« Beyonce to Malaysia's Dress Code: Stuff It | Main | Welcome Home »

Democrats Send "Phony Hero" to Attack Limbaugh

The story that just keeps giving. We've covered at length the mediamorons.org smear on Rush Limbaugh and why it will backfire. But this was so ripe, it just had to be posted.

The Democrats weren't content just embarrassing themselves on this issue, no, they had to completely humiliate themselves by sending Sen. Tom Harkin, to the floor of the Senate to say:

Well, I don't know. Maybe he was just high on his drugs again. I don't know whether he was or not. If so, he ought to let us know.

The line would have been more effective if Mr. Harkin weren't a phony hero himself. The exact kind Limbaugh was talking about. From Stolen Valor : How the Vietnam Generation Was Robbed of Its Heroes and Its History

valorharkin.jpg

The Democrats just used a phony soldier to attack Rush for talking about phony soldiers. How dumb are these people?

H/T Michelle and The big guy. Scott Ott, as usual, nails it.

BTW If you've never read the transcript, (the whole transcript) you can find it here it's actually brief but unambiguous as to Limbaugh's meaning.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/24505.

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Democrats Send "Phony Hero" to Attack Limbaugh:

» Church and State linked with Video: Democrat Phony Soldier Attacks Rush?!

Comments (46)

Well, the leftists aren't g... (Below threshold)

Well, the leftists aren't going to READ the transcript. Why would they. They've already got their talking points on how they are supposed to MISCHARACTERIZE the transcript by lying about its contents. There is no reason to bother reading what you intend to lie about anyway, is there?

The most infuriating thing about this whole spectacle is the Democrats attempting to smear Limbaugh by lying about what he said, when the phonies he was actually targeting were the hoax soldiers the left has presented as real, and the Democrats were suckered right into believing.

They sent Harkin out because he's their best liar. They've got a cloakroom full of liars, but he's their best. Harkin's secret for lying well? Practice, practice, practice . . .

<a href="http://rightwingn... (Below threshold)
Murphy:
Easy, Murphy, and Rick. Th... (Below threshold)
kim:

Easy, Murphy, and Rick. That Murtha lied about the Marines makes the connection to phony. I see Moran's point, and this was Limbaugh's path to it.

Murtha is phony. No need to make the word a modifier of another word.
=========================

But, as I've mentioned else... (Below threshold)
kim:

But, as I've mentioned elsewhere, the anti-war left is demonstrating their insanity and dissonance with this effort. This is a volunteer military. It is phony for a soldier to be anti-war on the level these leftists would have it. For the left to think that they have a point anyone but a moonbat would buy is absurd. Sure, war is not the answer, except when there is no question of it.
==========================================

This is called "compounding... (Below threshold)

This is called "compounding the felony." It's ironic, given that the whole "phony soldier" smear is a desperate attempt to regain PR ground lost by the MoveOn.Org "General Betray-Us" ads.

Equally ironic is that the Democrats are finally starting to feel the pinch of being caught between two opposed forces, both of which they need for electoral victory: "moderate middle" Americans who are simply tired of being at war, and the rabidly anti-American "nutroots" who propel MoveOn, Media Matters, and similar institutions for the unbalanced and incompetent.

The dynamic may be turning ... (Below threshold)
kim:

The dynamic may be turning upside down. It is becoming possible that the Democrats won't be able to make political capital trashing Bush next year. Ooh, the frustration. It's enough to make a Democrat want to lose a war.
=============================

The set-up is there. Moveo... (Below threshold)
kim:

The set-up is there. Moveon etc. pushed the Democrats to an absurdity, and the inevitability of people in Iraq ultimately choosing peace, has bushwhacked them. The electorate will be reminded, eloquently, of how the Democrats wanted to lose. It may even rise to the level of a lesson for the Democrats, that when they listen to a political movement artificially pumped up by egregious, ill-gotten gains, read Soros, then they are on treacherous ground.
============================

Excellent point Kim. ... (Below threshold)

Excellent point Kim.

This matter reeks of desperation. The Democrtas cetainly knew of Harkin's problem; if it concerned them he would have been kept him from the floor. They are simply trying to make noise now. And look who they send!

Any remnant of intelligent debate was ignored when they planned this hit job last week but, again, the response spun up faster than their ability to choreogarph the usual suspects.


Yes, just unbelievable. Ho... (Below threshold)
kim:

Yes, just unbelievable. How come Harkin couldn't see what a joke this has become. Moveon and Mediamatters has really pulled the wool over some eyes.
====================

They're simply counting on ... (Below threshold)

They're simply counting on the fact that young Democrats are totally unaware of Harkin's history and older Democrats have forgotten. And they're right.

This is going to bite them ... (Below threshold)
drjohn:

This is going to bite them in the ass, along with Murtha's getting sued. There is absolutely no doubt about what Rush said.

There is also absolutely no doubt about what Democrats said about Petraeus.

These demacrats only care a... (Below threshold)
Spurwing Plover:

These demacrats only care about the GIs when its to their own advantage they are liberal scum

Still doensn't make Rush's ... (Below threshold)
english:

Still doensn't make Rush's comments OK... Like a common Conservative, you take pressure off your party by putting more on the dems... Journalism at its best...

Because no prominent Republ... (Below threshold)
ward:

Because no prominent Republicans have ever lied about their military service. Certainly not *the* prominent Republican. Noooo that would never happen.

I can't help but notice you're criticizing a veteran. Doesn't that mean you don't support the troops?

Still doensn't mak... (Below threshold)
Son Of The Godfather:
Still doensn't make Rush's comments OK... Like a common Conservative, you take pressure off your party by putting more on the dems... Journalism at its best...

What particular comments are you referring to?

I can't help but notice you're criticizing a veteran. Doesn't that mean you don't support the troops?

No asshat, it means we don't support Murtha or Harkin because they are deceitful tools. In what world are they "the troops"?

Whoops, I also forgot John ... (Below threshold)
Son Of The Godfather:

Whoops, I also forgot John Kerry, fierce warrior who's mad Rambo skills are seared into my memory.

Hitler was cool.... (Below threshold)
DSL:

Hitler was cool.

Just wondering...how is Rus... (Below threshold)
Mark Mollenkopf:

Just wondering...how is Rush's anal cyst doing?

"how is Rush's anal cyst... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

"how is Rush's anal cyst doing"

She's the frontrunner for the Democrat nomination for President.

Still doensn't mak... (Below threshold)
Paul:
Still doensn't make Rush's comments OK... Like a common Conservative, you take pressure off your party by putting more on the dems... Journalism at its best...

13. Posted by english | October 2, 2007 10:31 AM

Have you READ the rest of the site? I linked the previous coverage above,

Wow. I need to come to this... (Below threshold)

Wow. I need to come to this side of the schoolyard more often.

Limbaugh isn't being smeared any more than O'Reilly is - they both said what they said, the transcripts and the audio is available all over the damn place. The flak they're catching is just as justified as the flak MoveOn.org caught with that idiotic ad, who also aren't being smeared, MoveOn said what it said.

Since when do two wrongs make a right, people? MoveOn's ad? Wrong. Rush's "phony soldiers" comment? Wrong. Harkin's comments? Wrong. No one has the moral highground here. Smearing is what you're reduced to when logic and reason won't work, and these days all sides are smearing 'cause it gets them on the news. Doesn't make any of them any less wrong or less vile than the next, and condemning the other side while excusing your guys doesn't change that.

Kim is right about one thing, war isn't the answer except when there's no question of it; there were no questions about Afghanistan, but there are plenty of questions regarding Iraq and always have been. That doesn't make me a "phony soldier" for wanting those questions answered, any more than it makes me a "phony liberal" for believing Afghanistan was not only justified, but necessary, both politically and morally. Iraq IS a complex issue, and neither side is completely right or completely wrong - the biggest problem is neither side can have a civil discourse about it with the water-carrier riling up the bases.

You wonder why the Moonbats think you're all Wingnuts? Read your own comments. As much as I can't stand tree-hugging bunny-lovers without a grip on reality, I can't stand self-righteous neo-con chickenhawks who happily send the "volunteer Army" to die for causes they don't have the courage to fight for themselves. Sen. McCain wants to keep us in Iraq? More power to him - he's walked the walk. I don't agree with him, but he's my brother-in-uniform, I respect him, and nobody smears him on my watch. Wish I could say the same thing about ya'll and my Dem brothers-in-uniform. Say what you will about Murtha, Harkin and Kerry, they at least took the oath and served their country; Limbaugh, Beck and Coulter never have.

And that crack about "in what world are Murtha and Harkin the troops?" As any veteran will tell you, we never stop being the troops - we're just not serving on active duty anymore. You'd know that if you'd enlisted.

Flemball commented this mor... (Below threshold)
Tannim:

Flemball commented this morning on his show that (paraphrasing) the whole thing was intended to be a distraction from the implosion of the Democratic Party and their 11% Congressional approval rating.

What a bunch of hogwash!

It the approval that low? Yes.
Is the Democratic Party imploding? Not really. Gutless? Yes.
Is Flemball so full of himself that he thinks this is all about him and his alleged "reach" (less than 7% of the population?)? Yes.

This whole thing is Democrats reacting over nothing and Flemball playing it up for his ego.

I'm going back to real theater, the baseball playoffs, thank you.

Keith, It's not a ... (Below threshold)
Son Of The Godfather:

Keith,

It's not a case of "two wrongs making a right".
You'd know that if your reading comprehension were a tad sharper.

MoveOn = deliberate attempt to smear a distinguished General. MoveOn stands by the ad and are not claiming being taken out of context. Some Dems refused to condemn the ad (in effect, agreeing with it).

Rush Limbaugh = spoke of phony soldiers when speaking of... phony soldiers. Jesse Macbeth, and those who claim to be veterans but are not. Nowhere, in any part of any statement made, did Rush say soldiers opposed to the war are "phony" - THERE IS NO "THERE" THERE.

Of course leftards, Dems, and apparently you easily buy into the smear.

Also, don't be so quick to assume my military background (past or present). Murtha falsely accused soldiers of war crimes. Harkin falsely claimed grandiose missions (as did Kerry). You may idolize them if you'd like. In MY opinion, they are scum.

Keith,Clicked on y... (Below threshold)
Son Of The Godfather:

Keith,

Clicked on your name link.

I will be banned if I give my honest opinion, but you wrote:

On his radio show on the 26th, Rush Limbaugh called soldiers who disagree with the current plan of action in Iraq "phony soldiers" -

There is no way to sugarcoat it... that is a lie. You are just as guilty as spreading the smear... But I believe you are fully aware of that.

You also write that "no one ever died as a result of a New York Times ad".
Perhaps, but the actual articles in the Times are REAL killers.

You have NO credibility. We're done here.

I can't look up your milita... (Below threshold)

I can't look up your military record, sir - you use an alias when posting.

Harkin is going to a special section of Hell devoted to those people who claim credit where no credit is due, that's for sure, but after that, your argument falls flat. Whether or not Murtha is incorrect about pointing a finger at Sgt. Wuterich (and personally, I hope he is), Haditha still happened and it can't be spun as anything other than a war crime. Kerry was an idiot for trying to run on his war record knowing he'd testified against Viet Nam and voted for authorizing force in Iraq three years ago, but that doesn't change the fact that his record and his medals still stand even after the swiftboating. And contrary to what Limbaugh would have you believe, he wasn't discussing MacBeth when the remark came up, he was agreeing with a caller who claimed the media never talked to real soldiers, only those who question the war, thus "the phony soldiers" remark. MacBeth is another piece of pond scum that's got a lot to explain come Judgement Day, but how much time did he spend on TV compared to Soltz or Clark, who have actually served and are against the war? Not much, I'd wager.

I don't think Limbaugh mispoke - I think he meant exactly what the Dems are accusing him of meaning. I think he believes anyone who disagrees with his stated views is a phony. If I'm wrong, then why doesn't Limbaugh apologize for being unclear? Why doesn't he come out and say soldiers who serve and have served are real soldiers regardless of how they feel about the current war? Wouldn't that put the matter to rest? Wouldn't that shut the Dems up?

And just to be perfectly clear: I was in the US Army for 6 years - 2.5 active, 3.5 reserves. I've got four AAMs, an ARCOM, an AFRAM, the National Defense Medal, the Southwest Asia Defense Medal, and the Liberation of Kuwait medal. My combat patch is from the 24th Infantry Division, the unit I was attached to the longest while in Desert Storm. My last post was with the 28th Aviation Group out of Arlington, Texas, where I was the acting Combat Signal Team Chief while we were being downsized, an E8 position I was holding as an E5. I got the letter saying I'd been released from the IRR roll in 1998.

Just when and where did you serve, sir?

Keith CrakerYour c... (Below threshold)

Keith Craker

Your chickenhawk argument is vacuous and counter to our Constitution.

Were Edward Teller and Henry Kaiser chickenhawks? Robert Oppenheimer? How about Alfred Loomis? Know him? He was wealthy and didn't serve a day in the armed forces, but wasn't short on opinion. Chickenhawk?
There are some who will enlist, others who deliver their patriotic duty in another way.

We all have a right and a duty to be informed and we also have the right to express our opininion. If you're going to pursue a career in the creative arts, you better get accustomed to that "opininon" that everyone has.

You want to know why your side is considered moonbat? Read the comments you made. And improve your reading comprehension.

Keith, I didn't know that y... (Below threshold)
SPQR:

Keith, I didn't know that your service excused misrepresenting what Limbaugh actually said. There is a transcript on another thread and not surprisingly does not support your claims.

Oh, and Haditha can indeed be explained as something other than a war crime. All it takes is actually following the details of the story. Try it some time.

Keith,I guess we'r... (Below threshold)
Son Of The Godfather:

Keith,

I guess we're not done.

Your service record is commendable, but you are completely off on your Limbaugh take (among other things on your blog). They're your opinions, so be it... But we are guests on this blog at the moment.

Just when and where did you serve, sir?

I once worked at Taco Bell.

I may have served or am serving in a military capacity, but I never claimed such... Just that your assumption of my lack such service is a strawman approach to defending reprehensible behavior of POLITICIANS in the public eye (veterans or not).
To claim the moral authority of your veteran status to defend heinous claims of war-crimes by Murtha (who made such claims in that very public fiasco, before having the facts, soley for political purposes) is just sad.

If I'm wrong, then why doesn't Limbaugh apologize for being unclear?

It seems he was only "unclear" to those who want anything to grasp at to undo the damage of the MoveOn ad.

That you would so easily buy into the current smear campaign of a man who has built his career on supporting the military speaks volumes of your leanings and preconceived notions.

Honestly, knowing Rush's history with supporting all-things military, which is the most logical, the most simple explanation?

1) Rush, who enjoys a large military audience decides to alienate the percentage of soldiers who disagree with whatever views by claiming they are "phony" soldiers.

or

2) Rush, in the context of discussing soldiers who the left puts up on pedestals for admitting to war crimes ala Jesse MacBeth, turn out to be "not so soldiery" after all.

For just a brief moment, throw out whatever politics you cater to. Ignore what you've "been told". Dismiss any prejudice you may or may not have against a talk-show host you may or may not agree with, and honestly answer which scenario you believe to be the more likely.

Again with the reading comp... (Below threshold)
KeithC Author Profile Page:

Again with the reading comprehension.

I read the transcript. I'm not misrepresenting - I think it supports my claims just fine. I honestly don't think Rush mispoke, I think he meant to make the point I'm a phony soldier. And like I said, if I'm wrong, it's a simple enough fix, just say it isn't so - admit we all have the right to disagree and that disagreeing doesn't diminish our service to our country. There's enough ambiguity with the swiftness he went on to Morning Update, you could make the case he simply mispoke and folks would buy it. I'd even give the benefit of the doubt.

