Rush Limbaugh - Anatomy of a Smear
I urge all of you to watch this video and read the transcript of Rush Limbaugh’s supposed blanket statement calling troops who oppose the war “phony soldiers”. It is a lie and another smear campaign by MediaMatters and parroted by MSNBC.
I heard Rush at the top of his show Friday when he replayed the alleged broad smear from Wednesday’s show. He was clearly talking about one particular soldier (Jesse MacBeth) who never served in Iraq, but claimed to have witnessed US military atrocities, and therefore became the celeb du jour for the Loony Left.
But don’t believe me… watch for yourself…. unless you are afraid of the truth.
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
UPDATE (from GPW): I just watched the clip that Bruce provided above and listened to and read the audio clip on Media Matters’s site. It seems that, once again, Media Matters is making a mountain out of a mole hill.
In the clip on Media Matters’s site, Rush seems to be making a general point about some of the “soldiers” whom the left likes to feature as war opponents. I agree that he could have been a bit clearer, but there is no evidence to suggest that he he meant all soldiers who oppose the war.
Perhaps, he should have acknowledged that some soldiers who did serve favor withdrawal. That said, the left (and the MSM) has trotted out soldiers with spotty (or non-existent) service records who happen to oppose the war.
This was not his prepared monologue, so, given the nature of the program, I’ll give him a pass on not being perfectly clear, especially given his clarification in the clip above.
He made the comment “phony soldiers” only once (at least in the clip Media Matters provided). It seemed rhetoric more than anything else. Not just that. It seems that this left-wing web-site is grasping at straws in its attempt to smear Rush. And I don’t think it will have much traction.
UP-UPDATE (from GPW): When Rush uttered the expression “phony soldiers,” maybe he was thinking of this ABC NEWS report (Via Instapundit).
113 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Jeez. Limbaugh explicitly clarified with “Jesse Macbeth” not 35 seconds after “phony troops”, in the same, continuous thought with the same caller.
Yup, Media Matters sure did leave that part out of their transcript. That’s the last time I’ll consider anything they say for more than 35 seconds. They’ve blown it.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — September 29, 2007 @ 7:04 am - September 29, 2007
[...] Original post by GayPatriot [...]
Pingback by Politics: 2008 HQ » Blog Archive » Rush Limbaugh - Anatomy of a Smear — September 29, 2007 @ 8:42 am - September 29, 2007
“He was clearly talking about one particular soldier”
Why does Rush Limbaugh use the plural to refer to one particular soldier?
Comment by Thomas Horsville — September 29, 2007 @ 8:49 am - September 29, 2007
Why does Rush Limbaugh use the plural to refer to one particular soldier?
For the same reason one mentions Cindy Sheehan and discusses “these raving, lunatic moonbats.”
It’s call an example.
Comment by DoDoGuRu — September 29, 2007 @ 9:39 am - September 29, 2007
The caller was not talking about Macbeth.
Its clear that he was talking about soldiers who have a narrative that does not conform to his view.
Its interesting when Rush talks about it now he calls it the “phony solider controversy” and “phony solider comment” He has dropped the plural because he knows how implausible his defense actually is.
Nope
Its clear that your outrage over “Betray-Us” was false
Comment by gil — September 29, 2007 @ 9:44 am - September 29, 2007
Media matters claims your clip was edited
“Excised from the clip was a full 1 minute and 35 seconds of the 1 minute and 50 second discussion that occurred between Limbaugh’s original “phony soldiers” comment and his reference to MacBeth”
Comment by gil — September 29, 2007 @ 9:57 am - September 29, 2007
Uh…Gil?
Sorry, won’t fly here. It isn’t CLEAR Rush was talking about soldiers. I’ve listened to him for 19 years… and you? There isn’t a chance in hxxx that he would do that. It’s wishful thinking on your part, but informed listeners know better. What you don’t understand is that we are all laughing at people like you. It’s funny to watch the so-called “experts” on Rush expound their wisdom about what he meant and didn’t mean. Any listener to the show with any intelligence knows the truth. Keep talking, Gil. Give me more to chuckle at. Your ignorance is showing.
Comment by Connie — September 29, 2007 @ 9:58 am - September 29, 2007
Gil-
Wrong. I listened to Limbaugh myself.
PS - It isn’t Limbaugh who has a 30 year history of standing by “phony troops” (like MacBeth, John Kerry and Scott Thomas) and maligning authentic fighting men and women. That would be the Democrat Party.
Comment by GayPatriot — September 29, 2007 @ 10:10 am - September 29, 2007
No. He has a history of supporting people who he agrees with.
Apparently he believes soldierS who stray from his narrative are “phony” along with their sacrifice.
Like the seven members of the 82nd Airborne who dared to shred his myth of “the solider’s view point.”
I guess those guys weren’t authentic…
Comment by gil — September 29, 2007 @ 10:36 am - September 29, 2007
Wow, gil, “He has a history of supporting people who he agrees with.” I take it you have a history of supporting people you don’t agree with? So we can safely assume you agree with Rush?
Funny how there’s a transcript a video and you still reject reality and try to substitute your own.
“Who are you going to believe? Me or your own Lying eyes?” -Chico Marx.
Comment by The Livewire — September 29, 2007 @ 10:46 am - September 29, 2007
I heard the original broadcast. It was clearly a reference to Jessie McBeth.
So, is it going to be gil’s permanent job on this forum to stick up for phony left-wing smear merchants (TNR, MediaMatters) who are obviously lying? And what is his pathological need to defend people like Jessie McBeth and Scotth “Mindthoughts and Soulpatterns” Beauchamp who make outrageous lies about US troops committing atrocities?
It’s also amazing how George Soros (who is the money behind both Move-On and Media Matters) now has the Democrat Party like puppets on a string, as they go out on the floor of the Congress and repeat the smears his agents promulgated twice in as many weeks. Anyone else find that kind of scary?
Comment by V the K — September 29, 2007 @ 10:46 am - September 29, 2007
I find it darkly ironic. They yell to the heavens that the Republicans are bought and paid for by big money, Haliburton, etc. Then they get the morning talking points from “Soros R Us” and go to work.
Comment by The Livewire — September 29, 2007 @ 10:55 am - September 29, 2007
The case also could be made that anyone wearing the uniform who stabs his comrades in the back by undermining their cause in time of war is unworthy of the name “soldier.” Every time some file clerk gets out of the military and hooks up with some left-wing group to advance the cause of his own celebrity while letting himself and his words be used as a propaganda tool for the enemy… and thus leading to the deaths of more American soldiers. I think you could call such a person a phony soldier.
So, to me, Camilo Mejia, Pablo Paredes, Ehren Watada are all phony soldiers for giving aid to the enemy in time of war. I don’t think Rush was talking about them, but if he would have been justified in doing so.
And the left is not well posed to say “anyone who wears the uniform ought to be respected” after what they did to General Patreaus.
Comment by V the K — September 29, 2007 @ 10:59 am - September 29, 2007
And once again, isn’t it convenient that there’s another Soros-manufactured scandal (actually 2, since MediaMatters was promulgating an even-more dishonest smear against Bill O’Reilly this week) just as more sleaze is emerging about Hillary’s laundry-man, Norman Hsu?
Think about it, the MSM would much rather attack people who are taking their audience and influence than investigate a corruption scandal involving their favorite candidate, and both of the organizations pushing these scandals are agents of George Soros who is an ally of Hillary Clinton. Coincidence?
Comment by V the K — September 29, 2007 @ 11:07 am - September 29, 2007
Rush may or may not have misspoke it really doesn’t matter.
Rush made a reasonable defense countering the charge. Right-wing Nut House also made a reasonable argument against Rush’s defense.
The important thing here is not Rush Limbaugh, and what he did or did not say. Rush’s stature in the “conservative” family is not diminished regardless.
Rush’s regulars are going to remain Rush’s regulars regardless what he says. The important thing is that Moveon.org, Media Matters and all other Left-wing nut cases are going to slime anyone who attempts to present a rational point of view that in any way opposes their left-wing lunacy.
It is perfectly proper to counter attack but let’s not loose sight of the goal.
Comment by edward cropper — September 29, 2007 @ 11:12 am - September 29, 2007
What is not commonly know about Rush Limbaugh is that he is on the board of directors of the Marine Corps-Law Enforcement Foundation. This organization raises money for the education of children of military/law enforcement members killed or incapacitated. They have no paid employees (check the website). All money donated goes directly to the families. Every year Rush speaks at a fundraiser that brings in millions for this organization and donates from his own funds. He also at that time advertises a link on his website to which I myself have sent donations. He also made a visit to Afghanistan a few years back and in telling of his admiration for the troops and the job and conditions they were living in frequently choked him up. Of course, if you are not a regular Rush listener you would not know that. He is not given to blowing his own horn over the help he does give the troops. I think he takes it deeply personally when the leftist glom onto someone like Jesse Macbeth. And Media Matters (at least the first time I checked) definitely cut his remarks off at the point which made them look the most offensive. Linda Strickland
Comment by Linda Strickland — September 29, 2007 @ 11:18 am - September 29, 2007
Why defend Rush? He’s an idiot. In clarifying his remarks, Limbaugh cited Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) as one of the veterans who deserves the “phony” label.
That would be the same Murtha who earned the Bronze Star with Valor device, two Purple Hearts, the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry, and the Navy Distinguished Service Medal.
When did Rush serve?
Comment by Chester — September 29, 2007 @ 11:24 am - September 29, 2007
At last, a group has been formed to counter Move-on and Media Matters.
It is Freedoms Watch. It deserves our support. They are working with other groups who support the war on terror. They can checkmate the smears of the radical left. When a reasonable Democrat like Juan Williams (who son is a registered Republican), who in his defense of Bill O´Reilly is tarred, ¨the happy negro¨ their lunacy becomes obvious. How did a lunatic like George Soros become wealthy? It couldn´t have been talent. Maybe it was luck or as P.T. Barmun said, ¨there´s one born every minute,¨and he took advantage of it.
Comment by Roberto — September 29, 2007 @ 11:55 am - September 29, 2007
To me it sounds like Limbaugh’s guest is speaking in broad terms, that all “real soldiers” agree with the mission and only “phony soldiers” oppose it, to which Mr. Lambaugh concurs. Then Mr. Limbaugh talks about one specific individual, beginning with the remark “one of them is Jesse MacBeth.”
Comment by Chase — September 29, 2007 @ 12:05 pm - September 29, 2007
NOTE: It may not have been Mr. Limbaugh’s original intent to imply that opposition to the war makes one a “phony soldier.” However, his guest clearly states that all “real soldiers” want to be in Iraq, to which Mr. Limbaugh concurs.
Since that statement is clearly not true, as there have been a number of articles written by active duty military in Iraq in opposition to the policy, one can only presume then that the intent here is a broad swipe at all active duty military personnel who oppose the war.
Comment by Chase — September 29, 2007 @ 12:17 pm - September 29, 2007
#2 TH:
I can think of at least 2 possibilities. Take either:
1) Because it’s radio, he’s talking in a continuous stream, he mis-speaks as humans do when they don’t have a prepared text - then goes on to say who or what he meant, as within 35 seconds in this instance.
2) Because, in fact, there have been multiple (as in plural) phonies, where Jesse Macbeth is only the archetypal recent example. Maybe you didn’t know, Thomas, but do also look up Micah Wright. There have also been examples who were real soldiers - yet whose charges have been demonstrably, provably fase. Like Scott Beauchamp, this year. Or Jack Murtha on Haditha, in 2006 (disproven 2007) Or in days of yore, who was that soldier who helped the enemy by smearing an entire generation of his comrades as baby-killers and rapists? Oh, yeah - John Kerry.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — September 29, 2007 @ 12:27 pm - September 29, 2007
(sorry, Navy officer)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — September 29, 2007 @ 12:32 pm - September 29, 2007
#15, Chase, ¨real soldiers¨ those who have been there and done that.
Recruits take an oath to defend the nation and to obey the commands of officers and superiiors appointed over them. You don´t get the right to pick and choose which war to fight in. Being in uniform and close to the action but not a part of it , a la John Kerry, does not qualify the individual to be critical of those who are actually fighting and making the supreme sacrifice.
Comment by Roberto — September 29, 2007 @ 12:32 pm - September 29, 2007
Roberto, good point… up to the Kerry bit. I hate to be a correcto-nanny, but Kerry (and all Swift Boats) were the part of the Navy that did see combat. Kerry’s faults were:
1) Acquiring his medals by murky means - to all appearances, “gaming the system” for them. Then throwing them away later as a political statement.
2) When he got back, helping the enemy (on a propaganda / political level) and smearing an entire generation of his comrades with mostly-false charges.
#16 - Chase - Are you aware of the self-contradictions in what you wrote? You concede that Limbaugh was talking about Jesse Macbeth, then still try to imply he meant something else. Which is it?
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — September 29, 2007 @ 1:00 pm - September 29, 2007
Once again, if Chase/Gil/Etc/ would LISTEN to Rush’s show itself, or READ its transcripts, they would know that first thing up on Friday he explicitly said he DOES NOT believe that active duty troops that oppose the war/favor withdrawal are “phony” or unpatriotic.
Again, all the libs are trying a bait-n-switch. Long before anyone demands an apology from Rush….. where are the Democrats demanding the apology from Murtha, Durbin, Kerry, Kennedy, Pelosi, etc?
The Democrat Party has a 30 YEAR HISTORY of denigrating active duty military servicemen and women. And a HISTORY of using negative politics against US military (like denying them the right to vote by absentee ballot).
Comment by GayPatriot — September 29, 2007 @ 1:43 pm - September 29, 2007
Yeah, Bruce, but the transcript proves Gil and Chase were wrong, so naturally they’ll claim it doesn’t count.
Unless you’re really expecting lefties to debate honorably. I would have thought you knew better by now.
Comment by V the K — September 29, 2007 @ 1:55 pm - September 29, 2007
ILC please define ¨murky means.¨ Wouldn´t ¨close to combat¨qualify? Like, Ï gotta take a wicked wiz, you guys go on ahead and I´ll catch up to you later.¨ Later is after it´s over but I was part of the team.
Comment by Roberto — September 29, 2007 @ 1:59 pm - September 29, 2007
with the election coming up soon.
who benefits from minimizing the opposition?
Hillary Clinton.
Its not surprising that these leftists organizations supported by Soros are attacking the only outlets for the truth.
Fox News and Rush Limbaugh.
I fully expect it to get much worse.
Notice how the story on Hsu died a quick death? Yet the smear campaign against Rush is picked up by every Left wing Media outlet out there?
Conservatives better hang together, or we will surely hang seperate.
Comment by Jo — September 29, 2007 @ 2:11 pm - September 29, 2007
Goodness, but your spinning is weak! There wasn’t one mention of McBeth in the show before Rush made his phony soldiers comment directly in response to a caller complaining about the media talking to soldiers who support a pullout from Iraq. It wasn’t until significantly after the phony soldiers comment that Rush brought up McBeth. He even lies about that when he presents as “the entire transcript” an edited transcript that dishonestly shows the McBeth comment coming immediately after the phony soldier discussion when in fact it was over a minute and a half later.
Comment by Ian S — September 29, 2007 @ 2:40 pm - September 29, 2007
I am Ian
Hear Me Roar!
