Andy McCarthy: Run That One By Me Again

Quite frankly, the entire pseudo-controversy over Rush Limbaugh’s remarks headlined the Theater of the Absurd for the past week, and apparently continues its meager run on the stage. Michelle Malkin sees the strategy for exactly what it is — a payback for the beating that MoveOn took over calling General David Petraeus a traitor on the pages of the New York Times. Andy McCarthy practically has to pick his jaw up off the floor over the target selection of the Left:

There really was a news story, generated by the mainstream media of all people, about phony soldiers — poseurs who falsely claim to have put their lives on the line in our country’s armed forces, at least some of whom engage the pretense precisely to libel real heroes as terrorists and marauders.
Rush Limbaugh, one of this nation’s single-most ardent supporters of the military, was briefed on the news story by his staff and was, unsurprisingly, offended by it.
Rush alluded to the said phony soldiers during his hugely successful daily radio broadcast, prompted by what he reasonably believed was a caller’s reference to it.
As a result, he is being castigated for dishonoring authentic troops in a trumped up controversy generated by Media Matters — a left-wing propaganda machine with pockets lined by left-wing activists. The charge is being led by top Democrats who, when not busy defending other top Democrats for smearing our troops as “reminiscent of Genghis Khan,” terrorists, murderers, and comparable to “Nazis, Soviets in their gulags or some mad regime — Pol Pot or others — that had no concern for human beings,” fall mute when the vanguard of their hard-left base, MoveOn.org (abetted by the New York Times), describes the general heroically leading our forces in Iraq a traitor.
And this is a story?

Yes, this is a story. It’s a story of intellectual dishonesty, partisan gunslinging, and distraction tactics designed to protect a major Democratic Party fundraiser. That’s the real story behind this latest absurdity.
Let’s start from Square One. In order to believe that Rush Limbaugh meant to slander the troops, one would have to believe that Limbaugh has some animus against the military. Anyone who has listened to Limbaugh even occasionally would laugh aloud at such a notion. Limbaugh has been one of the most vocal supporters of the American military — much more supportive that most of the mainstream news agencies now reporting on this supposed slur issued by Limbaugh. How many defenses of the American military does one read in the New York Times or San Francisco Chronicle — or Media Matters or Daily Kos?
The transcript of the show, as I wrote last week, shows exactly what Limbaigh meant by “phony soldiers”, as Byron York points out. He meant the phonies like Jesse MacBeth, who claimed to have been in Iraq and never was, or Scott Beauchamp, who claimed to have witnessed atrocities that never occured. It has become such a phenomenon that ABC News reported on it a few days before Limbaugh discussed it. After taking a couple of calls, Limbaugh explained exactly what he meant.
This isn’t about protecting the honor of American soldiers, a mission Media Matters has not exactly adopted in its reporting on Haditha, for instance. It’s a blatant attempt to misrepresent what Limbaugh clearly meant and what he clearly said on his show in order to discredit him and dent his popularity. At the heart of it, it’s about the fear that Media Matters has for Rush and the power he holds from the work he does on behalf of conservative causes.
The Theater of the Absurd continued yesterday, with Tom Harkin lashing out at Rush for possibly being “on drugs again”. Harkin lied about his own service record when he ran for President in 1992, when he claimed to be a combat fighter pilot in Vietnam. Harkin flew jets and served honorably, but did so stateside; he never saw combat. Why he felt the need to lie about his otherwise outstanding service is anyone’s guess, but clearly he’s the last person to publicly render judgment on Rush’s honesty.
This is all a stage, directed by Media Matters and its financial backers, and all of the Democrats howling about Rush merely its players. They may strut all they want, but they produce only sound and fury, signifying nothing — and in the process, put their intellectual bankruptcy on display for all to see.

93 thoughts on “Andy McCarthy: Run That One By Me Again”

  1. Ed, That last sentence — “They may strut all they want, but they produce only sound and fury, signifying nothing — and in the process, put their intellectual bankruptcy on display for all to see.” — is right on the mark. Bravo!

  2. What are the criteria used to judge whether a 527 organization crosses the line from “education” to a partisan campaign effort?
    Does anyone know what the exact criteria are?

  3. Ed–Here’s the transcript of the September 26th show directly from Rush’s website (sorry for the length, but there’s a dispute about the contect of his remarks). It looks to me like Rush is saying that any soldier that “comes up out of the blue and spouts to the media” is a phony soldier (double brackets around the directly relevant sections).
    It’s only later that he talks about “fake soldiers” and Jesse Macbeth.
    CALLER: I used to be military, okay, and I am a Republican.
    RUSH: Yeah.
    CALLER: And I do listen to you, but —
    RUSH: Right, I know. And I, by the way, used to walk on the moon.
    CALLER: How long do we have to stay there?
    RUSH: You’re not listening to what I say. You can’t possibly be a Republican. I’m answering every question; it’s not what you want to hear, and so it’s not even penetrating your little wall of armor you’ve got built up. I said we stay to get the job done, as long as it takes. I didn’t say forever. Nothing takes forever. That’s not possible, Bill. Mike. Whatever. Nobody lives forever, no situation lasts forever, everything ends. We determine how do we want it to end, in our favor or in our defeat? With people like you in charge, who want to put a timeline on everything — do you ever get anything done in your life? Or do you say, “Well, I wanted to have this done by now, and it’s not, so screw it”? You don’t live your life that way. Well, hell, you might, I don’t know. But the limitations that you want to impose here are senseless, and they, frankly, portray no evidence that you are a Republican.
    Another Mike. This one in Olympia, Washington. Welcome to the EIB Network. Hello.
    CALLER: Hi, Rush. Thanks for taking my call.
    RUSH: You bet.
    CALLER: I have a retort to Mike in Chicago, because I am serving in the American military, in the Army. I’ve been serving for 14 years, very proudly.
    RUSH: Thank you, sir.
    CALLER: I’m one of the few that joined the Army to serve my country, I’m proud to say, not for the money or anything like that. What I would like to retort to is that, what these people don’t understand, is if we pull out of Iraq right now, which is not possible because of all the stuff that’s over there, it would take us at least a year to pull everything back out of Iraq, then Iraq itself would collapse and we’d have to go right back over there within a year or so.
    RUSH: There’s a lot more than that that they don’t understand. The next guy that calls here I’m going to ask them, “What is the imperative of pulling out? What’s in it for the United States to pull out?” I don’t think they have an answer for that other than, “When’s he going to bring the troops home? Keep the troops safe,” whatever.
    CALLER: Yeah.
    RUSH: It’s not possible intellectually to follow these people.
    [[CALLER: No, it’s not. And what’s really funny is they never talk to real soldiers. They pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and spout to the media.
    RUSH: The phony soldiers.]]
    CALLER: Phony soldiers. If you talk to any real soldier and they’re proud to serve, they want to be over in Iraq, they understand their sacrifice and they’re willing to sacrifice for the country.
    RUSH: They joined to be in Iraq.
    CALLER: A lot of people.
    RUSH: You know where you’re going these days, the last four years, if you sign up. The odds are you’re going there or Afghanistan, or somewhere.
    ………………
    Here is a Morning Update that we did recently, talking about fake soldiers. This is a story of who the left props up as heroes. They have their celebrities and one of them was Army Ranger Jesse Macbeth. Now, he was a “corporal.” I say in quotes. Twenty-three years old. What made Jesse Macbeth a hero to the anti-war crowd wasn’t his Purple Heart; it wasn’t his being affiliated with post-traumatic stress disorder from tours in Afghanistan and Iraq. No. What made Jesse Macbeth, Army Ranger, a hero to the left was his courage, in their view, off the battlefield, without regard to consequences. He told the world the abuses he had witnessed in Iraq, American soldiers killing unarmed civilians, hundreds of men, women, even children. In one gruesome account, translated into Arabic and spread widely across the Internet, Army Ranger Jesse Macbeth describes the horrors this way: “We would burn their bodies. We would hang their bodies from the rafters in the mosque.”
    Now, recently, Jesse Macbeth, poster boy for the anti-war left, had his day in court. And you know what? He was sentenced to five months in jail and three years probation for falsifying a Department of Veterans Affairs claim and his Army discharge record. He was in the Army. Jesse Macbeth was in the Army, folks, briefly. Forty-four days before he washed out of boot camp. Jesse Macbeth isn’t an Army Ranger, never was. He isn’t a corporal, never was. He never won the Purple Heart, and he was never in combat to witness the horrors he claimed to have seen. You probably haven’t even heard about this.