But an apology won't be coming.

Yes, some are called to serve and some perform their patriotic duty in other ways. I've yet to hear what your ways are, though. Does one of you work for the VA helping wounded vets? Is one of you a cop or firefighter, keeping us all safe from harm? Are you a lawyer working on getting PTSD compensation for military families? Are you a doctor, working in low-rent districts giving aid to poor families? Please, by all means, tell me of your patriotic service so I may commend you and give you my respect and admiration.

Yeah, that was sarcastic, but you get my point. If you don't agree with anything I've said, it's cool - this is America and you don't have to. But you have to admit I've done my service to my country, so at the very least I've earned the right to disagree with YOU.

And like I said, ... (Below threshold)
Son Of The Godfather:
And like I said, if I'm wrong, it's a simple enough fix, just say it isn't so

Uhm... he already explained the smear on his show. Why apologize for YOUR comprehension of his statement?

But you have to admit I've done my service to my country, so at the very least I've earned the right to disagree with YOU.

Absolutely.

Keith C., many of us served... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

Keith C., many of us served in the military. We just don't brag about it like you seem to do. Limbaugh shouldn't and won't apologize to any leftist rag. If you have to serve to make any military decisions, well GW did. Hillary and Obama did not. Edwards did not. McCain did. So, the GOP has your vote.

"Our troops are like the nazis" Dick Durbin
"OUr troops are like Ghengis Kahn" Kerry
"OUt troops aren't smart," Kerry
"Our troops are cold blooded killers," Murtha
"Our troops terrorize women and children in the middle of the night," Kerry

The list goes on. If you want to be a member of a party that says such hateful, disrespectful things like your democratic leaders say, well, you are just nuts. ww

Yeah, that was sarcas... (Below threshold)

Yeah, that was sarcastic, but you get my point.

You need to sharpen that rhetoric Keith, particularly if you want to come to this side of the schoolyard more often. Don't assume for a minute that we get your point.

What we do get is your obtuse opinion....which is uninformed and boorish.

And then Son of the Godfath... (Below threshold)
KeithC Author Profile Page:

And then Son of the Godfather goes off and makes sense.

You're right, I don't like Rush, and there's a good chance that colors my perspective. I still disagree with you, but I have to admit, the way you made the argument leads me to believe you truly believe your argument. You're not misrepresenting and you're not just carrying the water. If you can believe the same thing about me, then we can at least agree to disagree and start to engender some mutual respect. That's a start.

WW, I'm not a Democrat, I'm an Independent. I voted for Bush in '88 and am damn glad I did - I honestly think he, Powell and Schwarzkoph are the reasons I'm alive today. I voted for Perry for Governor back in '02 'because I felt the Dems were running a crook for a candidate. I wouldn't go throwing stones - Repubs have their own share of bone-headed quotes to pull from, not to mention a long list of draft-dodgers claiming to be for the troops. And yes, I am proud of my service, but I didn't bring it up to brag but to make a point - anyone who has been in uniform, especially during a war, still considers themselves a member of the "troops." If the poster who asked the question had themselves been a veteran, they'd have probably known that. Seeing how Son keeps dancing around that issue, I'm still betting he's not.

Okay then, Hugh, I'll make my point: it's one thing to claim to serve your country, even if it is out of uniform; it's another to have actually done it. Serving doesn't include sitting at your computer on your day off arguing with me. The other side of the schoolyard is just as bad about not making that distinction. I got into it with some "leftard" (as Son calls them) who thought spending 9-11 in medititation was a patriotic way to spend his day. He took umbrage when I suggested he could, at the very least, bake some damn cookies and take them to his local police or fire station. Leftard, indeed. Tell me you do volunteer work for the local chapter of the young Republicans and I'll say you're a Patriot and serving your country.

Call me boorish all you want, but uniformed? Come on, I'm arguing with you here, aren't I? I must have read the news somewhere. And I'm arguing - I'm not name-calling, slandering, or questioning intelligence; I'm striving to make points by countering points, and listen to points from your side as well. Trust me, the last thing I thought when I started the day was that I'd be giving Son the benefit of the doubt or talking about him on my website in positive terms. Like I said, I don't agree with him, but he did make me stop and re-evaluate, and I give him full props for that.

You're right, I do... (Below threshold)
Son Of The Godfather:
You're right, I don't like Rush, and there's a good chance that colors my perspective. I still disagree with you, but I have to admit, the way you made the argument leads me to believe you truly believe your argument. You're not misrepresenting and you're not just carrying the water. If you can believe the same thing about me, then we can at least agree to disagree and start to engender some mutual respect. That's a start.

And you have changed my perception of you as well.

With the reproduction of the Rush smear on your site, I falsely assumed you were one of "those" guys. I now believe you are simply passionate about anyone offending the military and jumped (too quickly IMHO) on the defense without the full perspective.

I believe THAT is the true danger here... Rush says something that can be twisted, someone like Reid seizes on that in an attempt to pander (even after the loathesome things he has actually said, and defended himself, disparaging the military), and folks who don't involve themselves in the whole story respond with "HE SAID WHAT?!?"

To hear what Reid vomited up about this "incident" without knowing the background and listening to the actual broadcast, heck, I would have said Rush was an A-hole too.

anyone who has been in uniform, especially during a war, still considers themselves a member of the "troops." If the poster who asked the question had themselves been a veteran, they'd have probably known that. Seeing how Son keeps dancing around that issue, I'm still betting he's not.

Seeing as you've been intellectually honest, I will too: I concede the point to you, and declare I am not, nor have I ever been a member of any branch of the military. I do, however have endless gratitude to those who put themselves in harms way to protect my freedom and am repulsed by those who would claim to be soldiers (but aren't) and admit to "war-crimes" to forward a political agenda (phony soldiers).

Though we may continue to disagree on Rush's intent (and the "Betray-Us" ad, and most definitely on Jack Murtha's political theatrics), you have shown a similar scorn for Harkin and Kerry (though we also may disagree on his military acumen and awards) which tells me your concern is less political and more genuine.

Peace, and thank you for your service (sincerely).

KC, you give more credit to... (Below threshold)
kim:

KC, you give more credit to the chickenhawk argument than it can logically sustain. Soldiers in general reject it because it dishonors their service to OTHERS.
=====

And KC, please read Duelfer... (Below threshold)
kim:

And KC, please read Duelfer and Rossett with understanding. In Iraq, there was no question of war, either. I was in the 20% before the war who believed that the No-Fly zones, and the UN inspections had the threat from Saddam under control. I was wrong.
==========

Keith, I enjoyed rea... (Below threshold)
Gary R:

Keith,
I enjoyed reading your comments. I know you have read the transcripts and you believe that Limbaugh called soldiers who disagree with the war as phony. I admit that I have not read the entire transcript. You see, I was actually listening to the show when he made the comments. I understood at the time and still do know that he was referring to that low life scum sucking dog who lied about being a Ranger. I also know that he was talking about the soldier who wrote from Iraq the lies about his unit committing war crimes.
You are simply wrong when you believe that Limbaugh was calling military members who disagree on this war as phony.
I honor you service in the 24th ID. However, I believe that just because someone has served in the military does not give them carte blanche to lie later in life like Harkin, Kerry and others. Remember, Arnold (Benedict) also served and is a vet yet I don't think we honor his service. I also don't accept the liberal chicken-hawk comments. What branch did Franklin Roosevelt serve? Is he a chicken hawk? How about Lincoln? These 2 Presidents did not serve yet were the leaders when we suffered our largest loss of life.
Finally, for the record I am a 23 yr vet who is also a decorated combat vet who has earned among other awards the Distinguished Flying Cross for Heroism for Desert Storm. I have earned the right to call anyone who lies about their service a phony soldier and I don't care which party they are from. I also know that the Clintons (both of them) loathe those of us in uniform.

Just when I thought I'd lef... (Below threshold)
KeithC Author Profile Page:

Just when I thought I'd left this thread for good.

My brother, I wouldn't dream of arguing with you. Beyond a shadow of a doubt, you have earned the right to your opinion. It's not mine, but that's what makes America great - that we can read the same transcript or listen to the same broadcast, come to two different conclusions and still be able to voice our opinions. What I've learned from the last 24 hours of arguing is that disagreeing doesn't mean refusing to hear what I hear or read what I read - it can and does mean you just came to a different conclusion. I can respect that.

That's what I hope everyone else has gotten from the last day - I didn't make a snap judgement, I didn't read an edited transcript, I didn't get the information third-hand. I saw what you saw, read what you read, heard what you heard, and still came to a conclusion different from yours. Doesn't make me stupid or any less a patriot, it just means we have an honest difference of opinion. I had thought anyone who couldn't see what I saw wasn't trying - I can now see you're trying just as hard as I am, we're just not seeing eye to eye. I apologize for forgetting that in these polarized times. Would that our elected officials could make the same apology.

This has been an eye-opening discussion. I'm glad I made the trip to this side of the schoolyard. I'd suggest that some of ya'll find yourself a non-Moonbat Liberal to talk to from time to time, if for no other reason than to ask why we believe what we believe. It'll strengthen your debating skills and may have you rethink your arguments.

Ya'll rock in my book. Thanks for having me.

Oh, and people who lie abou... (Below threshold)
KeithC Author Profile Page:

Oh, and people who lie about their service? Beyond phony - they are treasonous rat-bastards who deserve the eternity in Hell they're looking forward to at the end of their miserable, misbegotten lives. Couldn't agree with ya'll more.

Keith,I agree with y... (Below threshold)
Gary R:

Keith,
I agree with you. I do not understand why two people can look (or listen) to the same thing and see exactly the opposite. I had several friends and even bosses who are liberal and we had great debates but there was never the bitterness I see and hear. I could never understand how someone (a liberal)could believe what they believe so I thought they must just be stupid which I knew was not correct. It finally dawned on me that for whatever reason some people see the glass as half empty and others see it as half full and no amount of "fact" will convince the other that they are wrong. While we disagree on what Limbaugh meant it is nice that we agree there are phony low life dogs lying about serving. I personnally believe that anyone ever caught lying about earning the Medal of Honor should be put to death slowly. Otherwise have a nice day.

I think the discussion with... (Below threshold)
Dave:

I think the discussion with Keith has more to do with his impression of his view of Rush than what he actually said. Meaning he has a low opinion of Rush therefore it becomes easy to misconstrue what he said or at least more believable. I think the fact that in light of this that someone can a low opinion of Rush and therefore can misrepresent what he said is obviously Keith's problem not Rush's. So why would Rush have to apologize for what someone else would rather hear? Why haven't Murtha, Kerry, Harkin, Durbin and Clinton ever apologized for what they have said? Its not like we misconstrued what they have said as a matter of fact most of them have reiterated what they have said. What about Obama not wanting to wear and AMERICAN flag on his lapel(saying he wouldn't wear one because he disagreed with the war-an AMERICAN presidential CANDIDATE)? Even after he said he wouldn't remove troops till 2013? Like most soldiers and civilians alike here I think its disingenuous to rattle saber over defending soldiers against the war when they have obviously sided with a group of people whom consider suicide bombers hero's and every American soldiers death a glorious thing. -->moveon.org and dailycos.com
We have bled for the first amendment. People have the right to mislead and say stupid things but in a time of war when the enemy is not only listen but agreeing and supporting a political party that has been there best ally - something is wrong there.
Sorry got off point..

Iraqi insurgents (US media/... (Below threshold)
CW:

Iraqi insurgents (US media/Democrats') have successfully targeted; US Navy pilots with civilian deaths, US Army with the prison scandal and the extremely harsh sentences hand out to National Guard/Reserve soldiers, US Marines with there many house to house fights with the terrorist, and now Backwater the elite security force in every sense of the word is now the target.

Why all theses organizations are being targeted?

Because they are all highly EFFECTIVE.

Whatever your opinion of Mu... (Below threshold)
Terr:

Whatever your opinion of Murtha, he did serve his country, and when Limbaugh calls him a "phony soldier" it shows that "phony soldier" cannot mean "a civilian pretending to be a soldier" like MacBeth.

So I'd say Rush has contradicted himself quite neatly.

Somehow Dave managed to rea... (Below threshold)
KeithC Author Profile Page:

Somehow Dave managed to read all my comments and still miss my point.

I'm not misrepresenting anything. I heard the replay of the broadcast in its entirity, read the unedited transcript, and came to the conclusion Rush wasn't talking about MacBeth. I'm now assuming you all did the same and came to the conclusion he was. What I had hoped ya'll came away with from this little experiment in political cross-pollination is that not everybody who disagrees with your views is a liar at best or a kook at worst - sometimes it's just because we honestly disagree. The most amazing thing Wednesday was that I came away with a new-found respect for all of you. I believe your opinions come from a place of honesty and integrity, not from a "the ends justify the means" approach to picking and choosing your facts to win the argument. Respect your opponent until such time they prove unworthy of respect. I'd hoped by now, if not respect, I'd at least earned the benefit of the doubt.

Dave's right about apologies - I have little right to ask for one from Rush when everyone he listed owes an apology themselves for some boneheaded comment they made at one time or another. Can't ask your opponents to take the high road when your team won't do it first. Using the First Amendment to mislead, misconstrue and misrepresent is indeed tragic, but it's also the price we pay for being a free society - you can say what you want until somebody else can proved it's slander or inciting violence. But not everything that is said by the other side is slanderous or dangerous - it's the truth as we see it, and to not speak up would be just as unpatriotic as to lie about what's been or being said or done.

One last thing, then I'll leave ya'll alone - Son gave a great peice of advice to me that I think ya'll would do well to remember, too:

"For just a brief moment, throw out whatever politics you cater to. Ignore what you've "been told". Dismiss any prejudice you may or may not have against a talk-show host you may or may not agree with, and honestly answer which scenario you believe to be the more likely."

Throw out the fact you like and support Rush and take another look at the transcript - there's a full minute and fifty seconds between the time he agrees with the caller (making the "phony soldier" comment) and the time he brings up MacBeth. At the very least, admit there's enough ambiguity there that believing Rush is calling me a phony is not that big a stretch for me to make. I'll admit there may be enough ambiguity to argue he wasn't. That's as close to a compromise as I can make.

ok Keith, I did what you s... (Below threshold)
Gary R:

ok Keith, I did what you suggested and went back and relistened to the show. I'm afraid you are wrong. Liberals are claiming that Rush was calling soldiers who are against the war phony. He states that he was referring to people who claim to be what they are not. then he uses Macbeth as an example about 2 minutes later. Where in the entire conversation with Mike from Washington who is the soldier he was talking to did Rush ever bring up any soldier who disagrees with the war? the answer is no where. The transcript has Mike saying that they (the media) never talk with real soldiers and pull these soldiers who come out of the blue... and this is where Rush inserts "phony soldiers". We all know that the liberal media and anti-war groups such as code pink have trumpeted people who claim to be what they are not (Macbeth) or make claims by writing fake blogs from Iraq about war crimes committed by their units (proven as lies). Thus it is liberals who are reading into the transcript things that are not there. I have heard liberals claim Rush was talking about the 7 soldiers who are against the war. where is that in the transcript? who first used the term phony soldier rush or ABC news or the Seattle paper reporting on the conviction of phony soldiers trying to get VA claims?
I think you should take your own advice and forget that you dislike Rush and go back and reread the transcripts and find where he ever mentions soldiers who disagree with the war.
That said I have enjoyed this rather civil political discussion which is almost impossible to have these days.

The last person who wants t... (Below threshold)
Dewey E. DuBose, Sergeant Major, USA, Ret:

The last person who wants to go to war are the soldiers who have to fight it. They already know how horrible it is. Those who have never been to war are the ones who are the quickest to send our men and women to fight it for those who least appreach it.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy