don’t have to come up with effective war plans – in order to excuse the administration that IS in power and who DID have to come up with effective war plans but DIDN’T.

Then he sites more Democratic quotes and pretends that they WERE’NT referencing the specific crimes of Abu Ghraib and Haditha, which commanding officers have counted as two of the events most destructive to the overall war effort.

Finally he pulls off Limbaugh’s own website the story of a guy who lied to indy news sites, (that even I, as an activist for five years have never heard of), to argue that it’s legitimate for Limbaugh to equate any soldier who appears in the media with views contrary to his own with this “phony soldier”. He can’t even see that the patently offensive rationale Badmonkey is vigorously defending is that any soldier who doesn’t express Limbaugh’s view of the war is a “phony soldier” just like this criminal liar.

And still not a peep about the lack of armor, failure to secure the weapons caches that are now the biggest killers of our troops, the awful decisions like disbanding the Iraqi military with weapons in hand or de-Baathifying the entire country from ministry experts to school teachers, or the neglect of returning wounded soldiers.

The arguments he does make are not only trivial but ridiculously specious, (if he’s supposed to be beyond criticism on the issue of soldiers’ issues because he tried to get into the military why doesn’t he apply that same standard to Kerry and Murtha who are both decorated combat veterans?). But it’s the arguments that he won’t make, namely that are critical of his co-ideologues, that say the most.

[badmonkey]

Let me just point out that Badmonkey replied to my criticism that he devotes his energies to nitpicking the statements of individual Democrats and ignores the overall substantive issues that effects the lives and deaths of American soldiers by editing out my reference of substantive issues that effect the lives and deaths of American soldiers and further nitpicks new Democrats’ statements. And even on those he misses the significance to the military. Clinton closed bases therefore he hates the military. Never mind that the base closures, begun under Bush Sr. were a reflection of the end of the Cold War and the predominant threat being nuclear combat toe-to-toe with the Ruskies and it’s replacement with the kind of asymmetrical warfare we’re seeing in Iraq, and which in part we weren’t prepared for because we hadn’t closed enough bases and diverted those resources to developing the kind of military that was armed to fight an insurgency, (see the IED thread for the fact that MRAP technology is 30 years old but it’s only four years into the war that we began a concerted effort to equip a substantial portion of our troops with them.

Then he harps on the fact that Democratic critics of the war aren’t in power so don’t have to come up with effective war plans – in order to excuse the administration that IS in power and who DID have to come up with effective war plans but DIDN’T.

Then he sites more Democratic quotes and pretends that they WERE’NT referencing the specific crimes of Abu Ghraib and Haditha, which commanding officers have counted as two of the events most destructive to the overall war effort.

Finally he pulls off Limbaugh’s own website the story of a guy who lied to indy news sites, (that even I, as an activist for five years have never heard of), to argue that it’s legitimate for Limbaugh to equate any soldier who appears in the media with views contrary to his own with this “phony soldier”. He can’t even see that the patently offensive rationale Badmonkey is vigorously defending is that any soldier who doesn’t express Limbaugh’s view of the war is a “phony soldier” just like this criminal liar.

And still not a peep about the lack of armor, failure to secure the weapons caches that are now the biggest killers of our troops, the awful decisions like disbanding the Iraqi military with weapons in hand or de-Baathifying the entire country from ministry experts to school teachers, or the neglect of returning wounded soldiers.

The arguments he does make are not only trivial but ridiculously specious, (if he’s supposed to be beyond criticism on the issue of soldiers’ issues because he tried to get into the military why doesn’t he apply that same standard to Kerry and Murtha who are both decorated combat veterans?). But it’s the arguments that he won’t make, namely that are critical of his co-ideologues, that say the most.

I may have picked a poor example with the base closings. When I remember that going on, I was in high school not paying attention to politics but I do remember that my dad and several others were irritated by it. The base closings apparently started way before BRAC. BRAC was when congress took responsibility away from DoD. I just found out more details on that myself the other day (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/brac.htm).

So, like I said, I may have picked a poor example with the base closings. The point I let you steer me away from was that Limbaugh has shown support for the military for years and is on military radio at the popular request of the soldiers and the chagrin of the democrats. You are so blinded by your ideology and the hope that somebody has finally "got him", that you can't see that they haven't "got him" at all.

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/jbzC6-N9mwM"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/jbzC6-N9mwM" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>
2:43 is about where Hillary says she started Media Matters and Center for American Progress.

Knowing that, it's really not surprising that the transcript that I took from Rush's website, but also resides on the MediaMatters website as a transcript from the show is not part of the context of this horrific offense. Even tho it was played immediately after the phonecall ended (http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200710/POL20071002b.html). You don't just throw clips up at the end of a phonecall like that if it's not on your mind during a radio show.

I'm not defending anybody calling anybody a "phony soldier" for not supporting the war in Iraq, because the action didn't happen. There's nothing there to defend and if it actually had taken place, I wouldn't defend it. You love putting words in my mouth that wouldn't otherwise exist. They fit your ideology and your perception of me based on the word "conservative", which only describes around 40-60% of my politics depending on the topic and a very small percentage of who I am overall.

BTW: Nice 3rd person references. Are you responding to me or talking about me?

Badmonkey

[Yerdaddy]

I may have picked a poor example with the base closings. When I remember that going on, I was in high school not paying attention to politics but I do remember that my dad and several others were irritated by it. The base closings apparently started way before BRAC. BRAC was when congress took responsibility away from DoD. I just found out more details on that myself the other day (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/brac.htm).

You didn't so much pick a poor example as you picked a standard conservative attack on Clinton that betrays the national security interests of the United States for the sake of attacking a Democratic President. I've heard that fucking attack a thousand times on this board: "Clinton closed bases because he hates the military and didn't want to protect America!" As it's been shown it's cherry picking information - Clinton closed bases - that ignores the national security context - defending the United States after the Cold War required restructuring the US military to defend against the new top security threats - in order to attack a political opponent. It's sacrificing the actual security of the United States for political gain and it has been a standard talking point among the conservative establishment - from the Limbaughs and O'Reillys to Republican members of Congress on Capitol Hill. It was a concerted efford by the idologues of your party and it did damage our national security by making it politically damaging for Clinton to carry out the important function of restructuring the military. I sat in on several Congressional hearings at the end of the Clinton presidency in which, with the C-Span cameras off, military commanders requested the depoliticization of the process so they could stop wasting money on obsolete bases and put the money where it needed to be. It was, like Somalia, an example of how the right lied to the public to blame Clinton for something that was not his fault - or even a bad thing - in order to restrict his actions as President and hurt him politically. Well it did restrict his actions in terms of delaying the defense restructuring process, (and tied his hands when he had a chance to act against the Rwandan genocide), and hurt him politically. Congratulations.

