home

Fox and Limbaugh Caught Dissembling Again

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Media
Posted on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 04:50:25 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Media Matters:

Summary: Discussing Rush Limbaugh's recent description of service members who advocate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq as "phony soldiers," John Gibson asserted on his radio show: "Rush was specifically talking about a particular one, Jesse MacBeth, who had pled guilty in court to lying about even being in Iraq." To support this claim, Gibson aired a clip in which Limbaugh purported to air the "entire" segment in question. In fact, that segment did not include 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 subsequent reference to MacBeth.

As Rob Corddry said, "facts have a liberal bias," so they need to be adjusted by the likes of Limbaugh and Fox.

Update [2007-10-1 18:16:27 by Big Tent Democrat]: You gotta respect the chutzpah the Republicans have:

More...

Here's how the House Republicans are responding:

House GOP Sponsor Resolution to Commend Limbaugh

110TH CONGRESS
1st SESSION
H. RES. ---

Commending Rush Hudson Limbaugh III for his ongoing public support of American troops serving both here and abroad. Thanking Mr. Limbaugh for his relentless efforts to build and maintain troop morale through worldwide radio broadcasts and personal visits to conflict regions.

Ha!

< Sexist Attacks on Hillary's Laugh | Late Night: You Ain't Going Nowhere (New Passport Rules) >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Fox and Limbaugh Caught Dissembling Again | 66 comments (66 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    et al (3.00 / 2) (#3)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 09:23:09 AM EST
    In fact, that segment did not include 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 subsequent reference to MacBeth.

    Ah yes, one minute and 35 seconds is such an eternity....

    And someone did forget to mention that:

    1. It was all during the same call from the same caller...

    2. Who brought the subject up...

    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.

    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.

    and who changed the subject....

    CALLER:  Exactly, sir.  My other comment, my original comment, was ....

    and that Limbaugh went back to the subject exactly 140 words after the caller had ceased his "original" reason for calling...

    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.
     

    Here, read the transcript.

    Again notice that the subject remains on "phony callers" well after Limbaugh used the words. And notice that it is the Caller who changes subject and Limbaugh goes back to it.

    Don't want to, eh?? Well, just keep believing everything that Media Matters tells you.

    You'll be almost as smart as that guy in the TV ad who stayed in a Holiday Inn Express last night...;-)

    Heh (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 09:34:59 AM EST
    Make up your mind - is it all one caller or is one minute 35 seconds not an eternity?

    Cuz if Rush is going one with one caller for 15 minutes, then the one caller thing does not work.

    And if one minute 35 seconds is immaterial, then the call has to be around 15 minutes.

    If it is a 5 minute cal, 1/3 of it can not be imaterial.

    You are such a dittohead.


    Parent

    Hold on there, Big Tent! (1.00 / 1) (#5)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 12:24:16 PM EST
    Are you against the accused getting a fair hearing... Here? On a blog ran by a criminal defense attorney??? Wow!  ;-)

    And who said 15 minutes? Has MediaMatters, aka elect Hillary, done it again???

    What I said was:

    All of this happened during 1 call.

    The caller brought it up and after Limbaugh joined in, the caller changed the subject.

    The number words between the caller giving his original reason to call, and Limbaugh's return to Jason Macbeth was 140 words...

    And was it Einstein who said that one minute and 35 seconds was an eternity...if you are touch a hot stove???

    Me? Dittohead?? Sometimes you are funny!

    Moonbat! Moonbat!

    LOL

    BTW - You can read the transcript via the Link I so thoughtfully provided. I wonder why no one of Left has provided one....????

    Parent

    You don't really believe (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Edger on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 12:28:13 PM EST
    that anyone is stupid enough to think that you make any sense?

    Jesus... I hope not. On both counts.

    Parent

    Well, if you are not concerned... (1.00 / 1) (#9)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 01:03:30 PM EST
    Why do you care....??

    BTW - You're the one who posted a strategy of turning terrorists into common criminals....

    I mean speaking of "thinking..."

    Parent

    I'm really getting worried about you. (none / 0) (#10)
    by Edger on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 01:15:11 PM EST


    Parent
    The beam in your eye is so big (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 01:17:29 PM EST
    it must hurt a lot. Can you still see to drive?

    Parent
    MB (1.00 / 1) (#19)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 07:11:57 PM EST
    So when it comes down to facts vs smears...

    I can put you down for smears??

    Okay.

    Parent

    How does it feel (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Edger on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 07:19:06 PM EST
    to be so completely, utterly, and totally irrelevant?