My spin is too loud to ignore
And I spin too much to go back an’ pretend
’cause I’ve said it all before
I’ve been a hopeless droning bore
No one’s ever gonna buy my crap again
Oh no, I don’t have facts
But I got a DNC Blast Fax
Yes, I sing the same old song
Democrats can do no wrong.
If I have to, I can say anything
I am wrong (wrong!)
I am ignorant! (ignorant!)
I am Ian!
Comment by V the K — September 29, 2007 @ 3:45 pm - September 29, 2007
Limbaugh not mentioning MacBeth prior to his “phony soldier” comment as an argument against him is silly. The only part of his show he could make such preparations for are his monologues. His phone calls are entirely impromptu which gives him plenty of lattitude to make a comment on a thought before giving supporting statements. Have those of you who use this very weak argument never had a similar situation arise? It happens all the time in talk radio. The only reason this is getting any attention is because of the malicious spin on it by Mediamatters and miserably wasted time on House floors by ignorant representatives.
Comment by rcalicea — September 29, 2007 @ 3:59 pm - September 29, 2007
Like the seven members of the 82nd Airborne who dared to shred his myth of “the solider’s view point.”
I guess those guys weren’t authentic…
When did Rush even mention them? Didn’t Media Morons Against America throw that in to confuse the issue?
I can understand your confusion though. You’ve been duped by the liberal candidates and you’ve been duped by Media Morons twice in one week. And really, when John F.You Kerry has the audacity to chastise Rush, you KNOW you’ve been had.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — September 29, 2007 @ 4:10 pm - September 29, 2007
You know, for all of Lurch and Democrats’ whining about the SBVFT, they never did sue for defamation.
Comment by V the K — September 29, 2007 @ 4:13 pm - September 29, 2007
#24:
Well, yes, of course. I am a Leo after all!
Comment by Ian S — September 29, 2007 @ 4:47 pm - September 29, 2007
#20 - Umm, Bruce, Kerry did his thing before Congress in spring 1971, so that would make… at least 36 years of Dems sliming the troops. (Reinforces your point.)
#22 - Roberto, lots of detailed info if you click here. Key points, from Kerry’s own comrades and commanders:
- There was a tragic incident with Kerry involved, as boat / mission commander, in a child’s death. According to the gunner who killed the child (and has always regretted it), Kerry covered up the incident by filing a false after-action report.
- Kerry’s first Purple Heart: Recommendation was denied by his chain of command because the “action” did not involve enemy fire and because the “wound” was hardly more than a scratch needing a Band-aid, and may have been self-inflicted. So how did Kerry get the medal later? No one knows. His commanders believe he “revised” the application and recommended himself.
- Likewise Kerry’s third PH: By eyewitness accounts, could not have happened in the enemy action of that day; did occur that morning as a minor injury by Kerry’s own incompetence / screwing around.
- Even his second PH was an injury sufficiently minor (a skin-deep shrapnel fragment and a little blood flow) that military men commonly refuse Purple Hearts for such wounds. Fact: Kerry got 3 Purple Hearts and yet never spent a day in the hospital. How???
- “Christmas in Cambodia”: Kerry claimed on the floor of the Senate that the voice of President Nixon was “seared, seared” in his memory as denying U.S. presence in Cambodia at the very moment Kerry was ferrying CIA there. Problems with Kerry’s story: (a) Nixon wasn’t President in Christmas 1968, Johnson was; (b) NO Swift Boat was ever involved in ferrying any troops or CIA anywhere within 50 miles of Cambodia; they were stationed near the coast.
- Getting tired of typing, so real briefly: Problems with Kerry’s Bronze and Silver Stars… Multiple eyewitness accounts dispute crucial aspects of the after-action reports that led to Kerry getting those medals. Some of the witnesses speculate that Kerry must have written the after-action reports himself to exaggerate or even falsify his own role.
Well, you made me type it!
Note that all of these matters could be cleared up, if Kerry would simply release his records to the public. He never has. He released part of them in 2005 to 3 ultra-friendly reporters at liberal papers. only. I daresay he never will release his records to the public. Unlike Bush, who has released all.
As for Kerry’s testimony in 1971 that U.S. troops were baby-killers, liars, burned down villages, etc.: It appears he was describing himself. It appears that, like all evildoers who wish to beat their breasts in public while accepting NO real responsibility, he “projected” his own deficiencies and shortcomings (that he knew first-hand, of course) onto others. Scott Beauchamp tried the same thing, a few months ago.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — September 29, 2007 @ 5:32 pm - September 29, 2007
Recruits take an oath to defend the nation and to obey the commands of officers and superiiors appointed over them. You don´t get the right to pick and choose which war to fight in.
You are right that they take an oath to follow the orders of their superior officers and the President of the United States. However they do not swear an oath to defend the country. They swear an oath to defend the Constitution. It’s unique in that we don’t swear allegiance to the President, the government or the country, but to the founding document. From the Army’s web page the oath is:
“”I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.”"
Comment by Mr. Moderate — September 29, 2007 @ 5:32 pm - September 29, 2007
Its been 41 years since I took the oath at the Philadelphia Induction center, so pardon so my memory is a little vague.
Comment by Roberto — September 29, 2007 @ 7:20 pm - September 29, 2007
Damn! I feel like I´ve outed myself. I would never give out information that give any indication of my real age.
Comment by Roberto — September 29, 2007 @ 7:24 pm - September 29, 2007
Sorry, no matter how much Lefties squint and spin, everyone who listens to Rush regularly knows exactly what he means by phony soldiers. He means those like Jesse MacBeth, Scott Beauchamp, Micah Wright, etc etc, who make up stories about war atrocities. They usually have a dollop or two of actual military experience but buff it up with imagined stories of rapes, burnt villages, etc, straight out of the wet dreams of the anti military barking moonbat. That’s what is meant by phony soldier. Sorry lefties, better luck lying distorting spinning and attempting to silence voices you dont’ like next time.
Comment by Etain P — September 29, 2007 @ 7:49 pm - September 29, 2007
32. Well Moveon prefers soft targes, like Cafepress for example.
Comment by The Livewire — September 29, 2007 @ 9:06 pm - September 29, 2007
Oh come on now, I sure Rush didn’t mean to edit the tape and besides he’s a true patriot and we know what he was really saying and anyway, Clinton, er, Kerry lied!
Comment by Chester — September 29, 2007 @ 9:20 pm - September 29, 2007
You have rush sitting in the broadcast booth, if you ever saw one you might understand he has a staff outside helping him thru the whole thing. He is not alone! he talks and makes a mistake on air, one of his helpers holds up a card that lets him know of his screwup and he then works to fix it. hey he is just a man, not superman as he tries to appear. he tries to cover his tracks like a sneak in the woods. if you screw up, in real life you admit it and say you’re sorry. in his job you cover your tracks. rush was a liberal before he was a con. if he could make more money as a liberal he would be that today. could your $$$$ on it. he is just a man.
Comment by herb — September 29, 2007 @ 9:22 pm - September 29, 2007
I said it might have not been Limbaugh’s original intent. However, it was certainly the intent of his guest, to which he concurred.
I don’t have any interest in Rush Limbaugh or talk radio shows in general, thus I do not listen to his show. I did watch the YouTube clip you provided and that was not a part of it.
If Limbaugh did indeed say that was not his intent, then I can accept that. Radio shows can be fast paced and I could see how one might inadvertently concur with a caller’s statement that they might not necessarily agree with themselves.
So while I am willing to give Limbaugh the benefit of the doubt and take him at his word on this, the fact of the matter is, he did concur with the callers statement.
What’s this boil down to then? He misspoke? Fine. But John Kerry also said he misspoke in regard to his “botched joke” and the right didn’t show much sympathy for the Senator’s error.