So that example of yours was not just a bad example, but an example of what you've done throughout this threat and others - ignoring the needs of the United States, (and glaring realities like the Cold War), in order to defend your party's political interests. So I believe you that you didn't think of that base closures example on your own. You repeated what you heard from conservative ideologues who themselves never thought enough to question what their pundits and politicians were telling them. And they also didn't consider the actual national security of the US enough to even think of the post-Cold War needs of the US or that those might have something to do with the base closings. They were too caught up in the phony ideological war and so were you.

So, like I said, I may have picked a poor example with the base closings. The point I let you steer me away from was that Limbaugh has shown support for the military for years and is on military radio at the popular request of the soldiers and the chagrin of the democrats. You are so blinded by your ideology and the hope that somebody has finally "got him", that you can't see that they haven't "got him" at all.

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/jbzC6-N9mwM"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/jbzC6-N9mwM" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>
2:43 is about where Hillary says she started Media Matters and Center for American Progress.

Hillary Clinton created Media Matters so it's insubmittable as evidence, is that what you're contending here? Well by that logic you found this video on the interent which was invented by Al Gore so it's insubmittable too. Moot point.

Knowing that, it's really not surprising that the transcript that I took from Rush's website, but also resides on the MediaMatters website as a transcript from the show is not part of the context of this horrific offense. Even tho it was played immediately after the phonecall ended (http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200710/POL20071002b.html). You don't just throw clips up at the end of a phonecall like that if it's not on your mind during a radio show.

I'm not defending anybody calling anybody a "phony soldier" for not supporting the war in Iraq, because the action didn't happen. There's nothing there to defend and if it actually had taken place, I wouldn't defend it. You love putting words in my mouth that wouldn't otherwise exist. They fit your ideology and your perception of me based on the word "conservative", which only describes around 40-60% of my politics depending on the topic and a very small percentage of who I am overall.

Another example of you stating falsehoods because of your devotion to your ideological soulmates. You link to a conservative column by a conservative columnist on a conservative website defending his fellow conservative pundit and you expect that to hold up as proof of something. But in fact that column simply restates Limbaugh's defense - that Limbaugh was referring specifically to Macbeth and not anti-war soldiers in the media as a whole because, he says, "After the call finished, Limbaugh told his audience: 'Here is a Morning Update that we did recently, talking about fake soldiers...'" Limbaugh made (nearly) this assertion on his own show and aired as evidence a clip he claimed was the "entire" segment that would show that the Macbeth piece came immediately after the "phony soldiers" comment and prove that he really meant "phony soldier" - Macbeth. But what he really did is air a clip that had edited out 1 mintue and 35 seconds from between the comment and the Macbeth segment. Now any objective spectator can read the short transcript posted above and see that he's refering to all soldiers who express anti-war opinions in the media. Reading the whole transcripts, with or without the minute 35 Limbaugh edited out, doesn't add context that that alters the obvious meaning within that exchange. But the fact that Limbaugh blatantly Nixonianly fabricated the evidence by chopping out a piece and claiming that it didn't exist only shows how deluded people like you really are because he knows you will ignore the elephant in the room, namely THAT HIS SHOW IS BROADCAST OVER THE RADIO AND CAN BE RECORDED AND REVIEWED TO SEE WHAT HE DID AND DID NOT SAY. Which is what Media Matters did here. (http://mediamatters.org/items/200709280009) Limbaugh's defense is a ball-faced lie, which he blatantly manipulated the evidence and fed it to you knowing you would swallow anything to defend your prophet. He knows you will find, on his or another conservative's website, some other lame attack on Media Matters, like the irrelevant Hillary statement about starting Media Matters, and ignore the fact that Media Matters will post Limbaugh's own broadcast that shows he's lying.

This shows a couple of things: One, that it doesn't really matter that Limbaugh fabricates his own defense - you dittoheads will swallow it whole and defend him to the death. But moreso that with the conservative ideology of today being driven by an entire media industry they are able to get you to go beyond even their own lies in defending them. The columnist you linked to did NOT say Limbaugh aired the piece "immediately" after the comment. He more factually said "After the call finished…” It was YOU who said “it was played immediately after the phonecall ended”. The columnist KNEW Limbaugh had doctored the evidence. His column ran on October 2. Limbaugh aired the phony segment on Sept. 28 and Media Matters had the complete original segment up the same day. The columnist chose his words carefully to defend Limbaugh by implying the segment came immediately after, but he chose his words carefully to stop short of specifically saying it did. YOU didn’t chose your words carefully because you trust these people unconditionally. They punked you and you took it willingly.

Another thing your parroting of Limbaugh’s defense does is continue to distract from the collection of logical fallacies that Limbaugh’s whole segment was made up of. The whole logical premise of the Macbeth piece was a straw man fallacy in the first place. Limbaugh was trying to define him as the “poster boy of the anti-war left” and the mainstream media when in fact the “media” outlets that did let themselves get taken by this guy were so far on the fringe that nobody here on this supposedly predominantly liberal board has ever even heard of them. He found an obscure story and used it as a straw man to mage glib generalizations about whole segments of society that aren’t loyal to his ideological world view. And he makes ass-loads of money from suckers like you in the process. That’s what Limbaugh does on every segment of every show he’s ever done. And these little controversies that crop up when he stumbles way out of the bounds of decency only serve as Kool Aid parties for dittoheads to reinvest in the man’s career of distortions. And you drank it up.