    Parent
    How does it feel (1.00 / 1) (#21)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 08:21:55 PM EST
    to never have an original thought? To say such things as:

    Posted by edger at December 4, 2005 08:12 AM
    (I had written)Insurgents don't use car bombs to kill civilians or give booby trapped dolls to children. That is terrorist work, edgey

    (Edger replied) That is not "terrorist work" in the way you try to twist it to mean, at all. It is the work of the Iraqi people - the very people BushCo thought would throw flowers - fighting to kick the US out of Iraq":

    Go look up the figures, edger. And tell us why Iraqis are attacking Iraqis??

    Strange way to "kick the US out of Iraq," eh??

    They are terrorists. They are seeking to control Iraq, and the world, through terror attacks.

    Yeah, I know. It's a long shot. But, how many will die because these cockroaches of human beings haven't been promptly squashed while you make such  incredible statements?

    Parent

    You've coveniently "forgotten" already (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Edger on Wed Oct 03, 2007 at 05:39:01 AM EST
    what has been explained to you many times?

    I've also told you many times, if you're going to keep trying to sell fear ppj, you've gotta stop using your own product, because right now you're on about thew same level as a crackhead, and your brain is functioning about as well. And like the crackhead, you persist in creating your own problems... then sink into denial and try to blame others for your self created problems.
    ...
    No one expects you to get it. One of the symptoms of your psychosis is the inability to realize you are in it. Another is that it forces you to fight the people who are trying to help you here.

    You need help, ppj. You need treatment. As I've said before, your attitudes and mindset are not things to be "debated". They are things to be eliminated. With treatment maybe they can be, and maybe they can't be, but your brain is not functioning now.

    Regarding the motivations of the insurgents I interrogated in Iraq, a week ago I wrote:
    The vast majority of them weren't radical Muslims, bin Laden acolytes or Saddam hardliners; they were motivated by nationalism. They opposed the U.S. occupation of what they saw as their sovereign land (silly them!) so they lashed out in the most meaningful way they could: at the "collaborators" in their midst aiding and abetting the occupying, colonial power. It's basic insurgency doctrine, folks.
    Now I realize that any recognition that the insurgents in Iraq are fighting for their country and would kill "collaborators" of their invaders just doesn't fit the fanatsy worldview created by your psychosis, ppj, but reality and a pyschosis have never coexisted well.

    And I must apologize, there are some ways in which you are "relevant"....

    For example:

    What do you think those insurgents would do to you given the chance, given that you've sat there at that keyboard for 4 years giggling and gleefully cheering on the murder of them and millions of Iraqi women and children and the destruction of their society?

    I hear Blackwater is hiring. Why don't you 'naval aviate' your way over to their offices and sign up. You know, put your money where your flapping gums are? What a concept, huh?

    Parent

    You'd be much better off (5.00 / 0) (#26)
    by Edger on Wed Oct 03, 2007 at 05:49:55 AM EST
    letting us help you here, ppj... I can imagine the "treatment" Iraqis would use to "cure" your psychosis.

    Parent
    Doesn't work edger (1.00 / 1) (#27)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Oct 03, 2007 at 06:37:56 AM EST
     
    so they lashed out in the most meaningful way they could: at the "collaborators" in their midst

    Blowing up hospitals, schools, the nations electrical grid system, detonating car bombs in market places full of innocent women and children..

    That is terrorism, pure and simple. It is being done by terrorists.

    That you try and defend it defines you as someone who is simply incapable of understanding.

    Shame on you edger.

    Parent

    Yeah. Shame on me.... (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Edger on Wed Oct 03, 2007 at 08:29:50 AM EST
    How could I have been so in denial...
    "Shock and Awe" was devised by Harlan Ullman, a Washington military strategist. One of his pupils, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell, credits Ullman with "raising my vision several levels."

    According to CBS News, Day 1 of the Iraq invasion will consist of attacking Iraq with 300-400 cruise missiles--more missiles than used during the entire Gulf War. Day 2 will consist of another 300-400 missiles. An average of as much as one missile every four minutes will rain utter devastation on Iraq for the first 48 hours of the war. "There will not be a safe place in Baghdad," said one Pentagon official. Ullman told CBS reporter David Martin, "You take the city down. You get rid of their power, water. In two to five days they are physically, emotionally and psychologically exhausted."