It’s naive for the right to expect anything different now, Bruce.
Comment by Chase — September 29, 2007 @ 10:01 pm - September 29, 2007
Chase,
I’m glad you appropriately used quotation marks around the words “botched joke,” conveying how ridiculous Kerry’s backpedaling was on that issue (which, by the way, has no comparison to Rush’s statements).
I also find quotation marks highly effective when discussing liberals and their perspectives on “the religion of peace,” “free speech,” “free healthcare,” “immigration reform,” “the rich,” “moderate,” “hypocrisy,” “the American people,” “international support,” “constitutional rights,” “hate,” “freedom of religion,” “reproductive rights,” “two Americas,” “support the troops,” “war for oil,” “Vietnam,”……..
Comment by Sean A — September 29, 2007 @ 11:05 pm - September 29, 2007
“progressive”
Comment by Sean A — September 29, 2007 @ 11:12 pm - September 29, 2007
#34:
He concurred with his guest because the drug-addled gasbag is now lying about his attitude towards those militray folks who want us out of Iraq. He called Paul Hackett a “staff puke” who went to Iraq “to pad his resume.” Plus there are his attacks on Kerry, McCain and Murtha. His odious track record belies his whiny protestations of innocence.
BTW, when are we ever going to see conservatives ever take responsibility for what they say and do? I guess I shouldn’t hold my breath waiting.
Comment by Ian S — September 30, 2007 @ 12:30 am - September 30, 2007
When did we start talking about Al Franken?
Hackett was in Civil Affairs. He asked a caller (Navy LT.) if that was a combat job. The caller said “Negative. It is not a combat position.” Therefore, he was a “staff puke”. Hackett was pulling a John F.You Kerry and ASSumed people would vote for him just because of his service. He also misunderestimated the voter’s mood and ASSumed they all hated Bush too.
My question is if he was so damn great and worthy of office, why did the DNC turn their backs on him and throw him under the bus?
What? Are they untouchable just because they served in the military? Kerry demanded all the criticism he got. I can’t completely recall, but I don’t think Rush ever attacked McCain’s service. Murtha has demanded all of his criticism and the law suit. When the Marines in Haditha of murder without any evidence, he pretty much screwed the pooch. If you bother to look, you’ll find soldiers who criticize Murtha fairly regularly.
WTF do you know of the concept of taking responsibility? Liberals have no f*cking clue what that means. When Jefferson, Pelosi, Reid, Kennedy, DiFi etc. step down from their jobs, then I might be inclined to believe you. Given your jealousy for Monica, though, I seriously doubt you have the slightest clue.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — September 30, 2007 @ 2:38 am - September 30, 2007
The important question is that if the liberals won’t listen to the commanding general, why in the hell would they listen to a desk jockey or a ass clown who didn’t make it through boot?
BTW, when are we ever going to see liberals ever admit that they were duped and used as terrorist propaganda? When are they going to accept responsibility for hoisting these POS’ up on a pedastal? When are they going to take responsibility for what they say and do that gives aid and comfort to our enemies? When are liberals going to admit that when their “dissent” is translated into Arabic, broadcast across the ME by al-Jazeera and repeated by bin Laden and Zawahri, it ain’t “dissent” anymore?
I guess I shouldn’t hold my breath waiting.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — September 30, 2007 @ 8:40 am - September 30, 2007
Chase, good point. In both examples you cite, I believe the person misspoke and did not want to convey what they really said. If one wants to argue other comments these individuals said prior to these, that may contradict what they meant to say, that’s fine. But these same arguments could still be made if the person didn’t mispeak to begin with.
Another example. I dislike Trent Lott for many of his positions and the comments he said in the past. But when he praised Strom Thurmond for his 100th birthday, and said something to the effect that he wished Thurmond was elected President when he ran, people took it literally and said that Lott was endorsing segregation. Even if I thought that Lott privately supported segregation, it was clear that he did not mean to publicly endorse it when he made the comment.
Comment by Pat — September 30, 2007 @ 8:42 am - September 30, 2007
Hey Gay Patriot — got any more excuses for Rush’s “phoney soldiers” that you’d like to try to float by us? Evidently, the first one here fell to earth pretty quickly, thanks to your readers, Chase and Ian. And, tell me, does ThatGayConservative do anything but snarl?
Comment by KYKid — September 30, 2007 @ 9:32 am - September 30, 2007
“Hackett was in Civil Affairs. He asked a caller (Navy LT.) if that was a combat job. The caller said ‘Negative. It is not a combat position.’ Therefore, he was a ’staff puke’.”
Does that mean that the caller initially made that derogatory comment, and that Rush Limbaugh mindlessly regurgitated it, and that you mindlessly supported it? If that’s so, it just shows that neither Mr. Limbaugh nor you have the slightest idea of the conditions under which Civil Affairs units operate in Iraq in comparison with combat units. Of course, if you believe that being a Civil Affairs officer in a country at war is such a cushy job and an astute career move, don’t hesitate to volunteer.
Comment by Thomas Horsville — September 30, 2007 @ 10:38 am - September 30, 2007
I’m afraid that commenters like gil, Ian S, and Thomas Horsville have been allowed to move the focus off of Media Matters and on to Rush Limbaugh. To make the politics of the target of smear the issue, rather than the Media Matters lack of ethics in attempting it, is obfuscation pure and simple.
No matter how Rush might have better handled that phone call, Media Matters attempted to smear him with a lie of omission. This is the second time within a week they’ve been caught pulling such a stunt — the first time against Bill O’Reilly. No one should ever trust anything Media Matters says again — not even if they say water is wet!
Comment by David C — September 30, 2007 @ 11:14 am - September 30, 2007
Meanwhile, the anti-war, anti-troop left shows its calm reason and patriotism in DC this weekend.
Comment by V the K — September 30, 2007 @ 11:43 am - September 30, 2007
#40: Pat, no way does that liar deserve getting any benefit of the doubt, especially after he deceptively edited the transcript of that show to make it look like his phony soldier comment was referring to the McBeth incident. In fact, there is no doubt his caller was referring to military folks who want the occupation ended and Rush helpfully chimed in with the phony soldiers description. With his similar “phony” attacks on other military people who have opposed the occupation, it’s clear he has a track record of stating such and his bleating now is just a pathetic attempt to alter his actual on-the-record beliefs.
Not. Going. To. Work.
Comment by Ian S — September 30, 2007 @ 3:09 pm - September 30, 2007
LOL….and Media Matters, whom Ian cites as “proof”, is still bleating that Jessie Macbeth is was telling the truth and that everyone else was lying.
Just like they did Scott Beauchamp, Micah Wright, and Jimmy Massey, just to name a few.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 30, 2007 @ 5:10 pm - September 30, 2007
#43
Part of the Soros deception is that the edited portion of the transcript is irrelevant.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — September 30, 2007 @ 5:19 pm - September 30, 2007
#44
MacBeth accepted responsibility, will the liberals like Ian and gillie do the same?
When will the liberals apologize for defaming the soldiers. They’ve been caught doing it and they know damn well what they’re doing. When will the liberals accept responsibility for lying to the American people?
I guess I shouldn’t hold my breath waiting.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — September 30, 2007 @ 5:45 pm - September 30, 2007
#44:
Never Does Truth lives up to his moniker by falsely claiming Media Matters defends in any way Macbeth’s made-up stories. But lying is all he could do to divert attention from the truth about his hero Rush, the sex tourist who doctors transcripts in brazen attempts to deflect criticism for having let his hatred of military folks who oppose the occupation slip out once again.
Comment by Ian S — September 30, 2007 @ 6:46 pm - September 30, 2007
funny Ian, that you don’t post a helpful link showing where Soros Matters disavows MacBeth. Then again, if all you have bookmarked is Media Matters, it makes sense.
