I get so tired of this windbag, that twists his lies and insulting personality to suit his own view of the world, his own propaganda ministry. Media Matters with the whole story, start to finish, and his attempt to make them look bad for criticizing his wholly inflamatory remark. His following should be called dead heads, dead from the neck up.
CLICK HERE.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 93
Both are pretty dubious distinctions.
The Left has so much to be ashamed about............why would they do even more to be raked over the coals for? Just doesn't make any sense at all - but then I gave up trying to make sense out of Leftist blather a long time ago.
It's better to just point and laugh.
Those that desperately wanted Jesse MacBeth to be for real were the only true losers in this situation.
MediaMatters is hardly the disseminator of unabashed truth, Ron. They've done smear jobs before, and they'll do them again. That's why the less Left Wing news (you know, those guys that actually do some fact-checking) are the only ones to believe.
You mean something like this, Ron? :
from Limbaugh's September 26th show, where he's talking to a caller :
"No, it's not, and what's really funny is, they never talk to real soldiers. They like to pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and talk to the media." Limbaugh interjected, "The phony soldiers." The caller, who had earlier said, "I am a serving American military, in the Army," agreed, replying, "The phony soldiers."
http://mediamatters.org/items/200710060005?f=h_top
You Lefties must hate it when your most despised nemesis, Rush Limbaugh is proved right, and you guys are disgraced yet again......lol.
What I really like is Rush 'drug addict and drug trafficer' Limpbaugh saying that they were taking him out of context. That is what he makes a living doing. Get a life. The guy should have been sent to prison for his drug trafficing.
And please don't tell me he never said this. I was driving through southern San Francisco on the way to my son's wedding with Rush's program on my radio the day he said it. I remember sitting there in stunned disbelief that he would say such a thing, then I reached over and turned the radio off. Nothing he said after that carried any credence with me.
Rush has called out Jesse because he lied about what he saw. Lied about what medals he has etc. All those make him a phoney soldier. Now again, I listened to the whole sound bite but really do not understand what media matters is getting so bent out of shape over.
Like Victor V says - why did MM try to prop this guy up?
Why did the anti-war movement use him so shamelessly?
He was not talking about all soldiers, he wasn't talking about real soldiers who oppose the war. He was talking about the "soldiers" like MacBeth, who have lied about their service - whether theywere NEVER soldiers, or what they did while they were actually soldiers and have been proven to be liars.
You guys got spanked with the Gen Petraeus debacle anf you're desperately looking for a scapegoat to get your butts off the hook. For goodness sake, Ron, even the New York Times says this whole row is bogus ... and they're on YOUR side.
You're still eating Rudi's dog food made in China, aren't you?
I did not hear rush live but I listened to the entire recording on media matters. Unfortunately, your ranting and raving left out the last caller that talked about WMD's that are in use today by terrorists when they built their IED's. Now THAT is interesting but lets forget him because he is just a phony soldier that wants to go kill children right Ron.
If you even cared about facts then you would know that the desert was littered with arms caches. Some where little piles and some where as big as a city block. The general consensus was to push towards Bagdad. They made a judgment call. Was it the right one...probably not but there is no such thing as a perfect war.
And you have first hand knowledge of when these IED's were built... The fact is that there obviously were WMD laying around and when these guys picked up parts to build their IED's they also found some that had WMD's. But you won't find THAT in the national media. Media matters is also not issuing press releases that there were WMD's after all. If you ask me they are not doing a good job of getting the truth out by only focusing on Rush. I was not trying to deflect the conversation as such...merely pointing out that Media Matters does not care about our servicemen unless they further their agenda.
Lets just assume you are correct and Rush believes that all soldiers that disagree with the war are phony soldiers why is it that he has such a strong following with the military? With the exception of media matters, you and Harry Reed there really aren't many people that take this serious or really believe that he thinks that way.
If you even cared about facts then you would know that the desert was littered with arms caches. Some where little piles and some where as big as a city block. The general consensus was to push towards Bagdad."