    To CBS, Ullman stated, "You have this simultaneous effect, rather like the nuclear weapons at Hiroshima, not taking days or weeks but minutes."
    ...
    The saturation bombing envisioned is unprecedented in military history. One Pentagon official explained, "the sheer size of this has never been seen before, never contemplated before."
    ...
    Ullman's reference to water would be comical if it were not macabre. Iraq's infrastructure has been decimated, and clean water is already a deadly health problem in Iraq. Indeed, one would think that the Iraqi people are already shocked and awed. An estimated one million people, half of them children, have died in Iraq after the Gulf War as a result of UN-imposed sanctions, prompting Mairead Corrigan Maguire, Nobel Peace Prize winner in 1976, to say, "In 50 years, the next generation will ask, 'What were you doing when the children of Iraq were dying?'" To give this figure a sense of scale, 140,000 people died in the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

    Further, British and American pilots have bombed Iraq an average of more than once per week from the end of the Gulf War until now, using cluster bombs carrying spent uranium. Among the murderous effects of this campaign: childhood cancers in Iraq have increased 240% since 1998


    Catholic New Times

    Parent
    dodge (4.00 / 1) (#33)
    by roy on Wed Oct 03, 2007 at 09:33:00 AM EST
    How does targeting children (see here,  here, and graphic photos of child victims of both American and terrorist attacks here) constitute resistance of the occupying forces?

    And I use "targeting" deliberately; while some of the children are killed as bystanders to attacks on occupying forces or the "collaborator" democratically-elected Iraqi government, others are clearly killed on purpose.

    Parent

    Good point, but no dodge. (5.00 / 0) (#35)
    by Edger on Wed Oct 03, 2007 at 10:21:28 AM EST
    I'm sure that some are "clearly killed on purpose". I imagine that some of the insurgency in Iraq are just as crazy as the neocons who invaded and destroyed the country.

    I also imagine that a good part, if not most or all, of those attacks on children are retaliation against collaborators. IOW, attacks on the children of collaborators.

    This might help    , Roy.

    Parent

    And also attacks on opposing sects, of course. (5.00 / 0) (#36)
    by Edger on Wed Oct 03, 2007 at 10:26:34 AM EST
    No one is denying that. Even if so however, it is no excuse for what we have done to Iraq and to the people of Iraq.

    If Iraqis have sectarian differences and kill each other in a civil war, it is their civil war, and neither The US nor any other country has any more right to intervene for your benefit than any other more powerful country had the right to intervene in the American Civil War for their benefit...

    Parent

    And none of those killed (1.00 / 1) (#39)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Oct 03, 2007 at 10:43:55 AM EST
    after the invasion was over had to be killed. You forget that the terrorists think they can achieve a political solution. That the Demos/Left have declared the war lost...

    You forget this:

    Q: Was the American antiwar movement important to Hanoi's victory?

    A:  It was essential to our strategy.  Support of the war from our rear was completely secure  while the American rear was vulnerable.  Every day our leadership would listen to world news over the radio at 9 a.m.  to follow the growth of the American antiwar movement.  Visits to Hanoi by people like Jane Fonda, and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and ministers gave us confidence  that we should hold on  in the face of battlefield reverses. We were elated when Jane Fonda, wearing a red Vietnamese dress, said at a press conference that she was ashamed of American actions in the war and that she would struggle along with us

    Bui Tin Q&A

    Parent

    Just cant let it go (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by jondee on Wed Oct 03, 2007 at 10:57:30 AM EST
    Even Robert McNamara concedes that it was an ill-concieved, morally questionable war and yet Chicenhawkus Americanus wants to conflate the Vietnam debacle with the current war and every other wat.

    Once your tribal narcissism is wounded that deeply it apparently never recovers.

    Parent

    Jondee (1.00 / 1) (#44)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Oct 03, 2007 at 03:26:55 PM EST
    Was the American antiwar movement important to Hanoi's victory?

    A:  It was essential to our strategy.  Support of the war from our rear was completely secure  while the American rear was vulnerable.  Every day our leadership would listen to world news over the radio at 9 a.m.  to follow the growth of the American antiwar movement.

    So, Mac decides NOW that the war was bad. SO WHAT??

    The fact is that the Left's actions were viewed as supportive of the war effort, and thus North Vietnam decided to hang on for a political victory.

    How many died after Tet in 1968 that would not have died had the Left NOT protested the war and the North decided to sue for peace??

    According to Giap, these distorted reports were inspirational to the NVA. They changed their plans from a negotiated surrender and decided instead, they only needed to persevere for one more hour, day, week, month, eventually the protesters in American would help them to achieve a victory they knew they could not win on the battlefield. Remember, this decision was made at a time when the U.S. casualties were fewer than 10,000, at the end of 1967, beginning of 1968.

    Link

    Parent

    And ::none:: of those killed (5.00 / 0) (#41)
    by Edger on Wed Oct 03, 2007 at 11:05:49 AM EST
    after the invasion was over had to be killed...