Or are you afraid people will actually read the link and you’ll look as much the fool as you did talking about healthcare?
Comment by The Livewire — September 30, 2007 @ 9:51 pm - September 30, 2007
#48:
It’s up to Never Does Truth to provide proof for his claim that Media Matters “is still bleating that Jessie Macbeth is was telling the truth”. Especially after he deceptively made his link appear as if that’s what it was linked to.
Comment by Ian S — September 30, 2007 @ 10:14 pm - September 30, 2007
#50
It’s up to you, however, to admit that you were lied to and you’re lying now.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — September 30, 2007 @ 10:25 pm - September 30, 2007
It’s not so much a derogatory comment. Staff Puke is the same thing as a Tool or in this case a Pencil Pushing Desk Jockey. It’s not derogatory in the same sense as calling our soldiers stupid, terrorists, Nazis like the liberals love to do on a regular basis.
For instance, if you told me you were an accountant and I said “oh, a bean counter eh?”, you wouldn’t get your panties in a wad. Or if you’re a cop and I say “Donut Monster”. At least that’s assuming you’re a mature adult.
It’s called military jargon. I was merely agreeing that if he wasn’t in a combat position in Civilian Affairs, chances are good that he’s a Staff Puke.
I’m fairly familiar with CA in Iraq, so you can cram that ASSumption sideways.
I’ve got my duty, sweetheart. How ’bout you?
BTW, I can’t help but notice you still haven’t addressed the question as to why the DNC bailed on him. And how about explaining the libgasm about how he “almost won”.
And while you’re figuring out that, how about explaining how he gets away with calling a Holocaust survivor Unterführer for Propaganda.
But I’m sure that’s perfectly fine by you.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — September 30, 2007 @ 10:56 pm - September 30, 2007
LOL…..Media Matters publicized MacBeth, Media Matters can repudiate him.
If you were less prejudiced and more rational in evaluating them, Ian, you would know that Media Matters’s practice is to ignore when they’re proven wrong. They did it with Rathergate, and they’re doing it now with Beauchamp, MacBeth, Wright, Massey, and the innumerable other phony soldiers that Hackett and the Democrat Party fully endorse and support.
And if you want to scream about that not being true, just watch me post proof of Democrats carrying Massey around like a trophy.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 30, 2007 @ 11:55 pm - September 30, 2007
Even if Rush did mean to imply that soldiers who opposed the war war phony, (which is really not *that* outrageous of a charge when you put it in a non-insane perspective), I still don’t see why that’s a greater threat to our country then the way all of these Democrats obediently do the bidding of whatever George Soros demands.
Comment by V the K — October 1, 2007 @ 5:11 am - October 1, 2007
#60
BOOSH!!!
Liberals’ response to unbridled right-wing speech makes the Muslims look laid back. Reacting with stupefied indignation whenever someone disagrees with them—especially in a way that makes people point and laugh at liberals—they seem to be in a constant state of outrage. Liberals, and the conservatives who fear them, have a look of perpetual outrage, kind of the way Nancy Pelosi has a look of perpetual surprise. -Ann Coulter
Comment by ThatGayConservative — October 1, 2007 @ 5:47 am - October 1, 2007
As if the libs don’t have anything else to do, like maybe passing the legislations they promissed last year, now there’s this from Church and State Blog:
Whew! Glad the liberals in congress have nothing better to do. Naturally when I go searching, I’ll find that we have complete transparency of pork barrel spending, right?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — October 1, 2007 @ 6:33 am - October 1, 2007
Leftists just don’t get it. It is conservatives who consistently vote to fund the military and support the troops in many ways. We love the men and women who fight to keep us free. We respect the job they do in unbelievable circumstances. It is leftists who can’t wait to tear them down. Over a lifetime, who has supported the troops more, with votes to fund, give them the best weapons and equipment? Is it leftist Congress people or Republicans? Yes in this instance you can generalize. When Someone like Bill Clinton says he loathes the military, it is believable because of his history of NOT supporting the troops. When Hillary wants to get the Marines out of the White House, it is believable because of her hatred for the military. When Rush professes his love of the troops, it is believeable because of his past support. And things like his visit to Afganistan. When Bush 43 tears up when he talks to the troops it is believable because of his love of these men and women. Not like President Clinton, faking somber tears at Ron Browns funeral after being caught laughing on camera. Who votes to fund these troops and suppport them day in and day out? Conservatives. And who calls them Nazi like and falsely accuses them like Rep Murtha? The fake patriots, the leftists.
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — October 1, 2007 @ 11:06 am - October 1, 2007
The point here is that Rush spent two days talking specifically about an actual phony soldier, someone who did lie about his service and it was used by the anti-war crowd. He didn’t spend two days talking about actual soldiers who disagree with the war.
And MacBeth hasn’t even been the only phony soldier anyway.
Have not most people pluralized a single person before? “The Cindy Sheehans, The Matt Damons, or The Sean Penns of the World?”
Comment by MARGO — October 1, 2007 @ 11:13 am - October 1, 2007
*yawn*
Some are trying to smear Limbaugh? It proves he still matters. Take it as a compliment and move on. Sheesh.
*yawn*
Comment by HardHobbit — October 1, 2007 @ 11:31 am - October 1, 2007
Pathetic. Media Matters, and all you DNC Blast Fax shills, are pathetic.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 1, 2007 @ 11:35 am - October 1, 2007
#63
Your shoulder is sure to be sore after giving yourself such big pat on your back.
Unfortunately your premise is way off. Supporting the use of tax dollars to enlarge the military is not supporting the troops.
All it does is satisfy the horrible pentagon bureaucracy where inefficiency and corruption are rampant. Your notion of support is wave flags, yell and scream followed by maybe giving some money to a likeminded charity.
While Democrats like, Paul Wellstone, have done more for Veterans wellbeing than virtually all repubs combined.
If you truly “support the troops” you would quadruple the funding of the VA so those veterans who served get the care they need. You would demand an expansion of soldier’s benefits. You would be demanding that the family of every immigrant solider gain citizenship. You would demand accountability from the Commander in Chief and Joint Chiefs who were so unprepared for the amount of wounded soldiers. (Not to mention their horrible planning)
That is why Rush’s “phony soldiers” comment is so believable. The right thinks of soldiers as political props and tools and not humans. When they show their humanity, they become “phony.”
Comment by gil — October 1, 2007 @ 12:03 pm - October 1, 2007
It just shows that the left doesn’t have any real solutions, they just want to scream “outrage!” and expect their puppets to jerk into action. It worked with Ian and gil, and apparently many members of the Democrat congress. Get over yourselves, princesses. I’ve been sick and tired of this “Government by Diva” act for quite a while.
Comment by V the K — October 1, 2007 @ 12:16 pm - October 1, 2007
Furthermore, gil, anyone like yourself who supports people like Scott Beauchamp, who openly lie about, smear, and slander our soldiers with fake stories, has no business making judgments about who is or who isn’t supporting the troops.
If you cared, you’d stop slandering and lying about them. You don’t and you won’t.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 1, 2007 @ 1:00 pm - October 1, 2007
#67: I would also ask how is it supporting the troops to fail to plan for the aftermath of the Iraq invasion? How does it support the troops to ignore the potential of an insurgency and once that insurgency is underway not pull out all possible stops to see that the troops get the protective equipment they need? The GOP war cheerleaders talk a good line but they really don’t give a rat’s ass about the troops. Probably explains why Operation Yellow Elephant has been such a dismal failure.
Comment by Ian S — October 1, 2007 @ 3:43 pm - October 1, 2007
LOL…..again, Ian, anyone like yourself who supports people like Scott Beauchamp, Jessie MacBeth, Jimmy Massey, Micah Wright, and others who openly lie about, smear, and slander our soldiers with fake stories, has no business making judgments about who is or who isn’t supporting the troops.