The final thing it shows is the difference between Media Matters and Limbaugh and his kind of hyperbole which is the bread and butter of modern conservatism – they have a legitimate methodology. Certainly not all liberal organizations do. But, thanks to the constant stream of falsehoods put forth by the right wing media industry all Media Matters has to do to sustain itself is record their subjects and make them available to the public. They don’t need to go on tirades about how Limbaugh and Hannity are destroying the fabric of society or even do much fact-checking at all. Usually what they collect speaks for itself when viewed by the unindoctrinated. Hell, in this case Media Matters was actually able to ADD context to Limbaugh’s words to make their case. I don’t know what all Media Matters does as an organization, but the stuff they do on “monitoring” Limbaugh and the others who do what he does is really assembly-line stuff. Liberal bias isn’t even required to do it. All you need is a radio with a tape recorder and a brain. They actually do little commentary in the pieces on this subject. And this is the kind of work that would be available from conservative organizations if the glib generalizations about the “liberal media” were true. Instead all you’ve got is heavily interpretive pieces using a collection of logical fallacies to make anecdotes look like general principles within the media as a whole. This is the kind of thing the right can’t produce because the evidence isn’t there to back up the claims.



BTW: Nice 3rd person references. Are you responding to me or talking about me?

Badmonkey

I was talking about you. I often find it pointless to directly address you because you’re so far gone it’s more useful to simply point out to the rest of the readers of these threads what you’re saying and not saying. For example, in this last response you’ve once again ignored all the real issues that effect soldiers in order to defend the smears of them by your hero. When everything you’ve argued in this thread is a red herring to distract from the real damage your co-ideologues have done to the military and thousands of individual soldiers it would be a disservice to them to keep addressing you and your fish and allow it to ignore their reality. Enjoy your Kool Aid.

Yer_Daddy

[badmonkey]

I never said that I "didn't think of" the base closings. I absolutely did because it was something I remember happening during the Clinton administration. It happened before the clinton administration. In fact, it happened before Reagan. It started in the 60's, so don't throw your end of the cold war bullshit at me.

Clinton created MediaMatters, a group whose sole purpose is to destroy conservative media. Their "evidence" isn't always as pure as they say it is. Fox news doesn't have as well defined and structured an agenda as MediaMatters.

The 90 secs that was "edited out" was part of that same phonecall. In fact, the 90 seconds edited out was the same soldier talking about VX and Mustard gas that is in the IED's in Iraq. If you read the MEDIA MATTERS transcript (http://mediamatters.org/items/200709280009), "Caller 2" and Mike, are the same person and he speaks to them right up til he plays that clip. How's that for honesty? Although, I'm starting to think that you can't read at all and have a secretary type out these thesis length diatribes that essentially regurgitate my points back to me after twisting them into something that I did not say and then adding a chapter or two of your own to them.

You're not the genius and political expert that your liberal friends here think you are. You're just another silly arrogant idealogue that loves to hear himself talk. Having an open mind is useless if your eyes are always shut to new information. You don't even think anybody else is smart enough to understand what I've written without you translating it into a bunch of stuff I didn't say. Better save them from the evil conservative. I have a political agenda that I have been pushing forward since before I was born. Even during my previous 30 yrs as a liberal begging my parents not to vote republican, it was all just a trick to fool my liberal friends into letting me inside their little circle so that I could eventually make George W. Bush into our king.

Seriously... lay off the coffee.

Badmonkey

[high fly]

For the record, after the Cold War, the Secretary of Defense in 1988 (Frank Carlucci) noted the need to close excess bases after the end of the Cold War. The Commission on Base Realignments & Closure (BRAC) was then born. I believe they have gone into 4 waves of base closings since 1988 as a consequence. Furthermore Donald Rumsfeld was a huge proponent of "right-sizing" the military.


For proof, all anyone need do is review the reasons our senator from Virginia, James Webb resigned from the Reagan administration.
They were planning wholesale cuts in the military that were not figured in terms of potential threats we may face.
These cuts continued during the Bush41 administration and after Desert Storm, then Secretary of Defense "Whatta" Dick B. Cheney told Congress not to send him any more planes and tanks and stuff.
The reductions continued during the Clinton administration.

To blame the Clinton administration for it all is simply to put on display the same craven responsibility-ducking and buck-passing we have been getting from right-wingers for the last 6 years.

[badmonkey]

For proof, all anyone need do is review the reasons our senator from Virginia, James Webb resigned from the Reagan administration.
They were planning wholesale cuts in the military that were not figured in terms of potential threats we may face.
These cuts continued during the Bush41 administration and after Desert Storm, then Secretary of Defense "Whatta" Dick B. Cheney told Congress not to send him any more planes and tanks and stuff.
The reductions continued during the Clinton administration.

To blame the Clinton administration for it all is simply to put on display the same craven responsibility-ducking and buck-passing we have been getting from right-wingers for the last 6 years.

The Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) process had its origins in the 1960s. Understanding that the Department of Defense (DOD) had to reduce its base structure that had been created during World War II and the Korean War, President John F. Kennedy directed Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara to develop and implement an extensive base realignment and closure program to adjust to the realities of the 1960s. The Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) subsequently established the criteria to govern the selection of bases without consulting Congress or the military. Under McNamara's guidance DOD closed sixty bases early in the 1960s without Congress or other government agencies being involved.

In view of the political and economic ramifications of the closures, Congress decided that it had to be involved in the process and passed legislation in 1965 that required DOD to report any base closure programs to it. However, President Lyndon B. Johnson vetoed the bill. This permitted DOD to continue realigning and closing bases without congressional oversight throughout the rest of the 1960s.

Economic and political pressures eventually forced Congress to intervene in the process of realigning and closing bases and to end DOD's independence on the matter. On 1 August 1977 President Jimmy Carter approved Public Law 95-82. It required DOD to notify Congress when a base was a candidate for reduction or closure; to prepare studies on the strategic, environmental, and local economic consequences of such action; and to wait sixty days for a congressional response. Codified as Section 2687, Title 10, United States Code, the legislation along with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) permitted Congress to thwart any DOD proposals to initiate base realignment and closure studies unilaterally by refusing to approve them and gave it an integral role in the process.

As economic pressures mounted, the drive to realign and close military installations intensified. In 1983 the President's Private Sector Survey on Cost Control (the Grace Commission) concluded in its report that economies could be made in base structure and simultaneously recommended the creation of a nonpartisan, independent commission to study base realignment and closure. Although nothing came of this recommendation, the defense budget that had been declining since 1985 and that was predicted to continue to decrease in coming years prompted the Secretary of Defense to take decisive action.