    Inside The Surge

    Parent

    The invason, (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Edger on Wed Oct 03, 2007 at 11:08:53 AM EST
    as psychotic, criminal and morally reprehensible as it was, was OVER about six weeks after it started.

    The 4 years since then has utterly put the lie to any and all attempts a justifying it or the occupation since.

    There are no justifications. There never were.

    Parent

    And of course (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by jondee on Wed Oct 03, 2007 at 11:31:11 AM EST
    the fact that 90% of the rest of the world had turned agaisnt the war had nothing to do with "emboldening" the North.

    It was all 'em pinkos Hanoi Jane 'n Ramsey Clark.

    Parent

    Wrong (1.00 / 1) (#46)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Oct 03, 2007 at 07:24:36 PM EST
    First, 90% didn't turn against the war. Europe was actually quite calm. There were some Leftist/Socialists groups, but these were basically pro Soviet groups that would support/oppose who they were told to.

    Secondly, Hanoi wasn't concerned about the rest of the world. It was the US that was kicking their buts and bombing their cities.

    What they wanted was for that to stop. Ergo the intense interest in the success/failure of the Left in applying political pressure on the Demos first, and then the Repubs...

    I have never understood why some people want this country to lose a war. Especially since it is impossible not to see that our culture/country was superior to the Soviets and their proxy North Vietnam, and now the various dictatorships in the ME.

    But hey, that's just me.

    Parent

    You're inside out and upsded down and backwards (5.00 / 0) (#52)
    by Edger on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 08:56:29 AM EST
    Again. Your statement tries to imply that there are things you do understand.

    You do understand that that is not the case, yes?

    Parent

    I've never understood (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by jondee on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 11:34:16 AM EST
    people who are incapable of questioning the moral and intellectual underpinnings of their countries policies.

    First, the world was, is, a much more complicated place, full of nations and peoples with their own unique histories and cultural traditions than your pathetic, comic book, black and white version implies. "Soviet proxy" Vietnam had been fighting for it's independence for generations and wasn't going to accept continued colonial status under the U.S anymore than it did under France, no matter how much grease was offered to corrupt, U.S approved "leaders". If the U.S wasn't going to help their return to sovreignty, thern they'd take the help where they could get it. And they did.

    Btw, by your standards of what constitutes a "ptroxy nation" the U.S is well on it's way to being a proxy of China, but I doubt you'd ever broach the subject. Not until Rush does, anyway.

    Parent

    Understand :::this::: (5.00 / 0) (#58)
    by Edger on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 12:08:57 PM EST
    You bomb them and you kill them and they own you.

    Debt to China - it's even worse than Krugman says

    Just who owns the U.S. national debt?

    The biggest chunk [of U.S. debt](about 25 percent of the $8.5 trillion total) is held by foreign governments. Japan tops the list (with $644 billion), followed by China ($350 billion)


    Parent
    These communists (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by jondee on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 12:18:45 PM EST
    are selling us to China.

    And emboldening our enemies.

    Parent

    Nonsense (1.00 / 2) (#37)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Oct 03, 2007 at 10:33:26 AM EST
    What you describe is an act of war.

    And it is terrible, but it was done for a purpose, and only after long debate and approval by the Congress, and after many, violations of UN sanctions by the government of Iraq, including stealing money from the Oil for Food program in cooperation with corrupt UN and other officials that was designed to provide food and medical treatment for children.

    Had the terrorists not started their reign of terror, the war was over.

    The continuing acts of terrorist violence against other Iraqis has nothing to do with resistance, as indicated by the numbers of Iraqis killed by the terrorists.

    These terrible, despicable acts are done for four purposes.

    1. To prevent the country from becoming stabilized and a self governing democracy.

    2. To terrify the civilian population to such an extent that they will not resist the establishment of a government by those sponsoring the terrorists, including the countries of Iran and Syria.

    3. To terrify the civilian population to such an extent that they will not cooperate with coalition forces, thus allowing the killers of Iraqi civilians to live within Iraq with no fear of arrest by the elected government of Iraq, and with no fear of exposure to coalition forces.

    4. They also understand that these acts are horrific, and they depend upon the Left around the world to demand surrender to them. Simply put, they use these deaths to provide complaints for the Left to use.


    Parent
    Yep. (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by Edger on Wed Oct 03, 2007 at 10:40:58 AM EST
    Had the terrorists not started their reign of terror, the war was over.

    Parent
    you best put me down for facts (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 09:22:27 PM EST
    I have factually pointed out your inability to deal with the beam in your eye while you consistently howl about the mote in "the left's eye".

    Parent
    MB (1.00 / 1) (#23)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 10:19:07 PM EST
    What you do is make claims with no proof.