Actually Victor, the General's consensus, you know, the head of the joint chiefs when they started this madness, General Shinseki, and the rest of the joint chiefs, till they fired Shinseki, and the writing was on the wall, insisted that they needed to have at least three hundred thousand troops, to, among other things that would have kept the peace and averted the whole country from being looted wholesale, guard those same ammo dumps. A few of those were giant, and were raided for tons and tons, of plastique, and other items that have been extremely valuable in killing our own boys. Yeah, general consensus of morons
"They made a judgment call. Was it the right one...probably not but there is no such thing as a perfect war."
This is the most understated thing you have said yet, and one of my main points from the start. Other than that, see above. As for judgment, that seems to only be a function you folks reserve for your betters, if history is to be any judge.
"And you have first hand knowledge of when these IED's were built... The fact is that there obviously were WMD laying around and when these guys picked up parts to build their IED's they also found some that had WMD's. But you won't find THAT in the national media."
Actually, it was documented in all the press when it was happening, and military experts have confirmed that's what IED's were, for god's sakes. And if they did find some with WMDs, would that not just highlight the idiocy of those that planned this debacle and LET them loot the ammo dumps? Good going. "Rummy, you're doing a heck of a job!" idiots. As a matter of fact, they did find some wmds, and it WAS covered in the press. They were left over from the Iran/Iraq war, were dug up at various places, and according to inspectors, so old they were more of a hazard to anyone that tried to use them, than anyone they might have tried to use them on. And,.....of course, we supplied them to Saddam, in the first place. Pathetic.
"Media matters is also not issuing press releases that there were WMD's after all. If you ask me they are not doing a good job of getting the truth out by only focusing on Rush. I was not trying to deflect the conversation as such...merely pointing out that Media Matters does not care about our servicemen unless they further their agenda."
First, you have no basis for saying what you did about MM's supposed take on servicemen. Second, they are there, as I have explained how many times now?, for one purpose. That purpose is to expose the lies the conservative spin machine serves up on platters each and every day. They are not a straight breaking news source, and not supposed to be. The need for balance in the face of a veritable onslaught of lies was deemed necessary, and thus Media Matters was formed. They don't do, or claim to do what you ask of them.
"Lets just assume you are correct and Rush believes that all soldiers that disagree with the war are phony soldiers why is it that he has such a strong following with the military?"
Maybe because the military has been piping his lies in to them for a long time now?
Maybe they sit and laugh, or maybe, just maybe, in that situation, even to hear a blubbering idiot from home is better than not hearing from home period. Thought is changing rapidly in the military, according to recent polls. I wouldn't be so sure they are all over there mouthing ditto, every time he tells a lie.
"With the exception of media matters, you and Harry Reed there really aren't many people that take this serious or really believe that he thinks that way."
On the right side of the aisle, I assume you mean. I think you need do nothing but look at the comments here and on the article itself to find that is false. Many, I have found, took his complete session comment and playing, at his word, which, as I have already revealed, was a lie. I am sure that obfuscation has lowered the heat majorly, but will only make it worse when he is found to have lied, if it comes out. Media Matters, thank god, has him on tape, and can prove he lies, and that is exactly why they are important, and a force for good in politics today.
We didn't have 300,000 troops to go at once. Thanks to Clintons mass reduction activities we are stretched a little thin. We did not have a staging area to support these number and there were tons of other issues. You go with the army you have not the one you wish. Congress felt that there was imminent danger and while we now know better you cant get over the fact that you can't go back.
You may not have noticed but their electricity was out so the WMD Neon signs were not lit. How you going to find the needle in that hay stack. But what are they doing there thought the anti war movement keeps saying there aren't any WMD...even if they are old. Which is it now. But really don't want to keep hashing old ground with you...been there too many times.
The Rush thing is overblown and people on both sides know it. How many signatures did Hary Reed get? He couldn't even get all the dems to sign his letter. Now the fact that you and your back padding friends feel this is a major event does not mean it really is.
Media Matters is a spin machine and you still have not agreed to the fact that they took advantage of this soldier and now probably are responsible for ruining his life. Well done.
We didn't have 300,000 troops to go at once. "
Hmmm...what would that tell a non moron?
"Thanks to Clintons mass reduction activities we are stretched a little thin."
Conservative revisionist history alert. Clinton was not responsible for much of the "Peace Dividend" Military decline. I know you know that because we've argued this before.
"We did not have a staging area to support these number and there were tons of other issues."
Again, this isn't rocket science, maybe it might be better not to go in unprepared and undermanned, and under equipped. Shinseki, the expert tried to tell Rumsfeld, the moron, that, but he wouldn't listen. There was, even if we needed to go into Iraq, which we didn't. no hurry, he was estimated to be at least five years away from a bomb, even if he had the bogus program your side said he did. Why'd we go ahead? Because the country would likely have seen through their BS by the time we raised the troops and equipment, that's why, and Georgie wasn't going to be denied this war.
"You go with the army you have not the one you wish."
And you quote the worst military mind ever, Donald Rumsfeld, at who's feet much of this debacle lays. When George fires you, you have really screwed the pooch and ol' Donald, he was busy at it....and lying his ass off.
"Congress felt that there was imminent danger and while we now know better you cant get over the fact that you can't go back."
Congress got sold a bill of goods, and we've been over this before too. And we most certainly cannot go back, but we can sure as hell quit throwing bad bodies after good.
"You may not have noticed but their electricity was out so the WMD Neon signs were not lit. How you going to find the needle in that hay stack. But what are they doing there thought the anti war movement keeps saying there aren't any WMD...even if they are old. Which is it now. But really don't want to keep hashing old ground with you...been there too many times."
Boy, you said a mouthful, and almost none of it made sense, but here's the thing. No uranium yellow cake, no aluminum tubes suitable for atomic programs, no freeking nuthing. They didn't sell that war on indications he had chlorine gas, hell we gave that to him, for craps sakes, you all were talking about mushroom clouds, biological, that kind of WMDs, and in that regard, the real scare factor you guys tapped into, you got skunked, nothing. Get real.
"The Rush thing is overblown and people on both sides know it. How many signatures did Hary Reed get? He couldn't even get all the dems to sign his letter. Now the fact that you and your back padding friends feel this is a major event does not mean it really is."
Hypocrisy is a never ending commodity in Washington. What else is new? The Dems didn't all sign the Petraeus thing either. You do realize some of the junior members don't believe either resolution was a proper endevour. Mine didn't in the house. As for Republicans, well, they have hypocrisy all wrapped up in ribbons and bows, and considering Cleland, Kerry, McCain and Murtha, all military men this administration has left it's slime trail on, that didn't exactly shock anyone.
"Media Matters is a spin machine and you still have not agreed to the fact that they took advantage of this soldier and now probably are responsible for ruining his life. Well done."
Well, since MM wasn't even referencing that soldier, but the Phony soldiers Rush talked about fifteen minutes earlier, if anyone has victimized a soldier, it would be Rush and you all. I honestly, till I looked it up, didn't even know what the hell you were talking about with MacBeth and all, because that wasn't even part of the conversation, when Rush made his comment. The one this was about, not the one you tried to make it about. You're the only ones responsible there, just like you all are the only ones that ever called Petraeus a traitor. How do you guys twist your mind that easily? It's almost pathologic, and the word just keeps coming up, pathetic.
I was not talking about mushroom clouds CONGRESS was.
You are great at spinning this your way. I am saying that the anti war movement hung this guy out to dry. Media matters for all their fact checking did not realize that this guy lied. Yea thats a great source for factual info.
Wrong, we discussed that the term "peace dividend" was coined by Thatcher and Bush after the Soviet Union collapsed under it's own weight. Then we discussed that he was following Bush I policy and that much of it was already in the planning stages when he took office, the first four years. He also had a penny pinching Republican Congress for the second four years, when more cuts were made, and that to wrap it all up in a phrase like "Clinton cut the military" is not only disingenuous, but dishonest. All Political parties were eager to use the money to be saved by downsizing our military on domestic and fiscal improvements. Downsizing was right, too, as even in this case a bigger military was unnecessary, we just should not have gone in, period.
"I was not talking about mushroom clouds CONGRESS was."
No, the BA said it, over and over, trumped up the intel, and THEN congress repeated the lies they had been handed by the lying BA.
"You are great at spinning this your way. I am saying that the anti war movement hung this guy out to dry. Media matters for all their fact checking did not realize that this guy lied. Yea thats a great source for factual info."
If telling the truth has become spin in your eyes, yes, I am good at it. The "Anti war crowd", may have hung this guy out to dry, I don't know much about him, and media matters only even references him in regard to Rush using him as an excuse, and in a rather neutral manner, at that. But are you saying if the guy was lying, they should have embraced him? What is it you are trying to say? Limbaugh's comment, in the segment that they called Rush on originally, (and all other content is merely documentation of Rush trying to wriggle out of this statement, after he realized it would show him in the bad light he deserves for it) Was the original comment about Phony soldiers, before MacBeth had even been mentioned, and you will note it is plural, unlike his later stated excuse he meant one phony soldier, MacBeth, which was and is a lie. It's all over the net and even the MSM, the concerted effort to vilify MMs by the conservative machine, but once again, the truth will out. That's what they are there for, to show the lies of the conservative machine as what they are, and balance the right wing BS, with a ray of truth once in a while. They have done a good job here, for all your obfuscations. I advise anyone who is interested in the hypocrisy of Rush Limbaugh, alluded to here, to read the article, and use your own judgment, either conclusion you come to, well, that's your perogative, but these guys just hate MMs because they DO expose their lies, and want you not to read it, not to know the truth, just their spin.
You completely missed the fact that I have moved on over what you think he said or what you think he meant. He clarified what he meant and as far as I and most of the world is concerned becomes a mute point. If you want to hang your hat on what you THINNK he meant or believes and keep debating with yourself go right ahead. What I have been pointing out and you completely ignore is the fact that the anti war movement does not check their facts and hang someone out to dry. They lied, he lied but that is ok. No upset Ron over those lies…
Clinton could not do all of what you ascribe to him on his own. The claim that "Clinton single handedly downsized our military" is ludicrous, and unfounded, even with whatever your chart might show, which I have absolutely no remembrance of you showing me. Still got that link handy? I do remember one that was too long to cut and paste on something, might that have been it?
"You completely give Congress a pass that they took things at face value but not do their homework."
What "homework" are you talking about? They had what they thought was the best US intelligence available. Were they supposed to go intelligence gathering on their own? It was simply not their fault Cheney applied his one percent doctrine to trumped up and cherry picked intelligence, and that acting on that flawed intelligence the BA developed, they told others the lies they had been told. Downing Street, the Wilson affair, testimony from Clarke, Tenet, and lately a few brave CIA operatives has shown just how desparately these liars made their case on sometimes wholesale fabrications.
"Its all Bush's fault. You have no room in that massive ego to admit that we simply didn't know any better. That our leaders did see a threat and we went on what we saw. That is too much for you so you have to blame bush, downing street memo etc."
Victor,
I know you won't believe this, but if you knew me, face to face, you would see that I am probably one of the most self effacing individuals that you knew, but I only give a liar like Bush so many chances, then you're done lying to me, and expecting me to believe it without proof. The proof that Bush lied, that it wasn't a stupid mistake, but a well thought out plan to get the country behind invading Iraq, because that was their plan all along, has been proven without a doubt. There is way too much testimony and documentation for anyone but those that do not WANT to see, to be able to deny it. Like my bumper sticker says, "Ill quit blaming Bush when it quits being his fault" And Victor, the truth is just that, your unwillingness not to give it the credence it deserves does not change that.
"You completely missed the fact that I have moved on over what you think he said or what you think he meant. He clarified what he meant and as far as I and most of the world is concerned becomes a mute point. If you want to hang your hat on what you THINNK he meant or believes and keep debating with yourself go right ahead."
This statement is so hypocritical, I can't begin to debunk it without shouting, so I will, once again just name some names, CLELAND, KERRY, MURTHA, MC CAINE. If you can't figure out what that means, go look up the popular term swift boating. My estimation of Rush's meaning is supported by the facts, which is way more than i can say for theories that McCain had a illegitimate black son, Cleland was in cahoots with usama, and wasn't a real war heroe since his dismemberment happened in other circumsttances (He had already been decorated for other actions) or Kerry faked his service, and medals, or that he wasn't talking about Bush in his "stuck in Iraq" comment.... Oh hell, I better not get started here, because I might not quit.
"What I have been pointing out and you completely ignore is the fact that the anti war movement does not check their facts and hang someone out to dry. They lied, he lied but that is ok. No upset Ron over those lies…"
Well, you are entitled to your opinion, even though they did not lie, but the thing is, that's what it is, and how you got that the anti war crowd does not check their facts out of this story is beyond me, as MMs was not even addressing MacBeth, other than in reference to Limpbaugh's stated excuses. That isn't even a part of MMs article other than that. You are the only folks that injected him into the story in any but a minor, ancillary manner. As far as MMs goes, in this article he was just a reference by Rush. You all get your spin hats on, and the sky is the limit, I think.
However, the Left is not only devoid of smoking guns, but it's also bereft of solid military folks who embrace the Leftist cause. There's a million reasons for that.
Regarding all the other stuff you and I have been debating you show equally no regard for the fact that our leaders truly thought there was a clear and present danger that had to be dealt with now. You use little snippets of information to prove your theory that this was all just because of oil or bush wanted to show one up on his daddy. I happen to believe that this is part of a larger strategy to provide peace and stability in the region.
The notion that we should cower or appease terrorists is ludicrous. You say that 911 would not have happened if we just listened to OBL and took all Americans out of "their holy land". You keep thinking we are the bad guys yet probably have never even met anyone from the middle east. They are for the most part peace loving highly educated people. We (our company) get invited to Saudi Arabia constantly. THEY don't want us out. There are thousands of US people living and working there LEGALLY with the permission of the government. The same goes with every country in the middle east. Hell even Iranian businesses have invited us (my company) to visit. We chose not to go because they openly told us they want to reverse engineer our technology and then sell the products which we are not too keen on. But your notion that we should give in to radical fundamentalist thinking in the believe that nothing will happen to us is well...ignorant.
This small group hates us with a passion and by giving in it would only embolden them. You fail to accept this reality. I not for one second think we have done everything well but in time of war you never do. In WWII we landed at wrong beaches, paratroopers were dropped in wrong landing zones etc. We sent thousands of bombers into enemy territory without adequate protection and this caused massive casualties. Today we sent troops into urban warfare without adequate protection. The bomber pilots back then did not think they were going on suicide missions just for the heck of it they understood that every factory they bombed will hurt the enemy and help their comrades in arms on the ground. They understood that you fight with what you have not what you wish you had. We had to learn back then and we have to learn today.
Do you know what many people "complain" the most about US involvement in WWII...its the fact that they didn't go in sooner. Waiting for spring gave Germany more time to build their defenses in France. Waiting caused hundreds of thousands more deaths. Same thing with Japan, while we sat there negotiating they moved their fleet into position. Appeasement does not work against a totalitarian regime that is focused on whipping you out. You have more disdain for the administration then you do for the guys that cut peoples heads off and this I find sad and very hard to debate with.
Truth is not open to using twisted reasoning to wish it away, or falsely using twisted logic to mistakenly disprove it, it is the truth. To you, it's negotiable, to me it is not.
EVERYTHING what Bush does is evil. EVERYTHING Rush stands for is wrong. Rush has a decade long track record of supporting the troops and while I do not deny that he agreed with the caller you leave no notion out there that Rush was thinking one thing and the caller was saying something else. IN a case like this you look at historical evidence to see what he believes. We all have said things that came out wrong but you do not leave any margin for that."
Well, now, could I have written that to you about the Kerry comment, or a few million other things? Obviously, but what part of you get nothing you don't give, at least from me, don't you understand? Hypocrisy is a funny thing, there Victor, it comes back to bite you in the butt, and Rush , although I fully believe he meant exactly what he said, as he has no compassion for anyone that disagrees with him, and never has, just got his bite. For me to say I have one bit of remorse that he got exactly what he deserves, would be hypocritical, too. You see, Victor, I watched this paragon of the human race shimmy in his chair, in sarcastic delight, while the president he supported continued to freeze funding for stem cell research, and my father continued to deteriorate with Parkinson's disease, which finally killed him. I got a news flash for you, he, and Bush ARE evil, and not just for that little personal act of evil, for many, many more, so ......... I can't say it here, but I fully hope you can imagine what I'd really like to tell your Bush supporting butt here, Victor. Yes, you support and condone evil, I am already aware of this.
"Regarding all the other stuff you and I have been debating you show equally no regard for the fact that our leaders truly thought there was a clear and present danger that had to be dealt with now. You use little snippets of information to prove your theory that this was all just because of oil or bush wanted to show one up on his daddy. I happen to believe that this is part of a larger strategy to provide peace and stability in the region."
And you happen to be a fool that has fallen for their lies and stupidity. Do you even pretend to believe, with their record so far, anything these stooges might have planned isn't going to blow up in all our faces, big time? Think, and then think again.
"The notion that we should cower or appease terrorists is ludicrous."
You again put words in my mouth I never said. I pointed out that that was why he issued a fatwa, not that I endorsed it, so you can take that and shove it.
"
"You say that 911 would not have happened if we just listened to OBL and took all Americans out of "their holy land"."
That is a pretty logical assumption, based on the text of the fatwa he issued, yes, and your point is what? Telling the truth makes me subversive?
"You keep thinking we are the bad guys yet probably have never even met anyone from the middle east."
Never said that, I said that Bush and his administration, and you all, that still support it, are the bad guys. Most of the country has recognized you're full of crap, at this point.
"They are for the most part peace loving highly educated people. We (our company) get invited to Saudi Arabia constantly. THEY don't want us out. There are thousands of US people living and working there LEGALLY with the permission of the government. "
And those wonderful Saudi people are almost the total support of Wahabist schools, and Al Qaeda, and many other organizations designed to kill Americans, but hey, they give you idiots money, so you just luuuuv their two faced asses. I can't begin to tell you how this disturbs me. The financial links to Saudi Arabia theBush family had may have been behind a lot of this in the first place. We need, once again, to quit supporting these people.
"The same goes with every country in the middle east. Hell even Iranian businesses have invited us (my company) to visit. We chose not to go because they openly told us they want to reverse engineer our technology and then sell the products which we are not too keen on. But your notion that we should give in to radical fundamentalist thinking in the believe that nothing will happen to us is well...ignorant.""
I think, my friend, that you and a thousand other greedy corporations have already given in to radical fundamentalism, you just don't seem to be able to grasp the concept that you build them up every time you do a little business in the Mid East. You think a Muslim, any Muslim, wants your infidel ass in the holy land? You better consider what his other hand is doing, while you are mesmerized by the greed inherent in your black little hearts. We need to get our ass out of their sandbox, because the best you can hope for there is to be used. Wake up, and consider your own ignorance.
"This small group hates us with a passion and by giving in it would only embolden them. You fail to accept this reality."
Do you not read NIE's? You talk about this like leaving is the worst thing we could do, when the worst thing we could do is give Muslim fundamentalists an easy and obvious force of evil, in their minds, to rally against. Both Sunni and Shiite is scourging Al Qaeda in Iraq from their country, and do not want them there. They will not be allowed to take over, or be tolerated, they hate them. As long as we are there, though, we draw recruits for Islamic fundamentalist terror organizations in ALL countries, you fools. Several consecutive NIEs confirm it, and basically say that our presence in Iraq is equivelant to pouring miracle grow on terrorism.
"I not for one second think we have done everything well but in time of war you never do. In WWII we landed at wrong beaches, paratroopers were dropped in wrong landing zones etc. We sent thousands of bombers into enemy territory without adequate protection and this caused massive casualties. Today we sent troops into urban warfare without adequate protection. The bomber pilots back then did not think they were going on suicide missions just for the heck of it they understood that every factory they bombed will hurt the enemy and help their comrades in arms on the ground. They understood that you fight with what you have not what you wish you had. We had to learn back then and we have to learn today."
What part of pre-emptive war do you not understand is optional, and ill advised, in the first place? We were in a fight for our life in WWII, this isn't even a war, it has never been declared, but you all want to make it one, and a big one, that's obvious. It is a police action to benefit the oil industry, oh, and settle a personal vendetta for a very small man, morally, and a pretty damn stupid one, when you learn anything about the culture, which Bush didn't bother to. We had absolutely no good reason to go into Iraq, and we are paying the price for Bush's arrogance, every day we stay.
"Do you know what many people "complain" the most about US involvement in WWII...its the fact that they didn't go in sooner. Waiting for spring gave Germany more time to build their defenses in France. Waiting caused hundreds of thousands more deaths. Same thing with Japan, while we sat there negotiating they moved their fleet into position. Appeasement does not work against a totalitarian regime that is focused on whipping you out. You have more disdain for the administration then you do for the guys that cut peoples heads off and this I find sad and very hard to debate with.""
Those "many people" wouldn't happen to be revisionist historians of the conservative persuasion, would they? Hitler was also losing whole armies in Russia while we sat out the winter, that could therefore not be shifted against us, and we spared thousands of our troops by letting the Russians wear them down, so let's add that to the story, hmmm..... We also managed to finally decimate their war manufacturing, and claim the air, entirely, the most important factor for victory in any assault, but hey, why consider the truth, if it doesn't fit with your thesis? Japan was not readily recognizable as an ultimate foe, and we did not know they would sneak attack us, everything indicated they wouldn't, so negotiating was not the wrong thing to do, given the facts we knew at the time, and in point of fact, the sneak attack was an accident of different time zones, in the first place.
Now, that you would compare these two conflicts is disingenuous and a failure of reason. They are apples and oranges, entirely. This massive Islamic fundamentalist world war only exists in you idiot's, and a few hundred hard core terrorist's heads. They are terrorists, not the generals in control of massive armies, but if you and yours have your way, you WILL manage to promote them, I am sure. That's why you need to be stopped, and that's why I oppose you idiots, tooth and nail, and will continue to, till we can rid this country of your wrong headed thinking. YOU, my friend, and those that share your warped vision, are the biggest threat to this country we face, Not Al Qaeda, bar none.
Would his ego have deflated at having to admit something as basic as that rather than blustering, editing the original conversation to make it appear it says something it doesn't, etc.? The insults, the editing, the denials all make the man look foolish. A simple admission that some people could logically and legitimately have heard him say something that perhaps he didn't actually mean would have shown intelligence, humility, and a ration of common sense that would have served to ennoble him rather than make him look like a fool.
Its the old Soviet method of manipulation : don't let the truth get in the way of your agenda.
The Kremlin lives!.............In Kansas. lol
As I understand it, MediaMatters was making the allegations. So its their beef..........and yours if you're on their side. Limbaugh called out the phony soldiers, and he did it while an actual US Army soldier was on the phone talking to him. It doesn't get any more real than that.
Why have I never heard a Leftist talking with the same level of familiarity and comfort when they speak to a soldier? Could it be that the Left is so well known to loathe the military that no real soldier will talk with them?
Wouldn't that make perfect sense, given the Jesse MacBeth story? A fake soldier, acting like a real one, telling the world how he and his soldier buddies did horrible things in Iraq while on duty? Yea, that's suspicious from the start. Then of course, the investigation uncovered his fakery. Typical Leftist propaganda..........too bad it proves the Conservative point of view completely.
Right, he said any soldier that didn't support this war was a phony soldier, thanks for making my point, Bret, as for the rest of that, you would hear me talk just fine with the ones I know, around here, and their families. Why is it you always claim to know crap you don't?
MacBeth I never even heard of till this story, so he must be a darling of the right.
Phony soldiers are phony soldiers. If they claim to be a soldier, but they didn't pass through basic, that makes them a civie.
Unlike you guys on the Left who don't send your sons to war, we Conservatives do. Remember, the military is very Conservative by nature.........and Libs don't do well in the military. We had a few of those when I was in Kuwait............needless to say, they didn't do well.....lol.
"We" claim to know things about the military because we do, Ron. I'm guessing you didn't.
As soon as they had no more use for him, the Left threw him in the trash heap, since his usefulness had reached its end................hey, just like you guys did with Cindy Sheehan!
Other than they have on many occasions changed or edited transcripts to make their liberal points.
Well, it sounds like you know a lot more about MacBeth than I do, since even though I read endlessly, I never heard of. Seems a bit obscure if he was a left supported guy, which I doubt, but that never stopped you from trying to associate someone of less than clean virtues with the left, either, has it? Sounds like some obscure, pathetic little man you all have seized on, to try to discredit the left. More power to you, have a ball. That had nothing to do with Rush's comments on Phony Soldiers when he was speaking with the soldier on the phone, though. Funny how you guys can make a connection here for Rush and an unconnected comment, when you couldn't for Kerry, and his taken out of context quote, a while back. Like I said, your hypocrisy comes back and bites you in the butt every once in a while. Enjoy it, I am. Saw a tV reference to Rush's hypocrisy last night, as a matter of fact. Your damage control seems to not be entirely effective here, too bad.
That's the third claim on that you've made, but still no proof. Hmmmm.......
Rush Limbaugh was referring to any soldier who has come out against the war in Iraq. He can backpedal if he wants but he said it and meant what he said.
They are a liberal group like moveon.org. They lie to get political points and act like they are non-partisan
Non-partisan groups usually dont have signup that include Donate, Advocate, get involved in campagins. Shockingly all the issues are liberal ones. SHOCKER!!
Soros gave money through the Democracy Alliance. Moveon.org gave money directly to Media Matters.
I dont really care about the Rush comments that much but Media Matters DID distort the comments.
They have a history of editing and changing transcripts to make their points. They are not non-biased they are liberal biased. They can do that but dont claim they are fair independent or credible they are not.
http://homepage.mac.com/mkoldys/iblog/C1049953760/E20070926121225/index.html
http://www.nypost.com/seven/10072007/postopinion/opedcolumnists/bum_rush.htm
postopinion/opedcolumnists/bum_rush.htm
http://homepage.mac.com/mkoldys/iblog/
C1049953760/E20070926121225/index.html
" Media Matters was started by David Brock - a former speech writer and investigative journalist for the Republican Party, my friend"
Yes who fell in love with Hillary Clinton and spent time in a mental health facility.
I went, I read, and since I already know a lot of the history of both of the stories these things talk about, near as I could tell, a man forgot how much of one transcript was published on a webpage that publishes hundreds and hundreds of stories, that he did not have reference to. Big scandal. The rest was pretty much right wing spin. The Bill O'Reilly thing, no matter what an Uncle Tom that gets paid big money by Rupert to come on screen and defend bigots like O'Reilly says, the actual comments were ignorant and racist. I did watch the whole episode a while back, and the lead in did nothing to dispel the ultimate fact that he said some pretty stupid and ill considered racist things. Man, this is your proof? Also, I have gone back, and think you are confused about giving me links before, on any of my articles to MM's lies. I may have missed them, but I don't think so. And by the way, when you point me to a page, and I read "Vast left wing conspiracy" anywhere on it, you've got absolutely no bitch with me, my friend,lol.
The main stream media is overwelmingly liberal. You have to complain everytime someone goes on that is not liberal. where are the compaints about Olberman, all he does is give personal opinions that are pretty much lies.
O'rielly's comments were not racist. I heard the whole thing and all he was saying is the restraunt was like anyother despite what a lot of people say. It just proves people want to see hate and will twist things to discredit people who dont agree with them.
Regardless of the efficacy of Media Matters, or MoveOn, or anything else, the right will always try to discredit true patriots from speaking out against their view of the world. I think REAL soldiers over in Iraq know better than the morons who "listen to Rush daily" and Rush himself. The man is a lunatic, pure and simple. So is O'Reilly Those who listen to them take in their lunacy, having no mind of their own to make up.
There have been many, many interviews with soldiers, both in Iraq and having returned that disagree with our invasion and think it should end. These have been reported in a whole range of venues. But, of course, lunatics like Rush and O'Reilly are not going to air such views. Sad, so sad.
Isn't that a switch? You all used to spout off all day on how the military was all gung ho about the war. Hmmm..... I think some BS just got old, in face of the guys getting screwed constantly by the right and their administration.
I agree, hypocrite is you. No change.
You've obviously had your head somewhere deep & dark - where it doesn't belong..........on the Jesse MacBeth issue.
This issue was splashed all over the news, so it sounds like you willfully looked the other way.
And for your information, Rush Limbaugh was directly commenting on the Jesse MacBeth story in the minutes leading up to his "phony soldiers" comment. How could you have possibly missed this? It ties in directly to your refuting Rush's comments.
Time to do a little more homework next time before you speak, Ron.
Blaming a Leftist misstep (Jesse Macbeth) on Karl Rove? Now I've heard it all.............