If you cared, you’d stop slandering and lying about them. You don’t and you won’t.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 1, 2007 @ 4:11 pm - October 1, 2007
Except when a gay rights bill is attached to a defense spending bill. Because evidentially, conservative opposition to gay rights is stronger than conservative support for the defense department. The Republican Party simply won’t fund the defense department if supporting gay rights is made a prerequisite by a majority of the United States Senate.
Comment by Chase — October 1, 2007 @ 4:34 pm - October 1, 2007
And it is a great day when a majority of the United States Senate is in support of our community. It’s been a long time coming. What else could turn a majority of Republicans to vote against a defense funding bill besides supporting gay rights?
Gene, that shows what the Republican’s priorities are.
Comment by Chase — October 1, 2007 @ 4:41 pm - October 1, 2007
Supporting the use of tax dollars to enlarge the military is not supporting the troops.
I suppose gutting the military to the point they can’t afford bullets like BJ did does support them?
The Republican Party simply won’t fund the defense department if supporting gay rights is made a prerequisite by a majority of the United States Senate.
Then why the hell does it have to be attatched to a defense bill? Why can’t it stand on it’s own?
BTW, you just made a good arguement for Line Item Veto.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — October 1, 2007 @ 4:45 pm - October 1, 2007
You mean a “special rights” bill, Chase.
Because crimes against non-gay victims won’t get any of the benefits. Instead, they’ll have to be prosecuted and punished under regular laws, with no automatic Federal funding, no automatic Federal investigations, and no automatic harsher sentences.
And as far as “majority of the US Senate”, one wonders why, if that was truly the case, they couldn’t just raise it as its own bill, rather than having to attach it to something else.
Tell us, Chase; why do you support laws that give you better treatment than your fellow non-gay Americans? You supposedly are for “equality”; why, then, do you demand special perks for your sexual orientation?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 1, 2007 @ 4:46 pm - October 1, 2007
#71: It’s pretty telling that you don’t even bother trying to defend the GOP mismanagement of the war and how it has had disastrous consequences for our troops and our nation.
Comment by Ian S — October 1, 2007 @ 4:57 pm - October 1, 2007
It’s pretty telling that you don’t even bother trying to defend the GOP mismanagement of the war and how it has had disastrous consequences for our troops and our nation.
One must remember, Ian, that these accusations of “mismanagement” and “disastrous consequences” are coming from people like yourself whose idea of correct management and good consequences involves supporting, endorsing, promoting, and protecting people like Scott Beauchamp, Jessie MacBeth, Jimmy Massey, Micah Wright, and others who openly lie about, smear, and slander our soldiers with fake stories — and consider them “real soldiers”.
In short, it’s a bit like a thief calling a bank dishonest.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 1, 2007 @ 5:06 pm - October 1, 2007
A line from Majority Diva Harry GReid’s hissy fit today.
(H)e crossed that line by calling our men and women in uniform who oppose the war in Iraq ‘phony soldiers.’ This comment was so beyond the pale of decency that it cannot be left alone
Oh, give it up, Mary. You represent a party that supports sucking the brains out of viable infants and surrendering to terrorists and you say that the “phony soldiers” remark is “beyond the pale?”
Not to mention, you stood four-square with Move-On when they were calling a certain soldier in uniform a traitor, remember that?
Comment by V the K — October 1, 2007 @ 5:47 pm - October 1, 2007
Oh, and isn’t this amazing.
Then again, maybe not.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 1, 2007 @ 6:01 pm - October 1, 2007
That’s an interesting theory. You should definitely test it on members of a Civil affairs unit in Iraq, especially if they have just been fired upon. Of course, it may be difficult to contact them since they often travel in light convoys in the middle of nowhere. But you could test your theory on their wives: I’m sure they are “mature adults” too.
So, ignorance is not your excuse?
I do my military duty every year. Four times: January, April, July, and October.
That’s because I know nothing of the inner workings of the Democratic Party of Ohio. I’m not in the habit of discussing things I don’t know.
Comment by Thomas Horsville — October 1, 2007 @ 6:25 pm - October 1, 2007
#13 ***And the left is not well posed to say “anyone who wears the uniform ought to be respected” after what they did to General Patreaus. Comment by V the K***
Outstanding point, V!!
Also, what’s clear is the refusal of facts by the left. They just don’t “get” it - any of it.
Comment by LesbianNeoCon — October 1, 2007 @ 6:40 pm - October 1, 2007
That’s absolutely true. You can always trust so-called conservatives to give away empty words, fake tears, and other people’s money.
I don’t know. Who had a majority in Congress when soldiers had to buy their own body armor?
You must be kidding?
Comment by Thomas Horsville — October 1, 2007 @ 7:07 pm - October 1, 2007
I can’t make head nor tail of that comment.
First, #71 is gil. Why should Ian expect gil to defend the war? But perhaps the numbers shifted, and Ian really meant comments #70 or #72. OK, well, how was the subject war management with either of those?
It’s as if Ian suddenly interjected in this thread, “It’s pretty telling that you don’t even bother trying to defend Jimmy Carter and Britney Spear’s love child and its disastrous consequences.” Huh???
As for whether the war was mismanaged: Certain criticisms are fair and certain others are not, I have gone through them many times in the past, I would be happy to do so again - except I know with Ian, it wouldn’t do any good.
Speaking of gil:
Why “quadruple”? Where’d that number come from? What if I only support doubling or tripling? Analysis and facts instead of numbers thrown wildly like a schizophrenic playing darts, please.
Are you saying, you do? That would be a step forward for you, so I hope so.
Why? I think it’s perfectly logical that alien soldiers gain citizenship and then, their families are open to the process as with any other immigrants. Ooops, guess I don’t “support the troops”.
Were they? By what numbers, facts, expectations and standards?
I suspect the main point of gil’s screeching demands and reprimands here about “supporting the troops” is to make himself feel better, because… in fact… he doesn’t.
Supporting the troops begins with appreciating and honoring what they are doing for us all… For real, in your heart… And wanting them to be successful at it, and wanting them to complete their mission in Iraq (of destroying al Qaeda), so their comrades’ sacrifices have not been vain. And respecting them instead of supporting efforts to slander their professionalism and character (Haditha / John Murtha, Jesse Macbeth and Scott Beauchamp). gil, how about it?
With that as a base, let’s then talk rationally and intelligently about budget issues.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 1, 2007 @ 7:19 pm - October 1, 2007
Lefties like to deny that they hate the military and think patriotism is a joke, but most all of us conservatives on this board and elsewhere went to college, and we remember exactly how our left-wing professors and colleagues sneered at the military, and told us that patriotism was stupid because it was ridiculous to have any sort of attachment to the piece of geography one just happened to be born in. We know first hand how the left really feels about this country. Why do you guys even bother denying it?
Comment by V the K — October 1, 2007 @ 7:24 pm - October 1, 2007
#87:
It was in reference to #75 not #71. My mistake and my deepest apologies to gil.
Comment by Ian S — October 1, 2007 @ 9:06 pm - October 1, 2007
Oh, for the freaking love of Pete… or something.
Voting funding isn’t supporting the troops or else “they’d” be right by insisting that Murtha is the biggest troop supporter ever. Because he votes for funding with one hand while he calls them cold blooded murderers with the other.
Supporting the troops isn’t even “never criticizing someone in uniform or who has ever been in uniform”. Who the heck made up that rule?
Murtha does that… shuts people up by demanding if *they* ever served. I’d love to see him asked about Haditha by someone who has served in combat, so they could whip out d*cks and start measuring.
Supporting the troops isn’t even particularly supporting this war or this mission.