    And if you claim to be for "fair," why are you involved in this BS over what Limbaugh said when we have an exact transcript.

    For shame. You define yourself.

    Parent

    The only problem is (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Oct 03, 2007 at 07:33:35 AM EST
    I have supplied facts, you just don't like those facts, because they have that well known liberal bias.

    Heres another fact, the transcript doesn't help Limbaugh. You and Limbaugh claim he was only talking about a  specific "phony solider" - Jesse Macbeth.

    There are problems with this cover story.

    1. Jesse wasn't being dicussed at all when he made the initial statement- he only comes up later.
    2. The initial statement was plural- meaning Limbaugh was actaully talking about more than 1 solider.
    3. The context was a September 26 discussion about "Mike from Chicago" (Mike C)- who called in, stated he proudly  served 14 years in the military and and that he was a Republican AND he opposed the war. Limbaugh said that Mike C couldn't be a Republican or a vet. Then "Mike from Olympia" (Mike O) called. Mike O talked about Iraq collapsing if we pull out. Mike O then said the media never talks to real soliders. Limbaugh then made his now infamous statement about the phony soliders.
    4. Lets stop the tape and review. Who are they talking about at this point? Mike C. Not Jesse. Already the Limbaugh cover scam, "I was only talking about Jesse falls apart". Limbaugh was talking about any solider, including Mike C. who opposed the war. But wait! theres more!
    5. September 28, Limbaugh taking fire, digs his faux hole deeper. Limbaugh airs an edited tape of the September 26 (undoubtedly the one you refer to).  If his original statements were so innocent, why air an edited tape? Why not air the original?  

    On the same September 28 show, Limbaugh said Macbeth was not the only one and went on to put Jack Murtha and Scott Thomas Beauchamp on his phony solider list. Both of whom are very real veterans.

    His September 28 broadcast confirms he was talking about soliderS, not just Jesse. Why is Limbaugh lying? What else is he lying about? (Don't answer the 2nd question, it would take up too much space).

    To sum up, Rush is scamming again. You are being scammed.  Rush insulted the soliders and you will not condemn him. Rush is that large beam in your eye.

    Parent

    Glad you brought up the previous caller... (1.00 / 1) (#32)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Oct 03, 2007 at 09:17:50 AM EST
    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.

    At that point Limbaugh is saying that the caller is a "phony'" Repub and ex-soldier. (Is he? I don't know.)

    Now, the next caller

    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:  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.

    So, at this point it is clear that Limbaugh has identified the previous as a "phony" soldier (and Repub), the new caller has agreed, and made the identification that these are not "real soldiers." They are "phony.

    Limbaugh agrees. Who the second caller has in mind besides Mike in Chicago is unclear. Who Limbaugh has in mind besides Mike in Chicago is unclear.

    Now, they chat each other up a bit regarding the point, then the caller changes the subject.

    CALLER:  Exactly, sir.  My other comment, my original comment, was a retort to Jill.....Actually, we have found weapons of mass destruction....It's a huge desert. If they bury it somewhere, we're never going to find it.

    But Limbaugh isn't interested in 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......

    And 115 words later:

    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.  

    So. We have identified Limbaugh's phony soldier #1. We have identified Limbaugh's phony soldier # 2.... as in "phony soldiers."

    Now, let's examine Murtha and Beaucamp in the context of Limbaugh's claim.

    Phony:

    an insincere, pretentious, or deceitful person: He thought my friends were a bunch of phonies.

    Now you may disagree with Limbaugh's assessment. But given his well known political positions, his use of the word "phony" in association with these two should not be a surprise...

    Now, let me answer your question and I will be done:

    why air an edited tape? Why not air the original?  

    Uh, I could say that I was curious as to why a transcript wasn't provided in the original post. It wasn't.

    Were we supposed to just drink the kool aid?

    Roy provided the first one, I have done so several times.

    To my knowledge, no transcript has been provided in the three posts by BTD.

    As for Fox, I would say that the issue was time. But it doesn't matter. The facts speak.

    And your "facts" don't measure up.

    BTW - I am available for hire as a "truth detector." Rates available upon request. I think you really need me so I will give you my special "Leftie" discount.

    ;-)

    Parent

    I'd have to fire you as a truth dectator (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Oct 03, 2007 at 05:57:06 PM EST
    You are not very good at it.

    You now have admitted that Limbaugh was lying when he said he was only talking about Jesse. Glad that is settled, we won't have to argue about it any more.

    You still have not answered why Rush would only air an edited version of the tape. Or maybe with your admission that Rush was LYING there is no need for you to answer why. We know why.