In 1988 the Secretary of Defense recognized the requirement to close excess bases to save money and therefore chartered the Commission on Base Realignment and Closure in 1988 to recommend military bases within the United States for realignment and closure.
More information on BRAC history available here:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/brac.htm

Interesting read.

[high fly]

Man i hope Rush runs into one of the "Iraqi Veterans for peace" guys at a bar. They will show him what's fake.


This Brian McGough guy has been challenging Rush to call him a "fake soldier" to his face.
http://www.votevets.org/

Other "fake soldiers" who have been brought up by Dems include Paul Riekoff from this outfit http://www.iava.org/

Kevin Dougherty is another
http://www.ivaw.org/

[high fly]

Here's the conversation:

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.



The caller CLEARLY states that phony soldiers are soldiers that are not proud to serve in Iraq. Limbaugh doesn't disagree with him, just goes on to his next innane point. This is why I think Limbaugh meant that soldiers that ideologically disagree with him are phony soldiers. Also, do you believe they are talking JUST about MacBeth? If they were, they're insinuating that MOST soldiers interviewed are fakes like MacBeth was. Like the media is rampantly interviewing pretend soldiers. If there is more context that I'm missing, please let me know, but from what I see above I don't see how Limbaugh was talking about MacBeth.


Limpbaugh was NOT talking about MacBeth.
The subject goes back to the previous caller from Chicago who stated he was a Republican and was in the military and the second he stated he did not agree with Limpbaugh, Limpbaugh questioned his service because we all know that the only evidence any caller is REALLY in the military is whether they agree with Limpbaugh.

THEN the above conversation takes place and we see the expression "phony soldiers" and who it refers to.
They were not talking about MacBeth yet
The transcript further shows the subject of the conversation THEN veered to the reason why people joined and still no mention of MacBeth.
THEN the subject of the conversation was WMD in Iraq and still MacBeth had not been brought up.
THEN Rush bends the conversation around to talk about the Democrats and brings up MacBeth & co.

[badmonkey]

If you read the MEDIA MATTERS transcript (http://mediamatters.org/items/200709280009), "Caller 2" and Mike, are the same person and he speaks to them right up til he plays that clip.

Actually... Mike is the first caller. I got that confused because caller2's name is also Mike. But... Rush said that Mike couldn't be a Republican. He did not say he wasn't in the military. Mike said he used to be in the military and Rush did not comment on that.

Here's the full transcript from that segment. Yes, it's from Rush's website.


RUSH: Mike in Chicago, welcome to the EIB Network. Hello.

CALLER: Hi, Rush, how you doing today?

RUSH: Fine, sir, thank you.

CALLER: Good. Why is it that you always just accuse the Democrats of being against the war and that there's actually no Republicans that can possibly be against the war?

RUSH: Well, who are these Republicans? I can think of Chuck Hagel, and I can think of Gordon Smith, two Republican senators, but they don't want to lose the war like the Democrats do. I can't think of who the Republicans are in the anti-war movement.

CALLER: I'm not talking about the senators. I'm talking about the general public. You accuse the public and all the Democrats of being, you know, wanting to lose --

RUSH: Oh, come on, here we go again. I utter the truth, and you can't handle it so you gotta call here and change the subject. How come I'm not also hitting Republicans? I don't know a single Republican or conservative, Mike, who wants to pull out of Iraq in defeat. The Democrats have made the last four years about that specifically.

CALLER: Well, I am a Republican, and I listened to you for a long time, and you're right on a lot of things, but I do believe that we should pull out of Iraq. I don't think it's winnable. I'm not a Democrat, but sometimes you gotta cut the losses. I mean, sometimes you really got to admit you're wrong.

RUSH: Well, yeah, you do. I'm not wrong on this. The worst thing that can happen is losing this, getting out of there, waving the white flag.

CALLER: I'm not saying that, I'm not saying anything like that.

RUSH: Of course you are.

CALLER: No, I'm not!

RUSH: The truth is the truth, Mike.

CALLER: We did what we were supposed to do, okay, we got rid of Saddam Hussein; we got rid of a lot of the terrorists. Let them run their country now. Let's get out of there and let's be done with it. We won it.

RUSH: I'm never going to be able to retire. It's not going to work. You are depressing me.

CALLER: Well, sometimes, like you said, the truth hurts, Rush. Sometimes it hurts.
RUSH: I have explained this so many times. I can't believe that you actually listen to this program a lot, because you've heard me say what I'm going to say to you. War is never "plottable" on a piece of paper or on a map. It never goes exactly as anybody thinks it's going to go because nobody can predict the future, for one thing.

CALLER: That's true.

RUSH: Thank you. So what's happening now is that the very enemy that blew us up on 9/11 is facing us in Iraq. We can't cave in defeat and run out of there and say, "Hey guess what, we won, we got Saddam." We are going to be setting ourselves up for future disasters. We will never be able to have any other nation trust us as an ally when we have to go in there again. If we pull out of there before we take care of this, Mike, we're just going to have to do it sometime later at greater cost.

CALLER: Are we ever going to take care of it, though? How long do you think we're going to have to be there to take care of it?

RUSH: Mike, you can't possibly be a Republican.

CALLER: I am.

RUSH: You can't be Republican.

CALLER: Oh, I am definitely Republican.

RUSH: You sound just like a Democrat.

CALLER: No, but seriously, Rush, how long do we have to stay there?

RUSH: As long as it takes.

CALLER: How long?

RUSH: As long as it takes. It is very serious. This is the United States of America at war with Islamofascists. Just like your job, you do everything you have to do, whatever it takes to get it done, if you take it seriously.

CALLER: So then you say we need to stay there forever?

RUSH: No, Bill -- (Laughing) or Mike. I'm sorry. I'm confusing you with the guy from Texas.

CALLER: I used to be military, okay, and I am a Republican.

RUSH: Yeah.

CALLER: And I do listen to you, but --

RUSH: Right, I know. And I, by the way, used to walk on the moon.

CALLER: How long do we have to stay there?