Supporting the troops is *believing* that military service is important and worthwhile and having admiration for those who chose to serve, and at the very least, making public that belief.
Thus, wanting the poor little baby psychopaths home where they won’t be in danger is *not* supporting them. And if War is always wrong, military service is *always* wrong. There is no way to “support” those choosing military service if you believe that War is always wrong. There is no way to support them if you believe they are all forced by being poor or minority or stupid to enlist. Allowing major slanders, such as Murtha’s statements that Haditha was obviously a massacre in cold blood but what can you expect of men in that situation, on the basis that MURTHA has military service in his past is obscene. Beauchamp’s illusions of literature that led him to portray the military atmosphere as accepting of his and his buddy’s cruel behavior isn’t excused because he’s in uniform. (I do admire his choice to serve, even just for the experience and literary creds, but it doesn’t excuse writing about how war took away his humanity before he even got there.)
There isn’t something magical about a military uniform that excuses anyone from criticism if they hurt the reputations of their brothers and sisters in uniform, or if they facilitate physical danger by preaching failure or otherwise building up the will and belief of those we are fighting. In fact, an always-civilian might be excused because he or she doesn’t know better. Someone who has been in the military, by virtue of their uniform, deserves MORE scorn, not less, when it comes to offering moral support to the enemy.
There are phony soldiers like McBeth who simply make up stories for attention. And who’s to know when someone calls a radio show or posts on a blog that they are telling the truth?
There are phony soldiers like that fellow from Hawaii who joined the Army after 9-11, while we were at war, and only bothered to examine the morality of it when he got orders to deploy. (NOT possible for someone in officer training. Sorry. About all they *do* is examine the morality of it and examine their own ability to carry out their job with good conscience.) Phony soldier. In uniform or not it’s highly likely his change of heart was planned with malice beforehand. “If I go into the military I’ll be able to protest from a position of authority.” PHONY soldier.
Comment by Synova — October 1, 2007 @ 10:00 pm - October 1, 2007
“There isn’t something magical about a military uniform that excuses anyone from criticism…”
Just as the death of a loved one doesn’t immunize Cindy Sheehan or the Jersey Girls from criticism after they voluntarily choose to take partisan political positions in the media.
Comment by Sean A — October 2, 2007 @ 12:25 am - October 2, 2007
Exactly. I forgot that part in my spiel.
The military produces a product. The product is: Demoralization of the enemy. Killing the enemy isn’t enough; the survivors and their families have to GIVE UP. Then you’ve won.
People who slag America and/or our military rationally and constructively, e.g. in response to a real shortcoming or bad action, are fine. They *may* be encouraging the enemy to hang in there, BUT, at least they’re raising a real issue. That helps in the long run.
People who slag America and/or our military irrationally or destructively can claim no such compensating virtue and contribute nothing but the pure undermining and un-doing of our troops’ work… the diametrical opposite of supporting our troops.
It’s actually not a very “fine line”. Rational and constructive criticism of America and/or our military; vs. irrational and/or destructive. Jesse Macbeth, Scott Beauchamp, Jack Murtha (Haditha non-massacre) are the latter.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 2, 2007 @ 12:52 am - October 2, 2007
These phoney patriots. Ask any leftist…if given a vote to fund the military, would you vote them 0 dollars a year or $300 billion, how would every leftist vote? They don’t support the troops and never have. They want a dept of PEACE, and believe if we had no military, no other country would either. How utterly dumb.
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — October 2, 2007 @ 11:33 am - October 2, 2007
Just over the wire, Harry Reid and some Democratic leaders are sending a letter to to the president of Clear Channel Radio, the parent of Rush Limbaugh´s station requesting that he have Rush repudiate his statement. What hypocrisy!!! It wasn´t too long ago that the Senate Majority Leader, made made remarks that could be construed as traitorous, i.e. ¨the war is lost,¨and he has the consummate gaul to think he is defending the military and their right to dissent because of Jesse Macbeth. The dude spent 44 days in the Army, he barely got into the meat of basic training. I´ve had five hours of flying lessons but it sure as hell doesn´t make me a pilot nor qualify me to be critical of those who are professionals.
Comment by Roberto — October 2, 2007 @ 12:10 pm - October 2, 2007
Not to mention, Harry Reid voted against condemning MorOn-dot-org for the Betrayus ad.
This isn’t the first time Sorocrats have tried to intimidate a broadcaster. Remember when Reid and other Sorocrats threatened ABC’s broadcast license for criticizing Bill Clinton in ‘The Path to 9-11′ (Where’s the DVD?)?
When Chavez shut down opposition media, the left cheered. Now, we see why.
Comment by V the K — October 2, 2007 @ 12:19 pm - October 2, 2007
Indeed, Rush should absolutely repudiate Harry Reid’s corrupt, distorted version of his statement.
I get the feeling this is another LOM (Left Outrage Myth) in the making. Every once in a while, the Left needs to reassure itself spastically of its weak patriotism and to create a new myth of how outrageous those righty opponents are. Fuel for the fund-raising machines, I guess.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 2, 2007 @ 12:45 pm - October 2, 2007
Chicken Doves.
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — October 2, 2007 @ 1:27 pm - October 2, 2007
Yo, Harry! How about introducing a censure of Jesse MacBeth for fabricating a military record and defrauding the federal government to obtain veterans’ benefits? Or maybe a resolution condemning Ahmadinejad’s statements that the jury is still out on whether the Holocaust occurred because “more research is needed.”
cricket………………..cricket……………….cricket
Comment by Sean A — October 2, 2007 @ 5:27 pm - October 2, 2007
93: “Ask any leftist…if given a vote to fund the military, would you vote them 0 dollars a year or $300 billion, how would every leftist vote?”
Great point. Because even without the hypothetical you proposed, they still regard every dollar that goes to the military as having been essentially “stolen” from some other, more “legitimate” program or intended purpose. I mean, how often have we heard those same, tired words: “just think of what a wonderful world this would be if only that money had gone to education or healthcare.” They view every dollar as having been “stolen” from the public schools or indigent medical programs. It doesn’t occur to them that the military can exist in the U.S. without public schools or universal healthcare. However, it cannot be said that the opposite is true.
Comment by Sean A — October 2, 2007 @ 5:49 pm - October 2, 2007
LOL….Sean, you and I live in a state that shows what happens when Democrats have no defense spending and pump enormous sums into education and healthcare.
Most of it, simply put, evaporates.
My rule is simple; not another penny on education until national education standards with teeth are rammed down teachers’ unions throats.
Not another penny on healthcare until contingency-fee arrangements for lawyers are outlawed as champerty (as they are in numerous other countries) and until the losing side in a lawsuit is mandated to pay all legal costs for the winning side.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 2, 2007 @ 8:07 pm - October 2, 2007
Yes! And of course, “education” is Liberal-speak for “teachers’ unions and administration.” Mentioning this provokes overwhelming shock and outrage (of the type I PRAYED Columbia liberals would express at Ahmadinejad’s unshakeable position that “more research is needed” before he will acknowledge that the Holocaust occurred–they didn’t–sounded perfectly reasonable to most of them). But why would any of that money go to actually teaching children when the teachers and administrators have a constitutionally-protected property interest in their jobs? (Hence, the lightning-fast, 28-step appeal process they can resort to while still being paid even if all 30 students saw the teacher shooting up at her desk.)
And I’m sure you share my disgust at the Teachers’ Unions’ VICIOUS attacks on the idea of even having a dialogue about vouchers. Their opposition to providing choice to parents proves everything that we already know–they will not allow the concept of competition to be introduced into the system because it means that there might be some consequence for a failure to get real results. How’s that for putting the kids first?
I like the banning of contingency fee arrangements idea, but of course that might “chill” a multiple murderer’s constitutional right to seek redress of grievances in the courts for being deprived TWO helpings of Jell-o at Folsom Prison, clearly a DRACONIAN violation of the 8th Amendment’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment.
Of all the great things we did bring over and borrow from England’s legal system, guess which rule we decided to leave on the other side of the pond? LOSER ALWAYS PAYS THE ATTORNEYS’ FEES.
Given your HR background, you are obviously aware (and as bitter as I am) over the fact that especially in California, any useless terminated employee can file with the DFEH (lose), then file in court alleging the whole bag of horrors (discrimination, harassment, retaliation,…) with little more than their mere membership in a protected class and the termination to support the allegations that the law was broken. From there it can typically cost anywhere from $50000 to $100000 to take depositions, etc. and marshall the evidence to file a motion to dismiss the case before trial. Even assuming that the employer WINS and the frivolous suit is thrown out, the employer will NEVER get that money back. Attorneys’ fees awards to the employer and against the employee are virtually unheard of (and uncollectable anyway). And if you go to TRIAL and win, that could be another 50-75K that the employee will similarly have no obligation to pay.
One thing I do like about the out-of-control availability of contingency fee arrangements? No liberal can ever argue again that any poor, single mom thrown out by her MEAN EVIL employer does not have equal or better access to representation than the employer. $500 per hour attorneys routinely take employment discrimination cases for the most impoverished in our society because if they win, they win everything–compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, interest, etc. If they lose? Employee walks away. Employer is out 100k to 250K for WINNING THE CASE.
However, I have to concede that some of the very things about California employment law I find so paternalistic, actually ensure that I have a job. ; )
Comment by Sean A — October 2, 2007 @ 9:09 pm - October 2, 2007
i’m renewing my subscription to the Rush Limbaugh Letter….as a poke in the eye of Harry Reid hehe
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/menu/limbaughletter_defeatthem.guest.html
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — October 2, 2007 @ 9:39 pm - October 2, 2007
#54:
Comment by David C — October 3, 2007 @ 2:42 am - October 3, 2007
Rush explained on his show today that the minute or so between the callers original comments about “phony soldiers” and his later comments that he was talking about Jesse Macbeth is another example of Rush “lying”. Actually as he explains the caller’s original comment made him think of the story that Macbeth was charged and sentenced with defrauding the Veterans administration…and while he was waiting to get the print out from his producer (took about 1 minute) the caller “Mike” went on to a discussion of WMD which Rush let him go…Then when Mike the caller was gone Rush went on with the Jesse Macbeth comments. For the sake of brevity when he put up the transcript of the call he left out the part about the WMD.
But we are getting off what should be the main point here. It is really not about Rush and what he said or didn’t say…it IS about free speech and the agenda of George Soros funded groups to restrict speech to whatever THEY deem we the public should be allowed to know. They are sure that we are all too stupid to sort out fact from fiction. This should be scary for us all who listen to whatever radio/tv/ read internet blogs… today they are going after Rush..next they will come after Gay Patriot…Think about it.
Comment by Linda Strickland — October 3, 2007 @ 12:49 pm - October 3, 2007
Sean, agreed.
I am teaching in California. I once asked a district supervisor where is all the money going. He ask me if I had a spare couple of years so he could explain it to me. The whole system is so bloated and convoluted. I disagree with NDT. The Dept of Ed. needs to be abolished and the Feds need to get out of the education process, as Reagan tried to do, and that goes the same for much of the control Sacramento has on education. Education should be controlled most at the local level. The whole system needs to be blown up and rebuilt from scratch.
Comment by sonicfrog — October 3, 2007 @ 1:04 pm - October 3, 2007
I agree. Education should be de-federalized (not more federalized). And competitive pressure elements should be introduced to the system, like vouchers for poor and middle class parents.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 3, 2007 @ 1:15 pm - October 3, 2007
And, it is about the Democrats being total losers and not having anything else to do.
Seriously - One radio host said “phony soldiers”, and seconds later (or no more than a minute or two), made it crystal that he was talking about a real phony soldier (if you will pardon the expression). Don’t the Democrats in Congress have anything better to do?
With them it’s all distract, distract, distract. Distracting from what? From their enthusiasm for the “Betray Us” ad - which was a real affront, a true disgrace - and more broadly, from the fact that for close to 4 now, they have been actively trying to make the United States lose in Iraq.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 3, 2007 @ 1:20 pm - October 3, 2007
(close to 4 years)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 3, 2007 @ 1:20 pm - October 3, 2007
I think, ILC and Sonic, there is a distinct differentiation that should be made in terms of Federal “control” of education.
I do not have a problem with the Federal government establishing basic standards of performance in specific subjects and accounting/financial rules for school districts. That is because parents should be able to compare how well schools are performing in both respects regardless of geography or location.
I do not have a problem with the state government possessing the power of intervention when schools break either of the latter. If your students are consistently failing to perform up to standards, you need help and change
What I DO have a problem with is attempts to micromanage schools at the Federal or state level. As long as your students are meeting the performance standards and your school the financial standards, I don’t care how they’re doing it; you know the situation and how to manage it better than the Federal government does.
The problem, though, is this; there are entirely too many situations in which “local control” is used as an excuse for “local incompetence”. Our local public high school had an algebra teacher who was singularly incompetent to teach, but he had friends on the school board and he was a popular individual in the community. Year after year, good students would flunk and bad students would pass, only to go off to college and be forced into remedial algebra, but nothing happened.
ILC also has the right idea. Public schools should always be the cheapest option, but there should be nothing stopping parents from requesting that their local contribution to schools be applied to the school of choice to which they wish to send their children. Furthermore, I believe that childless folks like myself should be allowed to decide to which school we want our contribution going.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 3, 2007 @ 2:40 pm - October 3, 2007
But why would it ever stop there?
1) The Federal bureaucrats and politicians wouldn’t want it to, and
2) The States would say “If you’re going to measure us, you must give us the money to measure up with”
And we’ll end up back at the federalization / micromanagement which exists today. My evidence: The history of education in the U.S. over the last 40 years.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 3, 2007 @ 3:14 pm - October 3, 2007
Umm… While I a straight male, I did have ONE comment to post. Didn’t John Kerry use a number of “PHONY SOLDIERS” groups to come up with his Ghengis Khan comment back in the 60’s…. we will never know if he was stripped of rank, medals, and given a Dis-Honorable Discharge, as Jimmy Carter pardoned ALL from Vietnam.
As a “Former” Marine myself, i guess Hackett was lucky not to be referred to, as we Marines refer to “OFFICE” staffers as POGIES ( a stinky, slimey fish)
To constantly hear Democrats refer to our military as “LOSERS”=Dean, “Murderers”=Murtha, “Stupid”=Kerry, “Nazi’s”=Kerry, “Terrorists”=Biden(dunno how to spell his name), “LIARS”=Hillary Clinton
Comment by RushNduck — October 4, 2007 @ 5:13 pm - October 4, 2007
As said before Kerry used a bunch back in the 60’s that NEVER went to vietnam as a fictional base for his speeches then, MAYBE Rush was thinking of them to, Hence the plural
Comment by RushNduck — October 4, 2007 @ 5:16 pm - October 4, 2007
I’ve listened to both Rush and Bill’s comments, in their full context, with no axe to grind on these particular issues, and it is absolutely incredible to me — incredible in the literal sense, as in ‘not credible’ — that a reasonable person could accept Rush or Bill’s rationalization. Maybe they misspoke, and perhaps their words do not reflect their true, underlying sentiments. But the idea that the plain meaning of their commentary isn’t racist (in Bill’s case), or a blanket slur against soldiers who oppose the Iraq war (in Rush’s case)?!?
Comment by truth4achange — October 5, 2007 @ 8:30 pm - October 5, 2007