    The complete tape (You can listen to Rush -if you can stand to) and transcript is available at one of the links BTD provided. I am sure you can find it if you want to. You can then compare it to the edited one Rush provided on the 28.

    Now you seem to be condoning Rush's insulting of the troops by calling them phony. That is your right. However, since you take the position that members of the armed services are fair political game, I assume you withdraw your sanctimonious condemnation of Move On, which is good- now you will be able to see out of both eyes again. Wouldn't want you to have an accident.

     

    Parent

    Actually I'm quite good at it.... (1.00 / 1) (#47)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Oct 03, 2007 at 07:43:09 PM EST
    And I am intelligent enough to note that anyone who think Limbaugh was insulting the troops is beyond my help.

    As for who he was thinking of, I made a suggestion based on what I believe.

    Unlike the Left, I don't call people liars just because I disagree with them. I understand that is kind of quaint and old fashioned in the Left's side of the Internet, but hey, that is just me.

    But don't think that you have won a great point. Limbaugh will not be silenced, and his fans will be stirred to a greater passion. And, in the Left's obvious inaccurate attacks they have probably recruited, as the MoveOn ad did, more people who will vote against such outrageous acts.

    Keep it up. You may very well elect Rudy and Fred.

    As for fair political game, the Left has been attacking the troops for years.

    Reid - The war is lost.

    What a damnable attack that was. Can't you just see the terrorists laughing with glee??

    Molly, when I look at the Left in today's world I am reminded of the famous... "sir, have you no sense of decency" remark" from the infamous Army McCarthy hearings. Only it is the Left who has now become the Right.

    Parent

    Dream on (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Oct 03, 2007 at 07:47:14 PM EST


    Parent
    upon further review (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Oct 03, 2007 at 10:07:40 PM EST
    Reid - The war is lost.

    What a damnable attack that was. Can't you just see the terrorists laughing with glee??

    1. First and foremost: That is not an attack on the troops. That is an attack on Bush, and his allies and an accurate one. The fact you conflate Bush with the troops is an abomination.
    2. FOR THE LAST FREAKING TIME: The majority of fighters in Iraq are not Al Qaeda. They are insurgents who don't want foreigners in their land. AQI is not even really al Qaeda. They are a particularly nasty group who likes the brand name. according to all reports I have seen they have no real ties to al Qaeda beyond the name.
    3. Finally: It isn't Reid stating the obvious that makes any of the Iraqies or actual Al Qaeda gleeful. What MAKES THEM GLEEFUL is the continuing wasting of US blood and treasure in Iraq.

    We invaded Iraq because of g@d@mn lie, we are wasting American lives and money because of g@d@mn lie by BUSH and you blame Harry Reid??!!! Jesus Mary and Joseph.

    Parent
    The truth detector says (1.00 / 1) (#51)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 08:34:12 AM EST
    You are wrong.

    First and foremost: That is not an attack on the troops.

    Yes. It. Is. It encourages the terrorists. It improves their morale. It hurts the morale of our troops by describing their efforts as "lost."

    And you know the above is true. Please quit pretending.

    They are insurgents who don't want foreigners in their land.

    What ever they are, they are busy killing innocent Iraqi women and children, not to mention male civilians...

    Torching off car bombs in crowded markers, destroying mosques, hospitals, water works and electrical distribution grids is a strange way for insurgents to try an repeal an invading force.

    The Mexicans have invaded!!! Let's blow up Hoover Dam!! (Sarcasm alert)

    And yes. It is comments like Reid's and from people like Reid that are attacks on the troops.

    You can not ignore this as what the cost if such acts really us, and what they do.

    Q: Was the American antiwar movement important to Hanoi's victory?

    A:  It was essential to our strategy.  Support of the war from our rear was completely secure  while the American rear was vulnerable.  Every day our leadership would listen to world news over the radio at 9 a.m.  to follow the growth of the American antiwar movement.  Visits to Hanoi by people like Jane Fonda, and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and ministers gave us confidence  that we should hold on  in the face of battlefield reverses. We were elated when Jane Fonda, wearing a red Vietnamese dress, said at a press conference that she was ashamed of American actions in the war and that she would struggle along with us.



    Parent
    turn in your liscense for malpractice (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by Molly Bloom on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 10:15:50 AM EST
    Here is the truth. This is George W. Bush Debacle (and yours). Harry Reid stating the obvious isn't what turned it into a debacle. The insurgents and "terrorists" that are gleeful because YOU and BUSH are willing to spend US blood and treasure in a quagmire, instead of being smart enough to cut your losees.

    If we are percieved as a paper tiger, its because we -under the leadership of Bush- didn't finish the job in Afghanistan and bring Bin Ladin in dead or alive. What the terrorist learned is the tough talk from YOU and BUSH is jus that- talk!