RUSH: You're not listening to what I say. You can't possibly be a Republican. I'm answering every question; it's not what you want to hear, and so it's not even penetrating your little wall of armor you've got built up. I said we stay to get the job done, as long as it takes. I didn't say forever. Nothing takes forever. That's not possible, Bill. Mike. Whatever. Nobody lives forever, no situation lasts forever, everything ends. We determine how do we want it to end, in our favor or in our defeat? With people like you in charge, who want to put a timeline on everything -- do you ever get anything done in your life? Or do you say, "Well, I wanted to have this done by now, and it's not, so screw it"? You don't live your life that way. Well, hell, you might, I don't know. But the limitations that you want to impose here are senseless, and they, frankly, portray no evidence that you are a Republican.
Another Mike. This one in Olympia, Washington. Welcome to the EIB Network. Hello.

CALLER: Hi, Rush. Thanks for taking my call.

RUSH: You bet.

CALLER: I have a retort to Mike in Chicago, because I am serving in the American military, in the Army. I've been serving for 14 years, very proudly.

RUSH: Thank you, sir.

CALLER: 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, what these people don't understand, is if we pull out of Iraq right now, which is not possible because of all the stuff that's over there, it would 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.

RUSH: There's a lot more than that that they don't understand. The next guy that calls here I'm going to ask them, "What is the imperative of pulling out? What's in it for the United States to pull out?" I don't think they have an answer for that other than, "When's he going to bring the troops home? Keep the troops safe," whatever.

CALLER: Yeah.

RUSH: 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 pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and spout to the media.

RUSH: The phony soldiers.

CALLER: Phony soldiers. If you talk to any real soldier and they're proud to serve, they want to be over in Iraq, they understand their sacrifice and they're willing to sacrifice for the country.

RUSH: They joined to be in Iraq.

CALLER: A lot of people.

RUSH: You know where you're going these days, the last four years, if you sign up. The odds are you're going there or Afghanistan, or somewhere.

CALLER: Exactly, sir. My other comment, my original comment, was a retort to Jill about the fact we didn't find any weapons of mass destruction. Actually, we have found weapons of mass destruction in chemical agents that terrorists have been using against us for a while now. I've done two tours in Iraq, I just got back in June, and there are many instances of insurgents not knowing what they're using in their IEDs. They're using mustard artillery rounds, VX artillery rounds in their IEDs. Because they didn't know what they were using, they didn't do it right, and so it didn't really hurt anybody. But those munitions are over there. It's a huge desert. If they bury it somewhere, we're never going to find it.

RUSH: Well, that's a moot point for me right now.

CALLER: Right.
RUSH: The weapons of mass destruction. We gotta get beyond that. We're there. We all know they were there, and Mahmoud even admitted it in one of his speeches here talking about Saddam using the poison mustard gas or whatever it is on his own people. But that's moot. 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 your colleagues over there is a great threat to them. It's frustrating and maddening, and why they must be kept in the minority. I want to thank you, Mike, for calling. I appreciate it very much.

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. They have their celebrities and one of them was Army Ranger Jesse Macbeth. Now, he was a "corporal." I say in quotes. Twenty-three years old. What made Jesse Macbeth a hero to the anti-war crowd wasn't his Purple Heart; it wasn't his being affiliated with post-traumatic stress disorder from tours in Afghanistan and Iraq. No. What made Jesse Macbeth, Army Ranger, a hero to the left was his courage, in their view, off the battlefield, without regard to consequences. He told the world the abuses he had witnessed in Iraq, American soldiers killing unarmed civilians, hundreds of men, women, even children. In one gruesome account, translated into Arabic and spread widely across the Internet, Army Ranger Jesse Macbeth describes the horrors this way: "We would burn their bodies. We would hang their bodies from the rafters in the mosque."

Now, recently, Jesse Macbeth, poster boy for the anti-war left, had his day in court. And you know what? He was sentenced to five months in jail and three years probation for falsifying a Department of Veterans Affairs claim and his Army discharge record. He was in the Army. Jesse Macbeth was in the Army, folks, briefly. Forty-four days before he washed out of boot camp. Jesse Macbeth isn't an Army Ranger, never was. He isn't a corporal, never was. He never won the Purple Heart, and he was never in combat to witness the horrors he claimed to have seen. You probably haven't even heard about this. And, if you have, you haven't heard much about it. This doesn't fit the narrative and the template in the Drive-By Media and the Democrat Party as to who is a genuine war hero. Don't look for any retractions, by the way. Not from the anti-war left, the anti-military Drive-By Media, or the Arabic websites that spread Jesse Macbeth's lies about our troops, because the truth for the left is fiction that serves their purpose. They have to lie about such atrocities because they can't find any that fit the template of the way they see the US military. In other words, for the American anti-war left, the greatest inconvenience they face is the truth.
END TRANSCRIPT

[high fly]

See the subject changing repeatedly before MacBeth gets brought up?

Rush was not talking about MacBeth when he made his comments.

[badmonkey]

See the subject changing repeatedly before MacBeth gets brought up?

Rush was not talking about MacBeth when he made his comments.

See the phonecall continue for the whole time? Rush did not disrupt the phonecall to play the audio clip. He waited until it was over. If MacBeth and the audio clip about him had no context, then you explain why it was played. You have the full transcript in front of you. This should be easy.

Badmonkey

[high fly]

See the phonecall continue for the whole time? Rush did not disrupt the phonecall to play the audio clip. He waited until it was over. If MacBeth and the audio clip about him had no context, then you explain why it was played. You have the full transcript in front of you. This should be easy.

Badmonkey


It is easy.

After talking about the "phony soldiers," Rush talked about other things and then decided to bring up something else he did not like.
The subject being discussed was the "phony soldiers" being cited by those who oppose the war.
THEN they talk about those who are FOR the war and why they join the military.
THEN they talk about WMD.
THEN Limpbaugh changes the subject again and wants to talk about Democrats and hang this MacBeth fella around their necks.




The "phony soldiers" are those who do not agree with Rush on Iraq and are speaking up and being held out as examples by those who oppose the war.
I listen to a lot of left and right-wing radio and have never heard of this MacBeth guy.

The people I have heard held out there and cited by people on the left have been the guys who wrote the New York Times editorial, as well as,

Paul Riekoff of the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, http://www.iava.org/

Kevin Dougherty of the Iraq Veterans Against the War http://www.ivaw.org/

and John Soltz of VoteVets.org http://www.votevets.org/


And since the caller and Limpbaugh were agreed that they "never talk to real soldiers" it means that every one they talk to, such as those I listed, is a phony.


No word yet on whether this will impact on the near-perfect rating Limpbaugh gives himself for "executing assigned host duties flawlessly."

[Yerdaddy]

I never said that I "didn't think of" the base closings. I absolutely did because it was something I remember happening during the Clinton administration. It happened before the clinton administration. In fact, it happened before Reagan. It started in the 60's, so don't throw your end of the cold war bullshit at me.

Clinton created MediaMatters, a group whose sole purpose is to destroy conservative media. Their "evidence" isn't always as pure as they say it is. Fox news doesn't have as well defined and structured an agenda as MediaMatters.

The 90 secs that was "edited out" was part of that same phonecall. In fact, the 90 seconds edited out was the same soldier talking about VX and Mustard gas that is in the IED's in Iraq. If you read the MEDIA MATTERS transcript (http://mediamatters.org/items/200709280009), "Caller 2" and Mike, are the same person and he speaks to them right up til he plays that clip. How's that for honesty? Although, I'm starting to think that you can't read at all and have a secretary type out these thesis length diatribes that essentially regurgitate my points back to me after twisting them into something that I did not say and then adding a chapter or two of your own to them.

You're not the genius and political expert that your liberal friends here think you are. You're just another silly arrogant idealogue that loves to hear himself talk. Having an open mind is useless if your eyes are always shut to new information. You don't even think anybody else is smart enough to understand what I've written without you translating it into a bunch of stuff I didn't say. Better save them from the evil conservative. I have a political agenda that I have been pushing forward since before I was born. Even during my previous 30 yrs as a liberal begging my parents not to vote republican, it was all just a trick to fool my liberal friends into letting me inside their little circle so that I could eventually make George W. Bush into our king.

Seriously... lay off the coffee.

Badmonkey

Wow. This reply speaks for itself.

[TheMojoPin]

I'm still trying to figure out the whole "Hillary started MediaMatters" claim.

[badmonkey]

I'm still trying to figure out the whole "Hillary started MediaMatters" claim.

Talk to her about it. She's the one that took credit for it in a speech. Video was provided in a previous post.

Badmonkey

[TheMojoPin]

Talk to her about it. She's the one that took credit for it in a speech. Video was provided in a previous post.

Badmonkey

Yes, I've seen the video. I see her taking credit for a vague movement in response to what she calls the "Right wing noise machine" through groups like MediaMatters. After watching the video, I've attempted to find anything that actually explains how she or her husband actually "created" MediaMatters and I can't find anything. I'm not saying it's impossible, and I have little doubt the Clintons have donated money to MM...plenty of "Left" figures have. It's no secret. But there's nothing out there that explains how she "created" them as you're so clearly stating or as she even seems to think she did. Watching the video it sounds to me like she's trying to piggyback on the work of these groups. If you can find anything that actually explains how she created the group, feel free. I've also yet to see how even if she did "create" them that it somehow completely negates anything they have on their site.

[epo]

Isn't David Brock the founder and brainchild of Media Matters?

If someone can find any tangible information to contradict that....I would love to see it.

[foodcourtdruide]

Yes, I've seen the video. I see her taking credit for a vague movement in response to what she calls the "Right wing noise machine" through groups like MediaMatters. After watching the video, I've attempted to find anything that actually explains how she or her husband actually "created" MediaMatters and I can't find anything. I'm not saying it's impossible, and I have little doubt the Clintons have donated money to MM...plenty of "Left" figures have. It's no secret. But there's nothing out there that explains how she "created" them as you're so clearly stating or as she even seems to think she did. Watching the video it sounds to me like she's trying to piggyback on the work of these groups. If you can find anything that actually explains how she created the group, feel free. I've also yet to see how even if she did "create" them that it somehow completely negates anything they have on their site.

I agree. Why would it matter if Hillary Clinton created mediamatters.com? I don't get how attacking the credibility of mediamatters changes the argument against Limbaugh. I think it's just a deflection tactic that has very little to do with reality.

[Furtherman]

Isn't David Brock the founder and brainchild of Media Matters?

If someone can find any tangible information to contradict that....I would love to see it.

Yep.

HOW THE DEMS PLAN TO TAKE DOWN THEIR REAL OPPONENTS: RUSH AND O’REILLY (http://www.nypost.com/seven/10072007/postopinion/opedcolumnists/bum_rush.htm)

This is a good article from this past Sunday's post. The most interesting fact I thought was that David Brock use to sling mud for the "right" and now he does it for the "left".

Although no decently educated American would even find what a pill head and a sexual abuser of women have to say even remotely noteworthy, America would also be better off without such shit-slingers as MediaMatters or Drudge or whatever other organization takes the stance that their way is right and all others is wrong.

[high fly]

HEY BADMONKEY!

You gonna address the subject changing repeatedly before MacBeth was brought up or not?



Limpbaugh was NOT talking about MacBeth.
The subject goes back to the previous caller from Chicago who stated he was a Republican and was in the military and the second he stated he did not agree with Limpbaugh, Limpbaugh questioned his service because we all know that the only evidence any caller is REALLY in the military is whether they agree with Limpbaugh.

THEN the above conversation takes place and we see the expression "phony soldiers" and who it refers to.
They were not talking about MacBeth yet
The transcript further shows the subject of the conversation THEN veered to the reason why people joined and still no mention of MacBeth.
THEN the subject of the conversation was WMD in Iraq and still MacBeth had not been brought up.
THEN Rush bends the conversation around to talk about the Democrats and brings up MacBeth & co.



And is this a true or false statement:
they never talk to real soldiers

[high fly]

I agree. Why would it matter if Hillary Clinton created mediamatters.com? I don't get how attacking the credibility of mediamatters changes the argument against Limbaugh. I think it's just a deflection tactic that has very little to do with reality.

Right-wingers looooove to play shoot-the-messenger.
It's how they avoid the content of what is being spoken.

Once you start watching for it you realize they play shoot-the-messenger daily...

[Yerdaddy]

Funny thing is that Badmonkey, in defending Limbaugh, has done the exact thing that Media Matters did: post Rush’s own words and let him speak for himself. Problem is Badmonkey doesn’t know when soldiers are being insulted because he’s not concerned about them – he’s only concerned about Limbaugh.

So he misses in his own post a demonstration of Rush doing exactly what he did with the "phony soldiers" comment – he questions the military service of someone who disagrees with him.

CALLER: I used to be military, okay, and I am a Republican.

RUSH: Yeah.

CALLER: And I do listen to you, but --

RUSH: Right, I know. And I, by the way, used to walk on the moon.

Rush doesn’t know if this guy was really a vet or not, but he assumes he’s lying because he disagrees with Rush. Disagree with Rush = phony soldier. In his own words. Twice in one segment. Three times really, if you count that the Macbeth piece was designed to be a straw man to represent how all soldiers who disagree with the war in the mainstream media are the same as this liar who appeared in publications so obscure they can barely even be called “media”.

But denigrating the service of veterans is a common and accepted practice of the right these days because true-believers like Badmonkey have accepted and continually condone the practice.

The website he linked to to defend Rush, Cybercast News Service, (formerly known as Conservative News Service (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cybercast_News_Service), and when I loaded the page today carries a banner ad to receive email deliveries of Ann Coulter’s articles), did the same thing to John Murtha (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/13/AR2006011301736.html)when he began to speak out about the war – they found an obviously misleading quote by a political enemy of his and used it to claim that Murtha’s medals were illegitimate. Sound familiar?

Denigrating nonconformist veterans is standard operating procedure with the mainstream conservative culture today, as shown by their attacks on Murtha, Kerry, Max Cleland or the wholesale attacks on veterans like Limbaugh demonstrated multiple times. And other than John McCain with the Swift Boaters, where are the conservatives who retain the principles to defend military service regardless of political loyalties? They are few and far between.

[Yerdaddy]

Isn't David Brock the founder and brainchild of Media Matters?

If someone can find any tangible information to contradict that....I would love to see it.

Show me a picture of his ankles and I'll tell you if Hillary started Media Matters or not.

[badmonkey]

HEY BADMONKEY!

You gonna address the subject changing repeatedly before MacBeth was brought up or not?



Limpbaugh was NOT talking about MacBeth.
The subject goes back to the previous caller from Chicago who stated he was a Republican and was in the military and the second he stated he did not agree with Limpbaugh, Limpbaugh questioned his service because we all know that the only evidence any caller is REALLY in the military is whether they agree with Limpbaugh.

THEN the above conversation takes place and we see the expression "phony soldiers" and who it refers to.
They were not talking about MacBeth yet
The transcript further shows the subject of the conversation THEN veered to the reason why people joined and still no mention of MacBeth.
THEN the subject of the conversation was WMD in Iraq and still MacBeth had not been brought up.
THEN Rush bends the conversation around to talk about the Democrats and brings up MacBeth & co.



And is this a true or false statement:
Rush said that he did not beleive the previous caller was a republican. His military service was never questioned. It wouldn't be the first time somebody called his show screaming democratic talking points while claiming to be a republican.

When he was on the phone with "caller 2" the subject changed during the course of that call. When the call ended, his producers had the clip ready at his request and played it. The only gap between termination of the phone call and the playing of the clip is his introduction of the clip. I would say he probably asked his staff to get it ready during the call at some point while the caller was speaking. That's when I'd have asked for it or been looking for it myself since I don't have people to do that shit for me.

Badmonkey

[badmonkey]

Funny thing is that Badmonkey, in defending Limbaugh, has done the exact thing that Media Matters did: post Rush’s own words and let him speak for himself. Problem is Badmonkey doesn’t know when soldiers are being insulted because he’s not concerned about them – he’s only concerned about Limbaugh.

So he misses in his own post a demonstration of Rush doing exactly what he did with the "phony soldiers" comment – he questions the military service of someone who disagrees with him.



Rush doesn’t know if this guy was really a vet or not, but he assumes he’s lying because he disagrees with Rush. Disagree with Rush = phony soldier. In his own words. Twice in one segment. Three times really, if you count that the Macbeth piece was designed to be a straw man to represent how all soldiers who disagree with the war in the mainstream media are the same as this liar who appeared in publications so obscure they can barely even be called “media”.

But denigrating the service of veterans is a common and accepted practice of the right these days because true-believers like Badmonkey have accepted and continually condone the practice.

The website he linked to to defend Rush, Cybercast News Service, (formerly known as Conservative News Service (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cybercast_News_Service), and when I loaded the page today carries a banner ad to receive email deliveries of Ann Coulter’s articles), did the same thing to John Murtha (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/13/AR2006011301736.html)when he began to speak out about the war – they found an obviously misleading quote by a political enemy of his and used it to claim that Murtha’s medals were illegitimate. Sound familiar?

Denigrating nonconformist veterans is standard operating procedure with the mainstream conservative culture today, as shown by their attacks on Murtha, Kerry, Max Cleland or the wholesale attacks on veterans like Limbaugh demonstrated multiple times. And other than John McCain with the Swift Boaters, where are the conservatives who retain the principles to defend military service regardless of political loyalties? They are few and far between.

And just after somebody named you specifically saying that you would never discount a source without disproving the facts. You haven't even touched the facts on either site. You have only attacked the credibility of the source. MediaMatters is a valid source in your eyes, despite the fact that it's a liberal slander machine. MediaMatters does not put Rush's words out and let you read and decide for yourself. They do the same thing you do Yerdaddy. They interpret the words for you and tell you exactly what you should think happened. Half the time when I read the posts you type that appear to be responses to me, I wonder who you're actually responding to since most of what you type is stuff that I haven't even said or implied. It's like you hear keywords and they trigger some rant in your head like Pavlov's dog.

"Crazy! I was crazy once! They locked me in a room full of rats!"
"Rats! I hate rats! They make me crazy!"
"Crazy! I was ....."

Badmonkey

[foodcourtdruide]

And just after somebody named you specifically saying that you would never discount a source without disproving the facts. You haven't even touched the facts on either site. You have only attacked the credibility of the source. MediaMatters is a valid source in your eyes, despite the fact that it's a liberal slander machine. MediaMatters does not put Rush's words out and let you read and decide for yourself. They do the same thing you do Yerdaddy. They interpret the words for you and tell you exactly what you should think happened. Half the time when I read the posts you type that appear to be responses to me, I wonder who you're actually responding to since most of what you type is stuff that I haven't even said or implied. It's like you hear keywords and they trigger some rant in your head like Pavlov's dog.

"Crazy! I was crazy once! They locked me in a room full of rats!"
"Rats! I hate rats! They make me crazy!"
"Crazy! I was ....."

Badmonkey

A liberal slander machine? MediaMatters fact checks and questions the conservative media. How is that a "liberal slander machine"?

Main Entry: slander
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English sclaundre, slaundre, from Anglo-French esclandre, alteration of escandle, from Late Latin scandalum stumbling block, offense — more at scandal
Date: 14th century
1 : the utterance of false charges or misrepresentations which defame and damage another's reputation
2 : a false and defamatory oral statement about a person — compare libel

[Yerdaddy]

And just after somebody named you specifically saying that you would never discount a source without disproving the facts. You haven't even touched the facts on either site. You have only attacked the credibility of the source. MediaMatters is a valid source in your eyes, despite the fact that it's a liberal slander machine. MediaMatters does not put Rush's words out and let you read and decide for yourself. They do the same thing you do Yerdaddy. They interpret the words for you and tell you exactly what you should think happened. Half the time when I read the posts you type that appear to be responses to me, I wonder who you're actually responding to since most of what you type is stuff that I haven't even said or implied. It's like you hear keywords and they trigger some rant in your head like Pavlov's dog.

"Crazy! I was crazy once! They locked me in a room full of rats!"
"Rats! I hate rats! They make me crazy!"
"Crazy! I was ....."

Badmonkey

That's why Rush played a tape of the segment with the part between the "phony soldiers" crack and the Macbeth segment and called it the "entire" thing, but Media Matters posted the entire segment?

Hey, when you scrape Limbaugh's dried cum off your back can you snort it and get high? Is that why you're posting like a raving lunatic? If so, keep it up. You're more funny like this.

[badmonkey]

That's why Rush played a tape of the segment with the part between the "phony soldiers" crack and the Macbeth segment and called it the "entire" thing, but Media Matters posted the entire segment?

Hey, when you scrape Limbaugh's dried cum off your back can you snort it and get high? Is that why you're posting like a raving lunatic? If so, keep it up. You're more funny like this.

Is this where I ask if you take Hillary's cock out of your mouth before you speak or is that where the line gets crossed and this gets personal? I guess I haven't been around long enough to tell what constitutes a personal attack.

Raving lunatic? Yeah... ok. You're 1 in a million.

Badmonkey

[high fly]

When he was on the phone with "caller 2" the subject changed during the course of that call. When the call ended, his producers had the clip ready at his request and played it. The only gap between termination of the phone call and the playing of the clip is his introduction of the clip. I would say he probably asked his staff to get it ready during the call at some point while the caller was speaking. That's when I'd have asked for it or been looking for it myself since I don't have people to do that shit for me.

Badmonkey

So Limpbaugh was not referring to Macbeth at all, when he talked about "phony soldiers," was he?
He began talking about MacBeth later, after the subject had changed.


And when talking about the "phony soldiers," was this a true statement?:

they never talk to real soldiers

[badmonkey]

So Limpbaugh was not referring to Macbeth at all, when he talked about "phony soldiers," was he?
He began talking about MacBeth later, after the subject had changed.


And when talking about the "phony soldiers," was this a true statement?:

Caller 2 is when the "phony soldiers" comment was made and at the end of that call the clip was played. I'm not sure what you're getting at with the question about the "true statement". If MacBeth wasn't on Limbaugh's mind during the course of that call, the MacBeth audio clip doesn't get played at the end of the call. It doesn't make sense to play it at the end of the call if it's not in context considering they didn't do any further discussion of MacBeth during that day's show. So if it wasn't in context with the phonecall he'd just finished or anything else during that segment or the segment coming up after the break, why play it at all?

Badmonkey

[Furtherman]

This argument has turned as confusing as Rush trying to remember if he took the blue or yellow pills a half hour ago.

[Stankfoot]

Thats it! :wallbash: I officially no longer give a shit what he said or i what he meant...

[high fly]

Caller 2 is when the "phony soldiers" comment was made and at the end of that call the clip was played.


Yes, they did indeed get to that clip, eventually, AFTER the subject had changed as I described.

The "phony soldiers" comment was made in the context of all of those put up by war opponents.

Macbeth was not brought up until later after the subject of the conversation had changed, just as I described.

The clip was not played until later after the subject had changed, just as I described.


I'm not sure what you're getting at with the question about the "true statement".

Well, here it is:

And what's really funny is they never talk to real soldiers.

Is that a true statement or not?
Do those who oppose the war never talk to real soldiers or not?

Where is the part that is confusing you about the question?
I am a patient man and will be glad to work with you on this one.



If MacBeth wasn't on Limbaugh's mind during the course of that call, the MacBeth audio clip doesn't get played at the end of the call. It doesn't make sense to play it at the end of the call if it's not in context considering they didn't do any further discussion of MacBeth during that day's show.

It makes sense to play it when it occurs to Limpbaugh, which is about 2 minutes later after the subject has changed a couple of times.
Limpbaugh could have played the clip when he made the comment, or at least said, "Phony soldiers - like that Jesse MacBeth guy. Let me play you a clip..."
But he didn't, did he?
None of us know when the idea of playing the clip popped into Limpbaugh's head, but we can see by his words that his reference to "phony soldiers" was when he interrupted the caller to define those who were against the war and who claimed to be veterans and were being held up by those who oppose the war.

So if it wasn't in context with the phonecall he'd just finished or anything else during that segment or the segment coming up after the break, why play it at all?
Badmonkey

Because the entire show is one thing after another where those who disagree with Limpbaugh are bashed.
After the MacBeth clip I am sure he brought up another topic to bash with and then another and another. That is the way the show goes.

If Limpbaugh MEANT MacBeth he would have said so.
He did not.

[TheMojoPin]

Good Lord, how is this still going?

[scottinnj]

Good Lord, how is this still going?

I don't know dude, I just hate how the Congress got involved.

[TheMojoPin]

I don't know dude, I just hate how the Congress got involved.

Same here. That seems to me by far the most worrisome thing about this. What Rush actually said is ultimately not very important at all compared to that. Rush being a moron isn't new. Getting smacked by the government for it is. And it's wrong.

[high fly]

I agree.