  4. Are the lefties really this stoopid? Rush’s show will be even more popular now…
    Harkin is a disgrace. And he wore the Wings of Gold? I’m hanging my head in shame (just as I did with “Duke”)

  5. My estimation of this attack is that it’s from the old play book during the Clinton years where they would say any absurd thing to dominate a news cycle knowing that the retraction the next day, if it was forced, wouldn’t have nearly the same impact. And the retraction might also be overwhelmed by the next absurd statement that was creating the next controversy.
    The blogosphere has changed it all and I am hopeful that the blowback hurts them more that the attack on Rush ever could.

  6. Posted by Jim
    ”Rush is saying that any soldier that ‘comes up out of the blue and spouts to the media’ is a phony soldier…”
    Actually no, Rush didn’t say ”any soldier” at all. The caller said ”They pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue …” [my bold]
    It’s right up there in the double brackets.
    You edited it and changed the meaning. Try again.

  7. CheckSum said:
    “Posted by Jim
    ”Rush is saying that any soldier that ‘comes up out of the blue and spouts to the media’ is a phony soldier…”
    Actually no, Rush didn’t say ”any soldier” at all. The caller said ”They pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue …” [my bold]
    It’s right up there in the double brackets.
    You edited it and changed the meaning. Try again.”
    No, Jim said:
    It looks to me like Rush is saying that any soldier that “comes up out of the blue and spouts to the media” is a phony soldier (double brackets around the directly relevant sections).”
    Speaking of editing and changing the meaning…

  8. Here’s the money quote (and the only time that Rush said “phony soldiers”, instead of “fake soldiers, that I see):
    [[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.]]
    This is right off his website as of 20 minutes ago, by the way.
    I do think Rush meant to say that soldiers that just “pop up” (or are “staged”) and complain to the media are “phony soldiers”. That doesn’t mean he said that all soldiers are phony soldiers or that all soldiers who disagree with the war are phony soldiers.

  9. Rush, Hannity, O’Reilly all go for this relentless cycle he-said-she-said-he-said-she-said, playing old sound bites of Pelosi or Reid or the John Kerry Joke for years and years. Which is great programming, because they never have to generate new material and they can pad out dead air time whenever they need to.
    The dems have decided that the best way to break the GOP’s decade long barrage of he-said-she-said is to take this technique and ram it right down their throats and force the Rush and the rest to talk about themselves all the time. Listening to someone play tapes of themselves night after night is pretty unbearable.
    And then you throw in Clarence Thomas trying to one-up the lot of them by claiming he’s the real victim after all these years (as if the Clintons didn’t get worse treatment much more recently), and the whole thing sounds like some sort of hideous group therapy session.
    Problem is, these guys are trapped once the cycle of he-said-she-said is turned back on them. It’s not as if they could go out and start doing other stuffs, like maybe actual NEWS for instance. They have no staff, experience, or budget for actual journalism.
    This is going to take a toll on Rush and Fox.

  10. What separates terrorism from crime is that its object is the achievement of political or other ends unrelated directly to the attack itself.
    There are many kinds of terrorism, as we know.
    Move.org, Media Matters and their acolytes in the Congress and the media are engaged in a specific form of terrorism…intellectual terrorism.
    Dare to disagree with them and they will attack you and all you hold dear, so as to destroy you and, more importantly your thought and the ability of others to access it.
    This is why their acts so resemble those of terrorist/thug regimes. This is why they are so dangerous.

  11. Brian, ya got me. I did leave off the “It looks to me like” part of the sentance. In my haste, I thought the word “Rush” was the first in the sentance, as it was the first word of the line. My bad.
    But please explain how that changed the meaning?

  12. Rush meant the lying Jesse Macbeth and anyone with an IQ above a cactus realizes this (which of course leaves out members of MoveOnYouStinkyLunaticYouNauseateMe.org.
    I’ve been in the Navy for 19 years and I really want to avoid Democrat politicians when I’m walking around here in Washington, because if I ever meet one of them – let’s just say I won’t be giving them a big kiss on the cheek.
    Rush has given far more support to us as military personnel than the collective (non)efforts of the Democrats combined.
    Democrats have effectively sewed a large bullseye on our back and said to the terrorists – “have at them – it will help us elect Democrats.”

  13. I’m a Duke grad and rabid Rush listener. I didn’t listen to Rush until 2003 when he was lampooned in the media as being addicted to “hillbilly heroin.” That same year, Brett Favre also admitted an addiction to painkillers, but received no such treatment.
    Attacks such as this only serve to expose those who make them. The exposure here is Media Matters, the organization’s funding by George Soros and the organizations hard and soft links to Hillary and Bill Clinton. In fact, many folks have suggested that the organization be renamed Hillary Matters. : ))
    Very little research is necessary to find Media Matters ties to billionare political operators including Mr. Soros and Progressive founder Peter Lewis.
    If you haven’t visited David Horowitz’s Discover the Network site, check it out. Quite an eye opener. Soros is the key. America can’t be bought and we don’t like billionares using their billions to influence our politics from behind the scenes.
    A sample:
    “Media Matters has not always been forthcoming about its high-profile backers. In particular, the group has long labored to obscure any financial ties to George Soros. But in March 2003, the Cybercast News Service (CNS) detailed the copious links between Media Matters and several Soros “affiliates”—among them MoveOn.org, the Center for American Progress, and Peter Lewis. Confronted with this story, a spokesman for the organization explained that “Media Matters for America has never received funding directly from George Soros” (emphasis added), a transparent evasion.”
    http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=7150
    Soros has been outed and Hillary will go down with him if she isn’t careful.

  14. But sadly, there are some Conservatives who are still not proud to vote strongly against this unethical garbage.
    The only way to rebuke the Democrat Partisan Mess is to send their Majority packing.
    To stop them at the polls…
    And yet, even as they lie to debase anyone who opposes their misguided ways, we have some talking about enabling the Democrat Corruption by not voting.
    If you aren’t disgusted yet, I think you have become part of the problem.
    The Democrats have tried to undermine the USA in a Military Operation in the heart of the Arab Region for their own self serving purposes.
    The idea this attack on Rush is payback is absurd. It is just the negligent Democrat M.O. we see on a daily basis.
    Some Conservatives seemed to accept the slander against the President of the USA, remaining silent while the most ugly demeaning deceit was being offered by the Democrat Party.
    As if one’s frustrations could justify letting someone be vilified unfairly, or as if this pathetic vitriol wouldn’t eventually spread to others who oppose the Liberal Democrat Deceit.
    Some Conservatives even said nothing, as Nancy Pelosi claimed al Qaeda wasn’t in Iraq before the 2006 election.
    It was truly sad.
    The unethical Liberal Democrat Mantra of today, learned from the malfeasant Clinton Effort of the 90’s, will do anything to enable their greed for power, especially trying to slander the opposition.
    Lie, cheat, even steal is the daily offering from the Democrats…
    They must be strongly rebuked in 2008.
    This petty uncertainty must end, and we must unite to send the Democrat Party packing again.

  15. Just visited the vote vets.org site and the ‘phony’ americans have all of their web traffic blocked. That proves that are not only phony soldiers that have shamed themselves, their families and their country, they are too cowardly to allow an Email from a retired Vet of 22 years military. Anyone that stands up for the failed general Wesley Clark is about as low as you can get. What kind of weasel would you have had to be to get fired by Slick Willie? A worthless P’sOS is a good description of him and the members of the slimey organization vote vets, the reintroduction of the drugged out brain dead 60’s hippies.

  16. Tom Harkins illustrates the left’s inability to see its own self-parody. Here we have someone who has lied about his own military record and claimed combat status when he was little more then an ferry pilot critizing Rush for refering to fakes like Jessie MacBeth and even Scott Beauchamps as phonies because they have like about their service. If the Democrats were sincere they would have never allowed Tom Harkins to speak on this issue.
    For the uniniated, Harkins duties were not at all dissimiliar from George Bush’s experience as an F-102 pilot in the Texas Air National Guard. Bush at least had to stand alerts against the Cold War Soviet bomber force.

  17. Brian
    If you listened to the first caller Rush said wasn’t a republican, you would have detected that the caller had all the behaviors of a “seminar” caller and Rush was simply calling him out on it.

  18. One of Move On .orgs founders was Hillary Clinton which should be evidence enough of its veracity.
    Unlike many of the posters here I was listening to the show and there was never any question in my mind of the context of the remarks Rush made. He was not referring to people who currently serve or are retired, his entire context was in reference to those who pretend to serve and then try to slander our military. Limbaugh has been a supporter of the military since the beginning, to believe that he would slander those serving honorably strains credibility.

  19. If I hadn’t read all the reports of real ‘phony soldiers’ otherwise formerly known as the Winter Soldiers, over the past four years I probably too would believe Rush was saying something bad about our soldier.
    So when Rush spoke about ‘phony soldiers’ I knew who he was taking about.
    I,like you Angry Dumbo, didn’t begin listening to Rush until 2003 prior to that all I knew about the guy was what I heard from my peers, I was once a Liberal myself, ‘Rush Limbaugh is a right-wing extremist out to destory America’ Seriously, I used to say those very words until one September morning I was mugged by reality.
    That said, it’s really weird when Hillary Clinton’s organization which she helped to found, Media Matters, have their employees always showing up in the comment sections of blogs who are questioning the deceptive tactics used by Media Matters; what do they pay, by the blog or by the comment?

  20. Again, Ed huffs and puffs, spins conspiracy theories about “Media Matters,” tries to turn people’s attention to the likes of Tom Harkin, and wheels out the cliches (“intellectual bankruptcy,” and so on). All to back up his friend Rush and maintain his own standing as a reliable team player on the right-wing media circuit.
    This is self-defeating behavior, and not just in the long term. When you refuse to acknowledge error that the rest of the world recognizes perfectly well — when you act as though accountability is for other people, not your own — then your circle of support inevitably narrows. You may keep your diehard followers fired up. But you’ll drive away everyone else. (Exhibit A: George W. Bush.)
    And you serve your own friend poorly, too. Look at what Rush gets away with these days. He gets so angry at Michael J. Fox for taping a campaign commercial that he mimicks him and accuses him of faking his symptoms. (What do you really think Missouri voters — the majority, not just everyday Rush listeners — thought of this? Claire McKaskill probably owes Rush her margin of victory.)
    This time he got mad about soldiers who oppose the war. But it’s the same thing — the same small moment of rage, caught on tape for the world to witness. No matter what phony “context” he wants to try to construct after the fact.
    Yet Rush gets nothing but loyal support, even from people like Ed who probably should know better. Rush has become the infant who runs the household. No constraints on anything he chooses to say or do.
    Someone with more integrity than Ed would put his own independent judgment ahead of the priorities of an organized movement. (Actually, honoring these kinds of priorities isn’t even a good way to run a movement.) Before the election last fall, Ed had enough distance and perspective to recognize when House Republicans were hurting themselves by just attacking their critics rather than acknowledging their errors. Too bad he can’t point out the same thing when it’s his own friend who’s at fault.
    This time, though, it’s not just himself, and his own cause, that Ed is serving poorly. He’s also being an enabler, rather than a friend.

  21. Jim,
    Actually the caller said “out of the blue”. Limbaugh said “phoney soldiers”.
    Limbaugh had been talking for a week or so about soldiers who falsify their service to make it seem greater than it was (as if just serving isn’t enough these days). They generate personal stories about combat (including war crimes and atrocities) that they never saw. Such was the context of his remark.
    It is quite amusing that one of his accusers, Sen. Harkin, is one of those as well; his is truly a case of three fingers pointing back. Does he really want renewed scrutiny of his inflated claimed service record?

  22. nandrews:
    You said “…He gets so angry at Michael J. Fox for taping a campaign commercial that he mimicks him and accuses him of faking his symptoms…”
    Maybe you didn’t know this but Foxx admitted that he went off his meds to exagerate his current condition so he would be even more effective.

  23. Have They No Shame?

    The Rush vs Reid story is one that I have been following with mighty interest for several reasons. First; I am a Rush fan. Does it mean that I agree with everything he says and how he says it? Absolutely

  24. CheckSum said:
    “Brian, ya got me. I did leave off the “It looks to me like” part of the sentance. In my haste, I thought the word “Rush” was the first in the sentance, as it was the first word of the line. My bad.
    But please explain how that changed the meaning?”
    Thanks for the polite reply, and I apologize for the smart-ass comment I tacked on.
    It may not change the meaning as you see it (which may be right, I don’t know, as I said above it’s probably just bad phrasing on Rush’s part). As I saw the original response, it seemed like you were saying Jim faked Rush’s reply. That was what I was correcting.
    But that was not what you meant. Again, thanks for the polite and calm reply, and my apoligies for the assumption.

  25. There is a way to assess the impact of this story. Rush has offered to pay half of the cost of a poll to see which side has the greatest credibility on support for the military. Let’s start a fund to collect the other half. While we’re at it, let’s make sure a section of that poll relates directly to the opinions of active duty miliray personnel in any of the current combat zones. On of the questions should be, “Between the current Democratic leadership of the United States Congress and Rush Limbaugh,who do you trust more to represent your personal interests in the ongoing conflicts in which you are serving your country?” Maybe MoveOn.org will do that survey themselves. Or Media Matters. Let’s see who beleives what about whom.

  26. DayTrader said:
    “Brian
    If you listened to the first caller Rush said wasn’t a republican, you would have detected that the caller had all the behaviors of a “seminar” caller and Rush was simply calling him out on it.”
    Said behavior being disagreeing with Rush? What else did the man do that ‘proved’ he wasn’t a real Republican?

  27. Jerry said:
    “nandrews:
    You said “…He gets so angry at Michael J. Fox for taping a campaign commercial that he mimicks him and accuses him of faking his symptoms…”
    Maybe you didn’t know this but Foxx admitted that he went off his meds to exagerate his current condition so he would be even more effective.”
    Um. actually, Fox said he had overmedicated.
    I also recall several docs saying there’s no way to know how the medicine will affect you day to day – one day an overdose like Fox’s will cause tremors, the next lethargy, etc. So Fox couldn’t have counted on the meds helping him to act, as he was accused.

  28. The Democrat brain trust and support groups are loaded with lawyers. Lawyers know how to game the system. In general, their strategy versus any opposition can be summed up by a best-selling book from an earlier era, “Winning Through Intimidation.” In essence the book says that you can defeat opponents, or at least gain major concessions, by accusing, attacking, and/or suing them…even when you don’t have a solid case against them.
    The reason this strategy is very effective is that this puts the accused party constantly on the defensive. The very fact they have to answer the accusations often creates an implication of guilt, and the accusers come off as whistleblowers, damaged victims, or righteous prosecutors. In addition the time, cost, and emotional grief added to the accused tends to wear them down and eventually either back off (intimidation) or lash out inappropriately, thus casting further doubt on the innocence and integrity of the accused.
    Consider the non-stop congressional hearings the Democrats have engaged in, MSM articles, and the attack ads of MoveOn.org. “Winning Through Intimidation.” It’s the required textbook for Democrat Strategy 101.

  29. Said behavior being disagreeing with Rush? What else did the man do that ‘proved’ he wasn’t a real Republican?
    Thanks for at least letting us know that you’re ignorant on the subject.
    A ‘seminar caller’ is someone that tells Rush’s call screener that he’s “a lifelong Republican, listens to you all the time, always votes Republican” and so on, but then immediately starts reciting the moveon.org playbook. The left holds seminars on how to call into successful talk shows (perhaps they should have some on HAVING successful shows?), thus the incarnation of the name ‘seminar callers’. Rush usually can spot them within a few seconds, as he did with the previous caller.
    What is obvious is that there are plenty of folks who start from the position “Rush is evil, so whatever is said that can damage him is good enough for me” & then demand that you disprove their negative. Generally, when there is a disagreement over what is said, you ask someone what they intended & that’s that. In this case, it’s now become “Rush is evil, so whatever is said that can damage him is good enough for me ane he’s lying about his excuse, but John Kerry told a bad joke” (why do those folks all talk the same?).
    You hate Rush.
    We get it.
    Just stop trying to pretend that you’re attempting a cogent discussion when you’re not going to accept ANYTHING that differs from your religion: leftward politics.

  30. nandrews… I enjoy your posts since I am always a sucker for cogent and powerful writing. However in this case I think you’re being excessively hard on Ed, who really is one of the more “fair and balanced” bloggers out there (insofar as one can be both partisan and balanced, always a tricky feat 🙂
    I think Rush’s “phony soldiers” quote was not as clearcut and distasteful as his attack on Michael J. Fox. I’ve read the transcript carefully and depending on one’s mental set, Rush could have been referring to “fake” soldiers created and brought forward to suit an agenda.
    That said, I do wish everybody would stop it already with these silly “gotcha” games. Who cares who said what about whom? I’d like to hear what policies the right is proposing. What do our candidates stand for? How will they change or improve the country? How are they going to reverse those devaststaing 25%-75& polls on “right direction-wrong direction”?)
    Vote for us! We’re Not As Bad As The Other Guys! … has never been a winning slogan.

  31. This is where all those years of listening to Rush Limbaugh pay off…
    … Rush has been using the same phrases for years to deflect any criticism – “drive-by media,” “the playbook,” “seminar caller,” etc.
    For the uninitiated, these words sound like Newspeak, but for a dittohead, they’re handy one-word deflections of El Rushbo’s problems. Here, Rush made an ambiguous reference to “phony soldiers” that, depending on how charitable you feel, either including all soldiers who speak out against the war, or only the Micah Wright types who pretend to be veterans to advance a political point.
    What works against Rush is that when he talks about “supporting the troops” this takes a deeply partisan point – i.e., “support” usually means bashing anyone who has a critical word about the Iraq War, up and to and including actual veterans of the war.
    Rush’s die-hards mistake supporting the military for supporting George W. Bush, and get angry if you separate the two — “traitor” has become an awfully watered-down word these days, in no small part to Limbaugh and his second-tier competitors.
    DU

  32. Harkin makes me want to change my web tag, the dog. He’s a plaintiff’s attorney which should say all that needs to be said about his character. When the voting results arrive from Congress.org, I can count on the fact that Grassley and King will have voted my way on nearly everything, well King votes “no” on every damned piece of legislation that crosses his desk, while Harkin does exactly the opposite of what I, as his constituent, expect. I hope his statements blow up in his face. He needs to represent those poor dupes on either coast and stop diluting this red state with mealy-mouthed liberalism.

  33. Brian said:
    “As I saw the original response, it seemed like you were saying Jim faked Rush’s reply.”
    You were more right the first time. I didn’t say “faked” but I did mean to that say Rush’s reply was edited and its meaning changed.
    “Any soldier” and “these soldiers” do not mean the same thing.
    No one said “any soldier” as Jim implyed. However, the caller that Rush was replying to did say “these soldiers”.

  34. 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.
    emphasis mine.
    The caller had already set the table of not real soldiers. Rush had already had a morning update about Jesse MacBeth, a phoney soldier.
    BTW Ed, a minor correction w/r/t to Senator Harkin. As I understand it, he did not serve stateside, but in Japan and at Gitmo.

  35. All of you are missing the point here. It does not matter what Rush did or did’nt say or what he said in the past. It is about the United States Congress issuing statements on their Senate floor, sending letters, putting forth resolutions, etc. against the speech of a private American citizen. Because that is what Rush is. He is not a 527 as is Move-on.org, or a PAC, or an elected official, or a member of the administration. Shall we now all be required to wear yellow stars on our lapels to identify us as someone they disagree with? What a disgrace. They come close to doing the unconstituional.
    Article 1, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution bans Bills of Attainder, which in Constitutional context means a bill that has an negative effect on a single person or group.

  36. Nandrews’s comments are beside the point. This entire event was a “dry run” for an broad assault on conservative talk media orchestrated by Media Matters/Soros/Clinton. We can expect to see much more of this as the 2008 election year approaches.
    The assault was partially successful in forcing Rush Limbaugh, a private citizen who is unusually effective as a conservative talk show host, to defend himself. At the same time, by escalating it to the floor of the House and the Senate, the Soros/Clinton/Democrat organization exposes its threat to use their future control of the U.S. government to undermine the First Amendment and the Constitution.
    It’s extremely unwise for Hillary Clinton to play for those stakes. If she becomes the candidate of “use the government to silence the opposition”, then she cannot be said to be a “centrist” or “moderate”. Because of the perception, based past behavior, that she and Bill can be bought with foreign money, we must take this threat seriously.
    And if our oaths to defend the Constitution demands extreme sacrifices from us to stop destruction of the rule of law and the U.S. Constitution by Mrs. Clinton’s political party, Hillary Clinton and her supporters can expect a level of partisan rancor that will last well beyond election day, the results of the election notwithstanding.

  37. Lefties should quit while they are still behind on this.
    Recreating Rush into someone who does not respect or honor soldiers is trying to force people to believe the sky is yellow.
    And lefties trying to convince people they are giving a fig about soldiers is trying to say the sky is pink.
    This is all about silencing people lefties do not like. That they have to do what lefties always do to destroy conservatives – lie about what they say- has worked in the past.
    We should not forget in all of this that they have gone after O’Reilly in the same period of time. This is a concerted effort to suppress the airwaves. These groups may have different names but their financing and political agendas are identical. And their agendas are not what most Americans would tolerate if they knew about it.
    They are suppressing people in ways McCarthy only dreamed of, and using tactics that would have made him blush.
    We who care about freedom are right to fight these extremsits and to reject their demands.

  38. Brian and Loren, I didn’t say “any soldiers” if you read my post. And I still read the “these” soldiers as being those “soldiers that come out of the blue and spout to the media” although I see how Rush could have thought something different.
    But, Loren, the transcript on his website clearly shows that his Morning Update on “fake” soldiers was several minutes after this comment, not before.

  39. As I’ve written before, I actually heard this segment of Rush’s show live. It was obvious to me (as it would be to any sentient, rational being… which excludes liberals) that Rush was referring to charlatans like J-j-j-jesse McB-b-b-beth, not to “real” soldiers. Other people who declared themselves active or former military who called in after the segment also seemed to understand this as they either weren’t offended or actually AGREED with Rush.
    I realize that this first-person account of what Rush said will make no difference to our lefty trolls, who decided a long time ago that Rush is almost as eeeeevil as Karl Rove and therefore ANYTHING bad said about him must be the carved-in-stone truth. However, a chap feels impelled to try.
    I would also like to offer a few words about the “seminar” caller that started the exchange: folks, I don’t know what planet this moron is from, but NASA needs to send him home! He obviously called with the intent of baiting / badgering Rush because Rush is hard on liberals (how’d you figure THAT out, Einstein?), which the caller somehow managed to twist into a racial thing: Rush hates black people. After first claiming that the democrat party is predominately black (!), the caller then claimed that “there’s no such thing as a white person”.
    “The fool killer lowered his club and walked away shaking his head, overwhelmed by the magnitude of the opportunity.”
    Mechanical Eye: What works against Rush is that when he talks about “supporting the troops” this takes a deeply partisan point – i.e., “support” usually means bashing anyone who has a critical word about the Iraq War, up and to and including actual veterans of the war.
    Could you please provide an instance when Rush has “bashed” troops other than fakers like McBeth or Beauchamp? Please note that this also does not include politicians military service like Jon Kary.

  40. Bio Mom, you are wrong about what Bills of Attainder do. They apply to punishments doled out by Congress to an individual or a easily identified group without there having been a trial. I don’t think a House or Senate resolution which doesn’t specify a punishment would be a Bill of Attainder.
    ”Bills of attainder . . . are such special acts of the legislature, as inflict capital punishments upon persons supposed to be guilty of high offences, such as treason and felony, without any conviction in the ordinary course of judicial proceedings. If an act inflicts a milder degree of punishment than death, it is called a bill of pains and penalties. . . . In such cases, the legislature assumes judicial magistracy, pronouncing upon the guilt of the party without any of the common forms and guards of trial, and satisfying itself with proofs, when such proofs are within its reach, whether they are conformable to the rules of evidence, or not. In short, in all such cases, the legislature exercises the highest power of sovereignty, and what may be properly deemed an irresponsible despotic discretion, being governed solely by what it deems political necessity or expediency, and too often under the influence of unreasonable fears, or unfounded suspicions.” The phrase ”bill of attainder,” as used in this clause and in clause 1 of Sec. 10, applies to bills of pains and penalties as well as to the traditional bills of attainder.
    The prohibition embodied in this clause is not to be strictly and narrowly construed in the context of traditional forms but is to be interpreted in accordance with the designs of the framers so as to preclude trial by legislature, a violation of the separation of powers concept. The clause thus prohibits all legislative acts, ”no matter what their form, that apply either to named individuals or to easily ascertainable members of a group in such a way as to inflict punishment on them without a judicial trial. . . .” 1704

  41. IMHO the problem here is that Democrat politicians have used their position to denounce the speech of a private citizen in the halls of Congress. Rush is not a 501(c) anything, therefore, he gets no government largesse and should be unaccountable to any government body regarding his speech.
    Any person serving in government has the right to criticize any other person as long as they are speaking as a private citizen and not as representing anyone else. To use their elected office to shut down speech of a private citizen is very scary to me.
    Move-on.org. becaause of their acceptance of tax exemption is in a totally different catagory because they have accepted some government sanction via their status.
    What Rush said or how he said is inconsequential to his right to not have the government try to shut him down.

  42. Jim,
    the ‘morning update’ in the transcript was a replay of the previous days’ morning update.
    do you understand now?
    or do you think he does ‘morning updates’ in the afternoon?

  43. Micah, I don’t listen to Rush, but I’m 99% sure his show runs in the morning in Arizona.
    And his mention of the “….Morning Update that we did recently, talking about fake soldiers” did occur several minutes after the discussion about “phony soldiers”.
    Again, go to his website and read the transcript. I only edited the transcript well before or after the relevant discussions occurred, notwithstanding what CheckSum may think.

  44. I think there is a reader or two out there, who continuously scan our Captain’s blog and a few others, maybe Rand’s, Michelle’s, LGF, whatever. Anyway, when they encounter a post like this one, they put out an alert of some kind: email list, post on another forum somewhere or other. And then they all pile on.
    Maybe everyone knows this and I’m just figuring it out myself (shrugs shoulders). I dunno, lately it just seems so “organized,” for want of a better word.

  45. “I hear it said that West Berlin is military untenable. So was Bastogne, and so, in fact, was Stalingrad,” referring to two well-known sieges of the Second World War.
    “Any danger spot is tenable if men — brave men — make it so.” – John Fitzgerald Kennedy
    Today’s Democrat politicians are not brave men.
    And as they are not brave, they cannot support America’s bravest, who are fighting for liberty and freedom in Iraq and Afghanistan.

  46. All of this rallying around Rush makes him look weak and pathetic. He can speak for himself and doesn’t need the support of so many bloggers, radio hosts, TV hosts and columnists, none of whom have a fraction of his audience.

  47. Yeah, Jim, and duh,
    He was clarifying, for those that needed it, what he meant by ‘phony soldiers’. He had talked about it the previous day during THEE morning update.
    FYI, morning updates run in EST’s around 7:30am. There is a morning update every Monday thru Friday. His regular daily show starts around 12:07pm EST.
    You do understand time zones, right? If its morning for you (say between 9am and 10:59am), then its afternoon in the EST. And, if its morning in the EST, blah, blah, blah… why am I even trying to explain something to you? your pre-conceived notion of what Rush meant will not change, no matter what the facts are or the context of what is being said. my bad…

  48. Anyone remember when Lou Grant happily told a reporter he ran into in 2003 that he and his leftists friends “got” Limbaugh, and were going after Sean Hannity next?
    Rush is still on. So is Hannity. Asner, meanwhile, has turned into a 9/11 “Troofer”.

  49. I don’t like Rush very much. He’s hard for me to listen to, but the reality is that only an idiot would think he would ever say anything to dishonor the troops (the real troops.) By the same token, only an idiot would believe that he would not run a phony soldier into the ground so deep as to cause suffocation.
    Ried is that idiot. And 40 others – all within one party and none from the other have joined him.
    Maybe I do like Rush.

  50. RW said:
    “Thanks for at least letting us know that you’re ignorant on the subject.
    A ‘seminar caller’ is someone that tells Rush’s call screener that he’s “a lifelong Republican, listens to you all the time, always votes Republican” and so on, but then immediately starts reciting the moveon.org playbook. The left holds seminars on how to call into successful talk shows (perhaps they should have some on HAVING successful shows?), thus the incarnation of the name ‘seminar callers’. Rush usually can spot them within a few seconds, as he did with the previous caller.
    What is obvious is that there are plenty of folks who start from the position “Rush is evil, so whatever is said that can damage him is good enough for me” & then demand that you disprove their negative. Generally, when there is a disagreement over what is said, you ask someone what they intended & that’s that. In this case, it’s now become “Rush is evil, so whatever is said that can damage him is good enough for me ane he’s lying about his excuse, but John Kerry told a bad joke” (why do those folks all talk the same?).
    You hate Rush.
    We get it.
    Just stop trying to pretend that you’re attempting a cogent discussion when you’re not going to accept ANYTHING that differs from your religion: leftward politics.”
    So, what did this guy do that proved he was a ‘seminar caller’? I notice you didn’t answer that in your knee-jerk ‘he disagreed with me, he must be liberal’ condemnation, which though it was completely wrong had the advanatage of being funny. If only you had intended it that way.
    BTW, you may want to read my first post, where I say Rush probably didn’t mean what it sounded like. Yes, I’m one liberal guy there who hates Rush, defending him like that.
    After you try to actually cogitate you can attempt a cogent conversation. Lemme know how it goes.

  51. This phony brouhaha that Media “Masters” has stirred up for its robots’ talking points is simply a method to create the spin that conservative talk-radio promotes hate speech, which must either be silenced or “balanced” by the “Fairness Doctrine”. Unfortunately for the Lefties, any point of view that opposes their own is considered hate speech.
    The strategy of MM is so transparent in its aims. The “lifelong Republicans” who call in give their game away rather quickly with their scripted points.
    Those Rush detractors who are citing quotations out of context, not just of that day’s program but of several days’ worth of discussion of the topic on phony soldiers demonstrate their unfamiliarity with the radio program, its host, and his point of view.
    Rush Limbaugh is successful because he unmasks the pompous, exposing their shallowness, their eel-like slipperiness with words, and their desire for power at any price.
    His lampoons of collected sound bites are taken from legitimate press conference remarks of politicians, many of whom cannot wait to sound off if there is a microphone or camera nearby. It’s too bad for them if their pontifications come back to bite them in the behind and expose them for the self-important nabobs that they are.

  52. My problem with this idiotic fake scandal is that liberals appear to have no problem with fake soldiers spreading vicious lies about American solders serving oversees. Scumbags like Jessie McBeth deserve a firing squad for their spreading of enemy propaganda. He tells the Islamic world that were killing them in their Mosques and burning their bodies etc…creating more terrorists further endangering Americans worldwide. His actions spread hatred, death and anti americanism worldwide and liberals cheer him on. These people are not anti war, they are on the other side and need to be treated as such.

  53. It’s extremely unwise for Hillary Clinton to play for those stakes. If she becomes the candidate of “use the government to silence the opposition”, then she cannot be said to be a “centrist” or “moderate”. Because of the perception, based past behavior, that she and Bill can be bought with foreign money, we must take this threat seriously.
    I think it is clear that Hillary’s platform is exactly that.
    Bill Clinton’s administration was pretty bad in this regard – remember the FBI files, IRS intimidation of administration opponents, and the sordid American Spectator fiasco, and there is no reason to believe that Hillary would not kick it up a notch if she was sitting in the Oval Office. Bill was after all the more moderate of the two…
    Let’s be clear here, Obama and Edwards are clowns and if either was elected would rival Carter for ineptitude – but Hillary would threaten the very fabric of our Republic…

  54. TimW:
    Liberals have no problem with Jesse MacBeth. Or Micah Wright (anyone remember him?).
    Because they’re on the “right” side (i.e., that of the liberals), it doesn’t matter that, while they were claiming to be soldiers, they were also claiming to be committing atrocities.
    In short, Jesse MacBeth and the (John Murtha-version) of the Haditha Marines were of a piece, and the liberals embrace them both. After all, they serve the larger goal—denigrating the American military.
    Of course, the Haditha Marines (John Murtha version) were guilty, GUILTY, GUILTY of war crimes from the get-go, but then, so was MacBeth, who “admitted” to killing Muslims in mosques and hanging them from the rafters.
    Not a word of condemnation from the Left, guess that’s how they “support” the troops.
    What I’ve long wondered: Why are the phoney soldiers, the MacBeths and Wrights, consistently of the Left? Why is it that the fake soldiers are consistently laying claim to war crimes and atrocities?

  55. In part of the Hillary Clinton audio clip Rush played on air, Hillary says she has her network of bloggers organized.
    We’re seeing some of Hillary’s trolls surface here. It’s easy to figure out who they are.

  56. All I can figure is that the Dems mistakenly believe the MSM can cover for them and that no one will figure out how phony the controversy is. But I can’t begin to understand how they’re failing to notice the New Media.

  57. I seem to recall reading that only about 60% of Americans have a home computer.
    How many of those folks read political blogs?
    How many of those are conservatives or even moderates who are going to be ticked off enough to react to slanted MSM reporting?
    If I were a bettor, I’d be betting that the MSM can still provide plenty of cover. Wasn’t it Evan Thomas of Newsweek who said that good press coverage would be worth 10-15 percentage points to John Kerry?
    Besides, as Thomas later said (about the Duke lacrosse case), “The narrative was right, but the facts were wrong.” The MSM has apparently concluded that there’s a “true” story, and if the facts don’t match, well, it hardly matters.

  58. It is no longer “fake but accurate” but “what we imagine you meant is accurate”.”Deliberately misinterpreted but accurate” to match our hissy fit. Time for the actual transcript to be read into the Congressional record.

  59. I wasn’t listening live that day… when the famous Rush quote was first broadcast. But…
    When I first heard the clips I somehow already knew what he was referring to, even though the quote had obviously been cut to show the worst possible angle.
    Why?
    Cause I hate few things in the universe more than the very phony soldiers Rush was talking about. By phony I don’t mean anything about disagreeing with opinions. I mean those idiots like Harkin that puff up stories about their service to make themselves seem more relevant to what issue may be at hand. Puff up otherwise ordinary service experiences, talking about Jenjis Kahn and sooper sekrit CIA missions into places easily proved they weren’t at. Those that make claims of having “first hand SEEN abuses” or how they served somewhere overseas and disagree with the policy… like MacBeth were drummed out of basic…
    See I’ve known people personally who’ve done that. My favorite was a “Vietnam” vet who was a personal friend… who would regale people with tales of battles and ships he’d participated in. I didn’t find out till years later he was another “drummed out of basic” idiot who got most of his tall tales from books he’d read.
    These people are vile, disgusting human beings leveraging other people’s service, honor, commitment, etc… and taking honor and credit they aren’t due.
    Rush wasn’t talking about soldiers with honest disagreements. That this mess is still going on is a testament to willfull media stupidity and a true textbook case of the echo-chamber of what passes for most news coverage.
    Anyone who listens to rush for any 3 consecutive hours… has probably heard him at least 3 times mention his gratitude for someone’s service, whether they agree with his points are not. I often hear it on that brief run in the afternoon too and from some place to pick up lunch…
    By all means… lets listen to Media Matters on the topic. Lord knows they called the Bill O’Reily thing right a few weeks ago. That buys them lotta credit on this idiotic score.
    But… now that I think about this again. By all means guys, jump out and raise all hell and creation to exclaim your offense at Rush’s comment. I want you all out there screaming about it, so the rest of us can really see how deranged this stuff truly gets some days.

  60. “Rushbo meant this! Rushbo meant that!” Dissemble/twist/lie all you want – I take what he meant to be what he said.
    We’re in a phony war with Iraq, and here the right wingers are telling us that soldiers fighting and dying over there are phony? Have you no shame?
    The point of it all is that the republicans should never have entered, let alone pass, resolutions against MoveOn exercising their free-speech rights. But since they did, they should certainly do the same about Rushbo.
    Unless, of course, they have no integrity.

  61. Pho:
    In the case of your Vietnam vet friend, he could just be making up stuff out of a sense of guilt. There were a lot of veterans of the World Wars and the later wars who had and/or still have life-long guilty complexes about their participation in the war they “lucked” into.
    What are they having guilt feelings about? Most times, it’s because they never got into the ACTION. During World War 2 they had too many pilots, so something like 10 times as many pilots were sitting on the ground while 1 out of 10 was shooting down a plane in a dogfight. Thoes people never got over not seeing action, so had to make up or embellish their experiences later on in life. But that’s all they did. It’s wrong, and will always be wrong. But it’s not as bad as what’s going on now.
    These days the ex-military people are so bitter that they are trying to smear their fellow military people still serving in theater during a war. Their ancestors must be rolling over in their graves.
    They’ve jumped the shark.

  62. Rush will come out of this stronger than before; his integrity in tact; his audience will grow in numbers; the education of the people will continue.
    A few brave Americans (bloggers & talk radio) will continue to spread the truth about this situation, and those that will surely follow. First is was Bill O’reilly & Fox News; then Michael Savage; now Rush Limbaugh. In this world, the existence of “right vs wrong” is a battle that is fought in most every home on a daily basis. In this world, the existence of “good vs evil” is a battle we all must face and defeat. Media Matters is not on the side of “right”, as they use lies and distortions to assassinate the character of all whom stand in the way of their agenda. Is this organization “and all organizations created for this purpose” evil. I say yes; and I have taken notice that Hillary Clinton has attached her name to this evil.
    We got your back Rush; nothing fires us up like an attack of this nature.

  63. Rush will be OK for now and probably increase listeners, thus market share because of the slime masters the Dem party and followers have become.
    The real travesty is that congress spends any time what-so-ever attacking a private citizen of these United States. They are showing how petty, shallow, anti-freedom of speech or religion or anything else other than perversion,they are.
    These asshat clowns were elected to do the peoples business and represent their constituents. They are as far out of their job perview, maybe further than Nasty Peloser was when sucking up to Assad.
    Good that the rats show us who they truely are now, as they would surely not have been elected had the American people known their only adgenda was surrender faster than a Frenchman, to try to shut up those who disagree with them. This behavior will seal their fate in 08.
    Have no doubt Hillarys’ Moveons, media matters are behind this, just remember all the internal revenue audits her foes were subject to when Bill the Bent one was pres. This is truely a dispicable Anti-American bunch.

  64. The people who do this sort of thing, the Clarence Thomas attack, the Rush Limbaugh attack, the General Petraeus attack, the attack on President Bush’s National Guard fighter jet pilot background, etc etc etc… I really don’t want to be part of hte same planet with su ch people, any more. And I really don’t understand people who want to elect a President who wants to work with them and be a “UNIFIER” of all the people, to work together for “COMMON” goals!
    I don’t have any “common goals” with those scumbags.
    I want a President who will put those Socialists to shame and hoot them out of Washington DC for good!

  65. Posted by RD | October 3, 2007 6:45 PM
    It is no longer “fake but accurate” but “what we imagine you meant is accurate”.”Deliberately misinterpreted but accurate” to match our hissy fit. Time for the actual transcript to be read into the Congressional record.
    &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
    EXCELLENT POST!
    VERY EXCELLENT SUGGESTION!

  66. Posted by goodguy | October 3, 2007 7:10 PM
    &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
    WRONG on EVERY COUNT:
    What MoveOn did to General Petraeus is SLANDEROUS TREASON.
    What the DIM CONGRESSMEN are doing to Rush is also SLANDEROUS TREASON.
    All of them should be on trial for it, and I am so fed up with it, I’d put all their enabler/apologists on trial for aiding and abetting them in a conspiracy of slander and treason.

  67. Simply connect the dots
    Via Byron York at NRO
    And even though there are political arguments on all sides of this controversy, independent-minded critics who look at Media Matters might conclude that its political motivations are simply too strong to merit serious consideration. In addition to its ties to major Democratic donors and to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, Media Matters is a deeply politicized organization down to its lowest levels. In the past few days, it has posted eleven stories on the Limbaugh matter. Those postings were written by, among others, Julie Millican, a veteran of the Kerry campaign, MoveOn.org, and the Democratic turnout organization America Coming Together; Sarah Pavlus, formerly of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee; Andrew Ironside, who worked for the Howard Dean campaign; Adam Shah, a lawyer who worked for the Alliance for Justice, the organization best known for opposing President Bush’s judicial nominees; Jeremy Schulman, a former spokesman for Colorado Democratic congressional candidate Dave Thomas; and Matthew Gertz, former deputy campaign manager for Connecticut Democratic congressional candidate Diane Farrell, as well as intern for New York Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer.

  68. onlineanalyst said “Rush Limbaugh is successful because he unmasks the pompous…”
    Hugh Hewitt is super at this too. But in an totally different way.
    I heard him behead a guy who writes for the L.A. Times once who was against the war and had written a senselessly foolish article.
    Hugh just kept batting him out of the park. Time and time again.
    Unlike Rush, he does it in a really quiet way.
    He led this idiot down the garden path and then knocked his block off. It was GREAT!
    I like them both.

  69. In the words of James Madison, in Federalist 44, “Bills of attainder, ex-post-facto laws, and laws impairing the obligation of contracts, are contrary to the first principles of the social compact, and to every principle of sound legislation.
    And then he went on to say something that very importantly focuses on what the broad intention of the framers was in including such prohibitions.
    Speaking on behalf of the People of the United States, he said:

    They have seen with regret and indignation that sudden changes and legislative interferences, in cases affecting personal rights, become jobs in the hands of enterprising and influential speculators, and snares to the more-industrious and less informed part of the community. They have seen, too, that one legislative interference is but the first link of a long chain of repetitions, every subsequent interference being naturally produced by the effects of the preceding. They very rightly infer, therefore, that some thorough reform is wanting, which will banish speculations on public measures, inspire a general prudence and industry, and give a regular course to the business of society.

    That was an extraordinary statement on the part of the father of our Constitution. It strongly suggests that those provisions in the compact were intended to prevent the very kinds of acts the Democrats are beginning to unleash through such attacks aimed at individual citizens.
    No doubt, through their letter the Senate Democrats initially sought the “Imus-ization” of Rush – a sudden and demonstrable public revulsion at his comments that would force him off the air. But knowing his history of strong support for the troops, no one with any sense at all was buying that rubbish, regardless of the endless hair-splitting on this thread! The lefty parsers are like so many “useful idiots” who will nit-pick the issue to death, but they’ll never carry the day.
    There is the underlying score the Democrats are threatening to commit -– perhaps not immediately, but in the days to come — the legislative reinstitution of the “Fairness Doctrine.” The power grab aimed at opinion. Unmistakably, that is targeted not just at Rush Limbaugh, but others in talk radio who are similarly situated.
    So, this attack was probably just one of many trumped up “offenses” that they will test and stage, and then try to use after the 2008 election to radically alter the flow of opinion in this nation, i.e., by seeking to silence their critics through legislative fiat. You think they will stop at talk radio?
    Strictly speaking, the signing of the letter by the 41 Senators did not yet rise to the level of a “Bill of Attainder.” But anyone who does not believe that the stunning quantum of energy alone that was put into that utterly dishonest attack, portends that more of the same is on the way, is really dreaming!
    I submit, therefore, that the letter was merely this: a thoroughly repulsive and dishonest tactical personal attack on a private citizen of these United States, willingly participated in by an avaricious group of Senators who have thereby demonstrated no respect for common decency, or for the core values on which this nation was founded.
    But that’s it!

  70. Rush v. Senators-without-a-clue…
    The interesting thing about Rush being attacked from the floor of the Senate by Reid and Harkin is that each week, more people hear Rush than have ever voted for either of those two jerks.

  71. Just a small error in the post. Actually, Harkin did serve outside of the US, ferrying aircraft between Pacific islands and the like. But otherwise the post is correct, he lied about having Vietnam combat service and continues to be a dirtbag.

  72. Interestingly, Fred Thompson’s response to this faux controversy is what really put it into perspective for me. To paraphrase him: Here we have a Democratic Party driven Congress wasting time over a phony issue involving a private citizen while there are incalculable numbers of crucial issues facing our nation which need addressing and fixing. In other words, they’re fiddling around while Rome is burning. I can honestly say that Fred won my vote with his response.
    Rush Limbaugh is without a doubt one of the most influential Conservative icons in the USA today. And the Left side of the political spectrum must surely see him as a major obstacle to the Democratic Party once again achieving majority control of Congress, the White House, and yes, even the Supreme Court.
    As such, from now until election day 2008, Rush will be one of their primary targets for utter and complete destruction. My hat’s off to him for having the strength of character, principles, and love of our great country, to stand up under such enormous pressure, and continue on with the good fight. A lesser person of stature would have crumbled and been reduced to a babbling mess, as has happened a lot this year.
    My estimation of the Democratic Party is that it has sold its soul to the heady gods of money, power and influence. As a former JFK Democrat, I don’t even recognize it any longer. It will be a generation, at least, after they crash and burn, before they realize where they went wrong, and try to get back to their roots and principles, if ever.
    Heaven help us and our great nation if they ever again achieve full control/power.

  73. Thumbs up to Tim W, and I will go one step further. What makes soldiers who come come back from theater and criticize the war so special. They served and did their duty. So did the soldiers who re-uped and went back. The number of soldiers who speak out against the war are far outnumbered by those didn’t. Some soldiers are against the war…so what, big deal. They have the freedom of speech to do so, but that does not make them any more brave than those who went back to do the job they thought needed to be done. Since when did uniformed war critics become a protected class whos opinions matter more than any other soldier. If you are against the war, the Dems defend your honor, but otherwise you are a murderer, rapist, stupid, and have no honor? Bravo Sierra. I would like this energy directed towards defeating the enemy instead of discrediting a radio talk show host. Who do you want on your team…the player who wants the ball, or the one who criticizes the coach.

  74. A few posts from Powerline worthy of reading:
    Phony Democrats
    In the recent past prominent Democratic officeholders have made remarkably insulting and/or counterfactual statements about our soldiers and their leaders. Among the recurring themes are the proposition that our troops are stupid and their leaders are liars. Has anyone compiles these statements? I think they would provide useful context for the phony “phony soldiers” controversy orchestrated by Hillary Matters and executed by HM’s dutiful Democratic poodles. I have a few that come to mind this morning.
    Harry Reid (on “the surge”):
    Now I believe, myself, that the secretary of state, the secretary of defense and you have to make your own decision as to what the president knows: that this war is lost, that the surge is not accomplishing anything.
    Dick Durbin (on Guantanamo):
    If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime — Pol Pot or others — that had no concern for human beings. Sadly, that is not the case. This was the action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners.
    Hillary Clinton (to General Petraeus):
    [T]oday you are testifying about the current status of our policy in Iraq and the prospects of that policy. It is a policy that you have been ordered to implement by the president. And you have been made the de facto spokesmen for what many of us believe to be a failed policy.
    Despite what I view as your rather extraordinary efforts in your testimony both yesterday and today, I think that the reports that you provide to us really require the willing suspension of disbelief.
    John Kerry:
    Education — if you make the most of it and you study hard and you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well,” said Kerry, a Massachusetts Democrat. “If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq.”
    Charles Schumer (on “the surge”):
    [L]et me be clear, the violence in Anbar has gone down despite the surge, not because of the surge. The inability of American soldiers to protect these tribes from al Qaeda said to these tribes we have to fight al Qaeda ourselves. It wasn’t that the surge brought peace here. It was that the warlords took peace here, created a temporary peace here.
    Charles Rangel:
    If there’s anyone who believes that these youngsters want to fight, as the Pentagon and some generals have said, you can just forget about it. No young, bright individual wants to fight just because of a bonus and just because of educational benefits. And most all of them come from communities of very, very high unemployment. If a young fellow has an option of having a decent career or joining the Army to fight in Iraq, you can bet your life that he would not be in Iraq.
    John Murtha (on Haditha):
    It’s much worse than reported in Time magazine. There was no fire fight. There was no IED that killed these innocent people. Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood. And that’s what the report is going to tell.
    Now, you can imagine the impact this is going to have on those troops for the rest of their lives and for the United States in our war and our effort in trying to win the hearts and minds.
    (2nd) Comrades, go to powerline.com and sign this petition.
    House chief deputy minority whip Eric Cantor is one of the “Young guns of the GOP” that we mentioned in that post over the weekend. Today Rep. Cantor steps up and invites us to sign his Stand With Rush e-petition. Rep. Cantor writes:
    This issue is bigger than you or me, it is bigger than Rush Limbaugh. With the recent liberal effort to ressurect the “fairness doctrine,” we have to recognize that free speech — conservative free speech is under direct attack. These are issues that speak directly to the core of the modern conservative movement – are we going to allow ourselves to be pushed around by liberal extremists, or are we going to fight back?
    I want to send Washington Democrats a message that their attempts to distract aren’t working – I stand with Rush Limbaugh against liberal attacks.

  75. First, will someone explain to me how a deliberate misquote differs from slander or libel? Oh, it may be defensible on the argument that it was done just to demonstrate the irony, but where is the difference in moral terms?
    Second, if these slanders and libels are perpetrated regularly enough, sooner or later even the dunces and sheeple that may be half the electorate will begin to recognize them for what they are. A little more, and they may begin to see who’s doing them.

  76. Jim,
    As Micah pointed out, the morning update which Rush re-read after his call with the two words in question, had actually aired the previous day. So he wasn’t covering his tracks, he was pointing out where he had already walked. If the re-reading was an attempt to cover-up, what was the initial airing?

  77. Posted by Rose | October 3, 2007 9:03 PM (and a lot of other repubs and righties)…
    &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
    You are ALL WRONG on EVERY COUNT:
    What Rushbo did to the soldiers, who understand that our war on IRAQ was phony from the get-go, was SLANDEROUS TREASON.
    What the REPUG CONGRESSMEN did to MoveOn, which was nothing but a headline with a pun in it, followed by four paragraphs of factual statements, was simply DISPICABLE.
    All the righties and repubs and neocon creeps should be on trial. I am so fed up with it, I’d put all their Rushbo enabler/apologists on trial for aiding and abetting the entire conspiracy of slander and treason.
    Yeah, I know, its lazy to spout junk back at the originator. But now for some original content…
    You righties are just plain pathetic, twisting and outright lying about what Rushbo said.
    Face the truth: He’s a hateful jerk, and you all acting like bunch of enablers and apologists.
    Pathetic.

  78. Keemo:
    Hillary’s comment is particularly revealing “… require the willing suspension of disbelief.
    Who talks in such a disjointed way. It is almost as if she didn’t want a lot of people to see she was calling him a liar.
    Oops. She is a lawyer.

  79. Rush Limbaugh-“Phony Soldiers”, Phony Charges
    Once again, conservative talk-show host, Rush Limbaugh is the target of the left-wing that is determined to bring him down one way or another. Ironically, the left is now charging that Rush has defamed the military with his comment about “phony soldiers”. Interesting that the left is now claiming to be the defenders of our troops. These are the same folks that have called our troops Nazis, Soviet Gulags, cold-blooded murderers, terrorists of Iraqi civilians in the dead of night, bombers of Iraqi civilians, ad nauseum. These are the same folks that demonstrate against military recruiters on college campuses. These are the same folks that have put out the “Not Welcome” sign for the military in San Francisco. Now they are “defending” the troops against Rush Limbaugh.
    This little bruhaha started this week when Limbaugh, in a conversation with a caller, referred to “phony soldiers” who had aligned themselves with the anti-war left. Rush’s opponents have interpreted this as an attack against any military service personnel who disagree with the Iraq War. It is clear that Limbaugh was not referring to the above, rather more specifically to “phony soldiers” like Jesse MacBeth. This is the character who washed out of basic training in 2004, but went on to present himself as an Army Ranger who had witnessed horrible atrocities carried out by US Military personnel against Iraqi civilians, statements that picked up a lot of traction from the anti-war left until shown to be a lie. Eventually, it was brought out that MacBeth had never been a Ranger, had never been to Iraq and had fabricated his charges. He has now pleaded guilty to attempting to defraud the Veterans Administration. It was clearly MacBeth that Limbaugh was referring to in his comments.
    That has not stopped the Democrat buffoons in Congress from wasting the taxpayers time and money in throwing out resolutions of condemnation against the popular and influencial conservative talk show host. For sheer effrontery, few can top Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV), who Limbaugh regularly (and with precision) describes as “Dingy” Harry. Reid has led the charge against Limbaugh for his comment-never mind the fact that Reid has recently called the war in Iraq “lost” and the “Surge” a failure. Then there is Sen Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) who made the caustic remark that Limbaugh must be back on his drugs again, a reference to his previous addiction to pain-killers.
    The fact of the matter is that Limbaugh has consistently, over the years, shown himself to be a staunch supporter of the Armed Forces as well as their effort in Iraq and Afghanistan. Can the same be said of Reid, John Kerry, Dick Durbin, John Murtha,and Barack Obama? (Try a little matching quiz and match the politician with the statements outlined in the first paragraph.) To be fair and accurate, Murtha and Kerry are both combat veterans from previous wars, but they have hardly shown themselves to be supporting today’s military, as evidenced by their public statements. They have both made inflammatory comments about our military personnel in Iraq.
    This public hissy fit on the part of the Democrats in Congress is just a “hail Mary pass” to try and bring down one of the right’s most articulate and effective spokespersons, something they have been unable to do for years. Similar efforts are underway as we speak against Fox’s Bill O’Reilly and conservative commentator Michael Medved. The public should see them for what they are. Next week, it will be somebody else for something else. The elimination of public debate by character assassination is now a highly-refined art on the part of the left.
    gary fouse
    fousesquawk

Leave a Reply