    No amount of spin will change that Herr Doktor.

    Parent

    Heh (1.00 / 2) (#60)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 09:05:43 PM EST
    Have you ever considered that it is a quagmire because of statements such as made by The Demo Leader, aka Harry "I surrender" Reid?????

    That is called "the truth" Molly. Take a long look at it..... maybe you'll recognize it next time.

    Parent

    What a win-win situation for you guys (5.00 / 3) (#64)
    by glanton on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 10:17:50 PM EST
    Start a war that "accidentally" solidifies your power on the home front.  Predict victory, flowers at the soldiers' feet, and a McDonalds on every corner in Baghdad.

    But when it coems time to face the consequences, blame those who stood against it.  Nothing is ever your fault.  Rinse and repeat.

    Parent

    I don't scam so easily (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Molly Bloom on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 10:24:54 AM EST
    I know the score. I know who started the war, I know who lied about the cause for war, I know who cheerleadered it. I know who didn't have a plan for an occupation. It wasn't Harry Reid. It was George Bush and his allies.

    It wasn't the little boy's fault he observed the emperor had no clothes. He just spoke out loud what everybody saw. Its not Harry Reid's fault that Bush had no plan for the occupation and as a consequence there is now a quagmire. Reid just voiced what everyone can see.

    I know who blindly says rah rah we're number 1! everything would be just find if you would stop pointing out the problems - That would be you, Jim.

    It would be comic, if people weren't dying.

    Now you are looking to shift the blame. You can't. You are going to have to live with it. Take a long look in the mirror.

    Parent

    Twist a pigs ear (5.00 / 0) (#57)
    by jondee on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 11:51:59 AM EST
    and watch him squirm.

    No Rush wasn't "insulting the troops", it just sounded like he was, because he's basically a moron who dosnt realize the full implications of half of what he says; not really his fault.

    I love that this guy has apparently become the most indespensible spokesperson of the Right, though. In a few more years it'll be a trained, (probobly born again), chimp.

    Parent

    jondee (1.00 / 1) (#61)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 09:09:42 PM EST
    I see that you are still not capitalizing your name... Sigh....

    What Limbaugh was doing was calling a spade, a spade.

    Let's look at who has said what....

    Link to Clinton, Reid, Durbin, Kerry, Schumer and Murtha.

    Enjoy.

    Parent

    What the Hell does that mean? (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by jondee on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 04:31:44 PM EST
    Are you refering to some other secret Rethug code, like foot-tapping in the mens room?

    Parent
    He's not a dittohead (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by jondee on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 03:51:32 PM EST
    it just gets his blood up when anyone attacks Rush, Jerry Falwell or any other fellow social liberal.

    Parent
    Jondee (1.00 / 1) (#18)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 07:10:15 PM EST
    moonbat moonbat

    ;-)

    Got any more fake claims about what I said?

    You know, after three tries and three failures, I would think a reasonably astute person would learn to research first and then engage mouth...

    Parent

    Upon further review (1.00 / 1) (#8)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 01:01:41 PM EST
    make that defense attorney of those accused of a crime.....

    Parent
    Only a certifiable moron (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by jondee on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 04:04:56 PM EST
    would fall all over themselves in an effort to spin Rush into pristeen innocence like that.

    Whats the the matter, Jim: has it gotten so bad that a bloated, barely literate demogogue has become your most eloquent, indespensible spokesperson?

    I dont know whether to laugh or cry..The guys just an "entertainer", why are your Depends in such a twist?

    Parent

    Goodness... (1.00 / 1) (#16)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 07:03:14 PM EST
    Innocent?? I have specified that Limbaugh used the term...

    I have even provided a link (twice) to the transcript to show what he said, and what was said.

    I wonder why the Left didn't provide one??

    And that is the basis of your compliant, Molly's complaint, BTD's complaint....Edger's complaint...

    I didn't drink the Media Matters', aka elect Hillary, kool aid and said:

    Just the facts, Mam.


    Parent
    MSNBC back Rush (1.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Slado on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 02:58:59 PM EST
    The network that brings us the anti Rush is now backing Rush.

    Looks like the 15minutes of fame Media Matters has gotten out of the two fake controversies is running out.

    MSNBC

    "Fake controversies" (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by jondee on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 03:45:14 PM EST
    Are the stuff of 90% of what passes for political discourse these days, Slado.

    Alot of the outrage at Oxycotin boy stems from the obvious fact that he's always been one of the worst offenders.

    Parent

    Jondee (1.00 / 1) (#17)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 07:06:46 PM EST
    Got some proof?

    Parent
    How are some (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Slado on Wed Oct 03, 2007 at 08:15:42 AM EST
    able to assume what me and others are saying without even comprehending our point?

    The fact is Rush was referring to specific people.  People that NEVER where in the military but tried to claim they were.  People that lied about what they did while in the military.

    He is NOT talking about soliders in general who crticise the war.

    That BTD and others want this to be true doesn't make it so.

    This is the problem with our discourse these days.  Each side talks past eachother and spins the facts to hurt the other to score some sort of cheap political points.

    Lets say Rush did say what you guys want him to have said.  So what?  He's a radio host.  Does it matter when Olberman says something stupid (he does every night?)  Did it matter when Move On put that idiotic add in the paper?  Nope.

    The facts on the ground are what will decide the
    Iraq debate.

    Liberals and dems are tired of losing this debate which they thought they'd won in November of 2006.  I know your frustrated that your inept dems can't win a debate with a president that's on the way out but manufacturing controversies with littel factual basis and pointing them at a talk show host is weak at best.

    This controversy has no legs.

    Can we move on?

    Parent

    LOL (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by jondee on Wed Oct 03, 2007 at 10:17:06 AM EST
    Got a shred of intellectual integrity left?

    I didnt think so.

    Parent

    Paranoia squared (1.00 / 1) (#50)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 08:17:56 AM EST
    You remember that according to some accounts Army Ranger Pat Tillman thought that the invasion of Iraq was illegal

    And the Lunar landing was shot in a Hollywood studio.

    Parent

    Paranoia Cubed (1.00 / 1) (#62)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 09:11:19 PM EST
    And you should post some comments with links if you don't want to be laughed at.

    Parent
    Inane Trolling Cubed (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by jondee on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 03:43:46 PM EST


    Parent
    Consider this... (1.00 / 1) (#63)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 09:21:33 PM EST
    Having nothing to say you play the ankle biter and lie in the weeds, waiting until the very end to attack, hopeful that the person attacked will not return to a rapidly dying post...

    This is Walter's comments.

    You remember that according to some accounts Army Ranger Pat Tillman thought that the invasion of Iraq was illegal......and now he's dead and certainly the Army hasn't been to forthcoming about his death

    He is clearly claiming that his death was due to his views on the war and that he was murdered by the US Army.

    I say that this claim is BS and paranoid.

    Whether or not he felt that way, and whether or not be had a forthcoming meeting with Chomsky has nothing to do with Walter's claim.

    If you want to hold on to such nonsense, be my guest. But don't expect to be taken seriously.

    hehe

    Parent

    If your name is Walter (none / 0) (#70)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 10:40:44 PM EST
    Then I didn't call you an ankle biter..

    I might question your ability to keep your thoughts organized.

    As for Limbaugh's statement, I don't care who did what.

    Parent

    Well, you must (none / 0) (#71)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 10:42:09 PM EST
    I mean you are always showing up with off target attacks.

    tehehe

    Parent

    see if you can focus (1.00 / 0) (#72)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 10:46:19 PM EST
    You insinuated that Tillman was killed because of his revised position re the war.

    And you used that supposed change as the motive of the US Army to kill him.

    That is not rational and it is paranoid.

    I say again. Show some proof besides an unproven theory re motive.

    Parent

    Heck of a Job (none / 0) (#1)
    by squeaky on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 08:22:19 PM EST
    Brownie
    [Reid]'s asking senators to sign a letter of complaint to Rush's employers. I'm sure we'll see Republicans rushing to sign on.

     Here's how the House Republicans are responding:

    House GOP Sponsor Resolution to Commend Limbaugh
    Dog bites man (1.00 / 0) (#6)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 12:26:35 PM EST


    Parent
    What is gained from any of this? (none / 0) (#2)
    by glanton on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 08:28:28 PM EST
    A pox on both parties at this point, and on the rest of us for allowing such things to become news.  

    This game of chicken, someone recently called it, testing who supports the troops most.  

    A General bedecked, on television, it was either go along with what we all knew Bush was going to say far in advance, or attack the troops.  

    Resolutions.  Millionaire Senators who, having returned from lunch with a lobbyist, put on outraged faces and preen for the cameras.  Press conferences.  Radio hosts causing controversy.  Oh how titillating it all is.  Who supports the troops the most, let's have a wet tee shirt contest to determine it.  

    Meanwhile the troops everyone's falling all over themselves to support keep killing, and dying . .  . perhaps not entirely in vain. At this point, perhaps so that face can temporarily be saved.

    Fox and Limbaugh Caught Dissembling Again | 66 comments (66 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment