Well, from someone who heard the show "live" on the radio I never had any impression of Rush calling all anti-war soldiers phony soldiers. It was very clear to me that he was talking about soldiers along the lines of Jesse Macbeth who claim to be soldiers and are then found out to not be such. The point Rush was trying to make is that even after these people are found out to be frauds they are never denounced by the anti-war groups.
If anything the media reaction to the Media Matters story only proves that certain members of the media and Democrats in congress will believe another media group and run with a story without even going to the person involved in the story and ask for clarification.
Wtf. I accepted the fact that both sides did it, how is that deflection? I never said that you weren't right, but it seems very hypocritical that the neo-cons always get their panties in a bundle whenever the the left wing attacks them. Also, if you are so zealous about logical fallacies, which you didn't even get the correct usage of the Strawman arguement, then perhaps you should talk to your boy Rush. Listening to the clip provided by media matters here, he seems to use the whole "No True Scotsman" argument against the first caller, saying he wasn't a true republican. Also, it looks like the Rush camp can't even get their own transcript correct. Media Matters, however biased they may be, does point out that the Rush Campaltered their transcriptto defend against Media Matter's attack.
Edited for brevity and because the edited portion has nothing to do with the phony soldier comments.
Well, from someone who heard the show "live" on the radio I never had any impression of Rush calling all anti-war soldiers phony soldiers.
I don't listen to Rush 'cause I work for a living. Furthermore, being surrounded by telco equipment some AM stations can not be tuned in to inside my building.
Odd.
From HMTKSteve's "My full write-up":
CALLER 2: 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: The phony soldiers.
CALLER 2: The phony soldiers. If you talk to a real soldier, they are proud to serve. They want to be over in Iraq. They understand their sacrifice, and they’re willing to sacrifice for their country. The phony soldier is none other than Jesse Macbeth, a darling of the anti-war movement.
From Media Matters:
CALLER 2: 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: The phony soldiers.
CALLER 2: The phony soldiers. If you talk to a real soldier, they are proud to serve. They want to be over in Iraq. They understand their sacrifice, and they're willing to sacrifice for their country.
Notice the difference? Media Matters doesn't have the sentence "The phony soldier is none other than Jesse Macbeth, a darling of the anti-war movement." Media Matters printed the unaltered transcript. Then, when Rush saw that these statements were going to get him in trouble, he altered the transcript to contain the sentence to make it look like he was talking about Macbeth. If anyone is being deceptive and if anyone needs to be "denounced", it's Rush. I don't know how it can be more clear than that.
That was an error on my part in placing the blockquote ending tag. Thank you for bringing that to my attention. I took the transcript from the media matters page because Rush is notorious for putting transcripts in his pay area, which annoys me to no end!
He may have served longer than Rush but saying that those who have not served can not talk is just plain stupid (he who is without sin...).
As for not debating. the quickest way to validate someone and their views is to agree to debate them.
That was an error on my part in placing the blockquote ending tag. Thank you for bringing that to my attention. I took the transcript from the media matters page because Rush is notorious for putting transcripts in his pay area, which annoys me to no end!
So you altered the transcript on your page? At the very least, you're admitting to plagiarizing Media Matter's content.
Media Matters took an excerpt from a Rush Limbaugh show and printed it out of context, thereby making a phony news story.
Right now the left and left-of-center sites are showing their true colors by reporting on what Media Matters wrote as if it were based on solid facts and not quotes taken out of context. As Rym and Scott have shown us there is much power in the editing of the spoken and written word.
No. What happened here is that you took an excerpt from the transcript on the Media Matters page, altered it, and made it into a phony news story. You showed your true colors by inserting a sentence of your own into a quote, not citing your source, hoping no one would notice, and then saying you made a "mistake" when you were called on it.
IMHO, these actions all add up to an "intent to deceive". You didn't make a mistake. You lied. Just like Rush did when he altered his transcript. Liar, Liar, your pants . . . ARE ONFIRE!
Edit: It looks like now he's changed the quote on his site to make it agree with the Media Matters quote. He's trying to cover up his lie, as liars often do.
[Y]ou should care about the fact that a media entity, that many people on line consider to be credible, is distorting the truth in order to push it's own agenda! Even worse is the amount of other media groups that are taking the story at face value and not even contacting Rush for a clarification!
As for not debating. the quickest way to validate someone and their views is to agree to debate them.
You see the contradiction here? On one hand, you're upset that no one talked to Rush about the statement but on the other hand you don't want anyone to be able to talk to Rush to debate him.
What? I cut and pasted a transcript that is widely available on line. Due to an editing error (placing a closing quote tag in the wrong place) the transcript was altered and then fixed upon notification of the error. I also placed an editorial note at the end of the post explaining such. There was never any intent to deceive and a link was posted to the original Media Matters article.
You see the contradiction here? On one hand, you're upset that no one talked to Rush about the statement but on the other hand you don't want anyone to be able to talk to Rush to debate him.
If every crackpot that wanted to "debate" Rush on the air was given air time there would no longer be a Rush Limbaugh radio show. That is the point of not debating crackpots, as soon as you recognize them and what they are saying you give them an air of legitimacy.
Taking one call transcript from one radio show (for any talk radio personality) is likely going to show something in an out of context format. Talk radio is an open format (just like Geeknights) and many things can not be properly understood without a working knowledge of the show, its format and the personality of the hosts.
You could take one of Rym's recent "Scott likes to spend hours shopping for shoes and can't ever find a bag to match" jokes and walk away with the impression that Scott is gay and Rym is mean. However, if you go back a few episodes and hear how the whole story started you will know it is just Rym joking around with Scott. By doing so you will understand the recent joke in its proper context.
If every crackpot that wanted to "debate" Rush on the air was given air time there would no longer be a Rush Limbaugh radio show. That is the point of not debating crackpots, as soon as you recognize them and what they are saying you give them an air of legitimacy.
So Jon Soltz is a crackpot and lacks legitimacy? I'd stack his credibility against yours any day, liar.
Jon Soltz is not a crackpot but after reading his post it seems that he believed Media Matters without question. If he were a journalist he would have made an attempt to contact Rush Limbaugh before going off on him.
All it takes is a cursory knowledge of Rush and his show to know that the likelihood of such a broad sweeping statement (all anti-war soldiers are phony) being spoken by Rush is highly suspect. Rush is generally known for not falling into such traps. I would be far more likely to think of Jon Soltz as a journalist if he had written saying he tried to contact Limbaugh before writing his post.
I know everyone on here considers me a neo-con (hence my opening line in the first post) but I am far more of a libertarian than a neo-con. I don't particularly want to see our soldiers in Iraq (or any war zone) and longer than they have to be. I also understand that a blind withdrawal plan would probably cause more harm than good. I also believe that those who see, "I support the troops by lobbying to bring them home" is a misguided view to take and I consider it akin to telling the cops and fire fighters to stay home and not go to work because they might get hurt on the job!
Being anti-war is one thing and I will fight for your right to be anti-war. However, if one of your poster boys turns out to be a fraud (Jesse Macbeth) I would expect him to be denounced and all he has said to be ignored.
Jon Soltz is not a crackpot but after reading his post it seems that he believed Media Matters without question. If he were a journalist he would have made an attempt to contact Rush Limbaugh before going off on him.
Have you been in contact with Rush concerning the situation? Because apparently you have to do this before you even make an opinion.
Jon Soltz is not a crackpot but after reading his post it seems that he believed Media Matters without question. If he were a journalist he would have made an attempt to contact Rush Limbaugh before going off on him.
Have you been in contact with Rush concerning the situation? Because apparently you have to do this before you even make an opinion.
Seeing as how I am not directly involved (not being called a phony soldier or thinking I am being called a phony soldier) I do not need to contact Rush about this. The point of my article is not Rush but the fact that many things on the Internet are believed without question even when they can be easily verified.
As for forming an opinion, if someone passes on second hand information that sounds dubious based on a persons background (if someone told you GWB was raising kittens solely to feed them to his attack dogs) I would expect a confirmation to be sought out before publishing an opinion (burden of proof/extraordinary claim).
Sadly peoples personal biases often allow them to believe something that is not true because they want to believe it. I do not know the first thing about Jon Soltz so any opinion I have of him is based solely on what little I know of him and should not be used as a basis to form your own opinion (nor should I write an article on him based on reading one article written by him).
I have been listening to Rush since he had his TV show way back in the early 90's. I do not listen everyday but I listen enough to form an opinion and understand his biases and the way he thinks and what he believes. I have also been reading Media Matters for long enough to form an opinion of where they are coming from and the message they are trying to get out.
Because of this knowledge it is fairly easy to determine that anything Media Matters says about conservatives needs to be verified rather than taken at face value. The same thing goes for Rush, anything he says about people on the left needs to be checked out and verified. Even though both stories will have a nugget of truth to them (Rush will use an audio recording while Media Matters will use a transcript) both pieces will be taken out of context and used in such a way as to promote an agenda using that faulty evidence.
A recent segment on the Sean Hannity show proves this point very well. I do not have transcripts to link to but the short version is that when Obama made some statement about going into Pakistan to root out terrorists Hannity jumped on him about being wet behind the ears in regards to international affairs due to the fragile hold on power the current government in Pakistan has. Yet, when Romney came on his show and put forth the idea that the US should arrest the president of Iran when he comes over for the UN meeting was lauded as a great idea!
Both instances show that both candidates do not understand international affairs. Obama's statement shows a lack of understanding of the situation in Pakistan and Romney's show a lack of understanding of how the world works as a whole. The US would never arrest a foreign dignitary it issued a visa to. To even suggest such is asinine! What both things also show is that Hannity is a fool and not worth taking anything he says at face value.
I only listen to Hannity when I get in the car because he follows Rush. I give him a minute or two just to hear what stupid thing he is saying and that is it. Unlike Rush who has a quick mind and is a great entertainer Hannity is just mean, rude and lacking in intellectual honesty.
Rush is another one of the worst liars on the air, besides being a hypocrite and generally someone to be ignored. He uses doubletalk, yellow journalism, and bulldozer tactics when "interviewing" people to insist that he is right regardless of any fact presented to him. The less I hear about Limbaugh and the less I hear from him, the happier I am.
Additionally, Rush has no business calling any soldier a phoney because they came back from a war saying "War sucks". If he wants to call any soldier a fake, look at Bush and how he "served" his country.
Additionally, Rush has no business calling any soldier a phoney because they came back from a war saying "War sucks". If he wants to call any soldier a fake, look at Bush and how he "served" his country.
That's the point. He is not calling real soldiers who fought and came back and became anti-war "phony" he is calling soldiers who flunked out of boot camp, forged documents and claimed to have served in battle then became anti-war "phony" soldiers. There is a huge difference!!!
Rush is another one of the worst liars on the air, besides being a hypocrite and generally someone to be ignored. He uses doubletalk, yellow journalism, and bulldozer tactics when "interviewing" people to insist that he is right regardless of any fact presented to him. The less I hear about Limbaugh and the less I hear from him, the happier I am.
I'm actually a little confused about you thoughts on him when he "interviews" people. As far as I can tell, the people he interviews tends to be on his side and don't need any double talk to agree with his point of view. In fact I can't think of an instance in recent history that would indicate him interviewing anyone of a "liberal" celebrity status that would fit your description. That being said, you are fully entitled to your opinions. I myself listen to him knowing he is a self proclaimed "conservative" and therefore will have the biases thereof.
Additionally, Rush has no business calling any soldier a phoney because they came back from a war saying "War sucks". If he wants to call any soldier a fake, look at Bush and how he "served" his country.
That was the whole point of this thread. He never did come "back from a war saying "War sucks"". He came back form Boot Camp saying war sucks. So Rush called one soldier fake (which has been pointed out a couple times already on this thread) named Macbeth because he never made it out of boot camp (he was discharged while still in Basic Combat Training). Macbeth then claimed that he not only have graduated but to have received many badges and medals of honor during combat. Macbeth then claimed that he had been over in Iraq as a soldier and personally witnessed crime warms being committed by American troops. To which the the media took with and decided that this story must be told without verifying he was indeed a soldier in Iraq in the first place.
Granted as HMTKSteve said this is a dead horse and if you haven't understood the problem with this issue by now (which boils down to Rush must be evil because media matters says so), then no information point to this will open a closed mind. It's fine if you want to have your opinions (right or wrong), but discussions need people to look into an issue, not just voice unconfirmed rumors.
Even this right wing blogger admits that it's not so cut-and-dried. Rush said "soldiers", not "soldier". Then, when he was trying to explain himself, he lumped John Murtha into the "phony soldier" category.
I watched the video and am more convinced than ever that Limbaugh knew he had goofed when he said “phony soldiers†(plural) and in the context of the moment the comment was made, Limbaugh was clearly referencing and agreeing with the caller’s sentiment that all soldiers who come forward and make known their opposition to the war are not “real soldiers†(caller’s words).
We can parse this thing from here to doomsday and not agree because at bottom, we are arguing about Limbaugh’s intent – an admittedly doomed excursion into the realm of mind reading.
Thankfully, Rush rescued me by going even further on his show yesterday. Not only did he include Jesse Macbeth and Scott Beauchamp in his “phony soldier†meme, he also included Jack Murtha in that notorious group for the Congressman’s execrable comments condemning the Haditha Marines before the official report on the incident had even been released.
Why is Murtha’s military career – a career that all can agree was distinguished and honorable – at issue as a result of his statements about Haditha? How can you refer to Murtha as a “phony soldier†when those comments were made long after he left the military?
I don't know why he would be including Murtha in his grouping of Phony soldiers... I can understand him using John Kerry because of his "questionable" purple hearts and his "questionable" time before Congress where he said he personally witnessed war crimes.
From what I know of Murtha I would not consider him a "phony" soldier. Unless Rush can back up this alleged Murtha claim I'd have to side against him.
The only explanation I can think of is if the conversation had recently involved Murtha and he just slipped saying Murtha's name instead of someone else. Kind of like when your parents call you by the wrong name because they have one of your siblings on their mind.
LIMBAUGH: You shouldn't hold your breath because there's no standard to hold me to, in the sense that you're -- I never said what you think I said, Congressman Pallone, Congresswoman [Jan] Schakowsky [D-IL], Sen. [John] Kerry [D-MA], or any of the rest of you in the drive-by media. I was talking about a genuine phony soldier. And by the way, Jesse MacBeth's not the only one. How about this guy Scott Thomas who was writing fraudulent, phony things in The New Republic about atrocities he saw that never happened? How about Jack Murtha blanketly accepting the notion that Marines at Haditha engaged in wanton murder of innocent children and civilians? If anybody owes anybody an apology, the entire Democrat [sic] Party, from Hillary Clinton on down, owes the U.S. military an apology, they owe me an apology, and they owe the American people an apology.
That quote is from Media Matters. Looking at it as a single paragraph I do not understand why Murtha was lumped in there unless Rush is trying to show how you go from phony soldier (spending time in jail now) to a soldier filing false reports (saying he was witnessing war crimes that did not happen) to a congressman who would think Military personal guilty of misconduct without even knowing any of the facts of the case.
If he comes out and says that Murtha is a phony solider than I'll be losing a good bit of respect for Rush. I expect him to cover this more this week on his radio show but I will likely not be in a position to listen.
My biggest beef with Limbaugh is that he takes poorly formed opinions, pushes them as absolute truth and poses himself as an absolute authority on any issue, while systematically insulting people who provide solid evidance for ideas contrary to his own. He is as far from legit journalism as you can get and I'm sick of people assuming his some innocent under fire for speaking "the truth".
He has the same right to say whatever the hell he wants as anyone else does, but then so does Ann Coultre, and I give them both the same amount of credibility. I'd not take the time to pee on either to put em out if they were on fire.
The reporter on the clip is also getting the entire Rush thing wrong by stating that Rush called anti-war soldiers phony. In the days before the broadcast in question Rush had been talking about phony soldiers who claim to be soldiers but are in reality not true soldiers.
I agree with what Rush says in the clip, this guy is being used by the anti-war left and the left in general. As for the "suicicde bomber" comment it is accurate. He is being sent out into the world (after being fed lies) to "explode" his own version of those lies on the general populace.
This Olberman character is focusing on the lie of the issue and not the issue that Rush has been talking about. Rush is not calling out "real" soldiers as phony just because they are anti-war he is calling out "phony" soldiers who are truly phony soldiers and are telling lies about their service.
Even the Vet in question is wrong. He is taking an out of context quote and basing an argument (and chalenge) on it. This is no different than if someone tells you that a guy down the road called you an asshole because you own a Ford when that guy never said you were an asshole just that he knows a Ford owner that is an asshole. Should that guy apologize to you for your mistake? Hell no!
I'm a vet who is pro-war. Does that make me a real or phony solider? It has no bearing on anything because I do not use my status as a veteran to push an agenda. If I was to enter the political arena and push an agenda based on my being a soldier I would expect to be checked out and if it was found I lied about my military service I would expect to be cast out and vilified by those I lied to.
Joe, when I comes to legal issues I fully respect your opinons. when it comes to politics though you seem to be coming more and more unhinged and kooky.
September 21, 2007 NORTHWEST CRACKDOWN ON FAKE VETERANS IN “OPERATION STOLEN VALOR†Phony Vets Scam more than $1.4 Million and Damage Image of Honorable Veterans
U.S. Attorney Jeffrey C. Sullivan today announced some of the results of “Operation Stolen Valor,†a year long effort to investigate and prosecute those who lie about their military service for financial gain or other reasons. Sullivan and Doug Carver, Special Agent in Charge of the Veteran’s Affairs Office of Inspector General detailed eight prosecutions in the Veteran’s Affairs Northwest Region in 2007.
“As a Vietnam Veteran, and the father of a decorated Army officer currently serving, I feel very keenly the damage done by Jesse Macbeth and these other fakes,†said Jeff Sullivan, U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Washington. “Macbeth’s lies fueled hostility to our servicemen in Iraq and here at home. Those who falsely claim medals for heroism, cheapen the recognition of our true war heroes.â€Â
“The ‘phony war hero phenomenon’ plagues the American landscape and tarnishes the service of thousands of veterans who have served honorably. It strangles VA resources from providing critical care and benefits to deserving veterans returning from war,†said Douglas J. Carver, Special Agent in Charge of the VA Office of Inspector General, Western Field Office. “It all boils downs to this: these phonies submit claims to the VA for compensation and medical benefits they are not entitled to, and it takes away valuable resources from those who are entitled.â€Â
In a dozen cases under investigation in the northwest, the fraud totals more than $1.4 million. Eight of the cases have been publicly filed and are in various stages of being adjudicated:
*Jesse Macbeth, 23, Tacoma, Washington, sentenced today in connection with his fraudulent claims of military service. Macbeth sought medical benefits claiming to suffer from PTSD related to service in Iraq and Afghanistan, in fact, Macbeth was discharged from the Army about a month after he joined. Macbeth never traveled outside the U.S. with the Army. Macbeth duped reporters, claiming to be a decorated Army Ranger who had witnessed war crimes.
*Reggie Buddle, 60, Puyallup, Washington, sentenced July 30, 2007, for Unlawful Wearing of United States Military Medals and Decorations. Buddle posed as a decorated Marine Corps Chaplin presiding over weddings, funerals and baptisms. Buddle was sentenced to 500 hours of community service and two years of probation.
*Larry Lewis Porter, 52, Seattle, Washington, sentenced April 19, 2007, for Mail Fraud in connection with a scheme to fraudulently obtain disability benefits from Veterans Affairs. Porter was sentenced to 37 months in prison. Porter claimed he suffered PTSD from experiences in the Navy, however investigation revealed the events were fabricated. Loss Amount: $134,000
*Roy J. Scott, 71, of Port Angeles, Washington pleaded guilty August 31, 2007, to Use of an Altered Military Discharge Certificate to obtain VA Compensation and Medical Benefits, and Unlawful Wearing of United States Military Medals and Decorations. Scott claimed he had served in the Marine Corps in Korea, that he was wounded in combat in Korea, and that he had been awarded the Korea Defense Medal, Korea Star Medal, and a Purple Heart (due to alleged gun shot wounds sustained during combat in Korea). Scott claimed to be honorably discharged, when in fact, he never earned those medals, never served in Korea or any foreign country and was Court-Martialed out of the Marine Corps. Loss Amount: $21,960.
*Merrick K. Hersey, 64, of Vancouver, Washington, Hersey was indicted August 1, 2007, for Use and Possession of Forged or Altered Military Discharge Certificate and False Statements. Hersey is a fugitive and is being sought by law enforcement. Hersey applied for benefits claiming he served in 1967-68, was awarded two Purple Hearts (for wounds sustained in active combat) and the Bronze Star (awarded for heroism). Hersey claimed he suffered from PTSD and sought benefits. In fact, Hersey never served in the Marine Corps at all. Loss Amount: $2,688.
*Michael D. Heit, 58, of Harrington, Washington, pleaded guilty yesterday (September 20, 2007) in U.S. District Court in Spokane, Washington to Use and Possession of a Forged or Altered Military Discharge Certificate and False Claims of Military Medals. Heit claimed he was a Vietnam vet who was held as a prisoner of war. He claimed to have been awarded three Purple Heart medals and the Silver Star. None of that is true. Loss Amount: $3,500
*Elvin J. Swisher, 70, of Idaho, is charged with Wearing Unauthorized Military Medals, False Statements, and Theft of Government Funds. Swisher falsely claimed he was wounded in Korea and that he had been awarded the Silver Star, Purple Heart and other medals for valor. Loss Amount: $95,000.
*Carlos Riosvalle, 83, of Portland, Oregon, was sentenced April 9, 2007, in Multnomah County for multiple counts of Theft by Deception. Riosvalle collected benefits claiming to have been “shot down while a pilot in World War II.†In fact Riosvalle never served in the armed forces. Loss Amount: $22,818.
These cases were all investigated by the Veterans Affairs Office of Inspector General VA-OIG. The VA Office of the Inspector General operates a HOTLINE for the public to confidentially and safely report crimes like “Stolen Valor†involving VA or its programs. Call 800-488-8244, or fax to 202-565-7936, or e-mail to vaoighotline@va.gov, or write to VA OIG HOTLINE, PO Box 50410, Washington, DC 20091-0410.
The cases filed in the Western District of Washington are being prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorney Ronald J. Friedman. For additional information please contact Emily Langlie, Public Affairs Officer for the United States Attorney’s Office, at (206) 553-4110.
There is an old saying, "if the shoe fits, where it." The often forgotten portion of that saying is, "if the shoe does not fit why are you trying to force your foot into it?"
Wow, your ability to bring in "evidance" that is either innacurate, inappropriate, or made-up while claiming everyone around you is doing it instead is shocking and infuriating. I'll not be posting anything in response to anything you say from this point on Steve, you've managed to stupid youself out of my internets.
I see nothing inaccurate in my post above. I see nothing inappropriate in my post above. I see nothing "made up" in my post above.
The only claims of inaccuracy I have made is in the fact that some groups have taken Rush's statements out of context and built a straw man out of them. By straw man I use the wikipedia definition:
A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.
My post is a response to the youTube video posted by Joe. Both people in the video are attacking the straw man created by Media Matters and ignoring Rush's true position that the anti-war left is using phony soldiers in its anti-war movement. The quoted article was attached to prove that the issue of phony soldiers being uncovered occurred before the phony soldier call on the Limbaugh show. In fact the article I quoted was discussed on the Limbaugh show a few days prior to the phone call used to make the "all anti-war soldiers are phony" straw man.
What is more telling to me is your inability to see through the smear campaign being launched by Media Matters.
Joe, when I comes to legal issues I fully respect your opinons. when it comes to politics though you seem to be coming more and more unhinged and kooky.
Think of me what you want. I don't respect the opinions of a liar.
What aboutAdmiral William J. Fallon, General Petraeus' boss? He and other people in the Pentagon are writing areport that's going to be very critical of the Petraeus report. Unfortunately, we won't get that report until the beginning of next year.
Joe, I echo the soldiers view in the first article.
OK... I do not understand the nature of stringing those quotes together. I still agree with what I wrote in those comments.
If you are trying to suggest that all people who are pro-war should be in lock-step support of the policies in place than I think you are building a straw man as I am not in full support of all of the policies in place.
I still believe that getting the hostiles around a table to hear their grievances is a good idea. I do not think it should be done publicly though.
My statements on the surge were based on the reports in the media at that time. I have since learned that even though the Iraqi government has not stepped up to the plate the smaller players in the arena were forced to pick sides, which is good. The surge still did not meet it's political goal but it has made things better in that one respect.
I see no ambiguity in the quotes you are providing Joe so I don't see what point you are trying to make. Please spell it out for me.
Comments
If anything the media reaction to the Media Matters story only proves that certain members of the media and Democrats in congress will believe another media group and run with a story without even going to the person involved in the story and ask for clarification.
Jesse Macbeth = phony soldier
From HMTKSteve's "My full write-up": From Media Matters: Source.
Notice the difference? Media Matters doesn't have the sentence "The phony soldier is none other than Jesse Macbeth, a darling of the anti-war movement." Media Matters printed the unaltered transcript. Then, when Rush saw that these statements were going to get him in trouble, he altered the transcript to contain the sentence to make it look like he was talking about Macbeth. If anyone is being deceptive and if anyone needs to be "denounced", it's Rush. I don't know how it can be more clear than that.
Finally, even if Macbeth left the Army after forty-odd days, he still served longer than Rush.
Oh yeah - one more thing: If he's so sure of himself and his views, why doesn't he accept this invitation to a debate?
Rush admits he's an ass.
is this "Full-write-up" HMTKSteve's personal transcript? Cause reading this has gotten me really confused.
He may have served longer than Rush but saying that those who have not served can not talk is just plain stupid (he who is without sin...).
As for not debating. the quickest way to validate someone and their views is to agree to debate them.
IMHO, these actions all add up to an "intent to deceive". You didn't make a mistake. You lied. Just like Rush did when he altered his transcript. Liar, Liar, your pants . . . ARE ON FIRE!
Edit: It looks like now he's changed the quote on his site to make it agree with the Media Matters quote. He's trying to cover up his lie, as liars often do.
Taking one call transcript from one radio show (for any talk radio personality) is likely going to show something in an out of context format. Talk radio is an open format (just like Geeknights) and many things can not be properly understood without a working knowledge of the show, its format and the personality of the hosts.
You could take one of Rym's recent "Scott likes to spend hours shopping for shoes and can't ever find a bag to match" jokes and walk away with the impression that Scott is gay and Rym is mean. However, if you go back a few episodes and hear how the whole story started you will know it is just Rym joking around with Scott. By doing so you will understand the recent joke in its proper context.
All it takes is a cursory knowledge of Rush and his show to know that the likelihood of such a broad sweeping statement (all anti-war soldiers are phony) being spoken by Rush is highly suspect. Rush is generally known for not falling into such traps. I would be far more likely to think of Jon Soltz as a journalist if he had written saying he tried to contact Limbaugh before writing his post.
I know everyone on here considers me a neo-con (hence my opening line in the first post) but I am far more of a libertarian than a neo-con. I don't particularly want to see our soldiers in Iraq (or any war zone) and longer than they have to be. I also understand that a blind withdrawal plan would probably cause more harm than good. I also believe that those who see, "I support the troops by lobbying to bring them home" is a misguided view to take and I consider it akin to telling the cops and fire fighters to stay home and not go to work because they might get hurt on the job!
Being anti-war is one thing and I will fight for your right to be anti-war. However, if one of your poster boys turns out to be a fraud (Jesse Macbeth) I would expect him to be denounced and all he has said to be ignored.
There, I think I'm done beating this dead horse.
As for forming an opinion, if someone passes on second hand information that sounds dubious based on a persons background (if someone told you GWB was raising kittens solely to feed them to his attack dogs) I would expect a confirmation to be sought out before publishing an opinion (burden of proof/extraordinary claim).
Sadly peoples personal biases often allow them to believe something that is not true because they want to believe it. I do not know the first thing about Jon Soltz so any opinion I have of him is based solely on what little I know of him and should not be used as a basis to form your own opinion (nor should I write an article on him based on reading one article written by him).
I have been listening to Rush since he had his TV show way back in the early 90's. I do not listen everyday but I listen enough to form an opinion and understand his biases and the way he thinks and what he believes. I have also been reading Media Matters for long enough to form an opinion of where they are coming from and the message they are trying to get out.
Because of this knowledge it is fairly easy to determine that anything Media Matters says about conservatives needs to be verified rather than taken at face value. The same thing goes for Rush, anything he says about people on the left needs to be checked out and verified. Even though both stories will have a nugget of truth to them (Rush will use an audio recording while Media Matters will use a transcript) both pieces will be taken out of context and used in such a way as to promote an agenda using that faulty evidence.
A recent segment on the Sean Hannity show proves this point very well. I do not have transcripts to link to but the short version is that when Obama made some statement about going into Pakistan to root out terrorists Hannity jumped on him about being wet behind the ears in regards to international affairs due to the fragile hold on power the current government in Pakistan has. Yet, when Romney came on his show and put forth the idea that the US should arrest the president of Iran when he comes over for the UN meeting was lauded as a great idea!
Both instances show that both candidates do not understand international affairs. Obama's statement shows a lack of understanding of the situation in Pakistan and Romney's show a lack of understanding of how the world works as a whole. The US would never arrest a foreign dignitary it issued a visa to. To even suggest such is asinine! What both things also show is that Hannity is a fool and not worth taking anything he says at face value.
I only listen to Hannity when I get in the car because he follows Rush. I give him a minute or two just to hear what stupid thing he is saying and that is it. Unlike Rush who has a quick mind and is a great entertainer Hannity is just mean, rude and lacking in intellectual honesty.
Additionally, Rush has no business calling any soldier a phoney because they came back from a war saying "War sucks". If he wants to call any soldier a fake, look at Bush and how he "served" his country.
Granted as HMTKSteve said this is a dead horse and if you haven't understood the problem with this issue by now (which boils down to Rush must be evil because media matters says so), then no information point to this will open a closed mind. It's fine if you want to have your opinions (right or wrong), but discussions need people to look into an issue, not just voice unconfirmed rumors.
Why is Limbaugh so much more important to you people than the actual soldiers? What is it about this failed policy that you love so much?
From what I know of Murtha I would not consider him a "phony" soldier. Unless Rush can back up this alleged Murtha claim I'd have to side against him.
The only explanation I can think of is if the conversation had recently involved Murtha and he just slipped saying Murtha's name instead of someone else. Kind of like when your parents call you by the wrong name because they have one of your siblings on their mind.
If he comes out and says that Murtha is a phony solider than I'll be losing a good bit of respect for Rush. I expect him to cover this more this week on his radio show but I will likely not be in a position to listen.
He has the same right to say whatever the hell he wants as anyone else does, but then so does Ann Coultre, and I give them both the same amount of credibility. I'd not take the time to pee on either to put em out if they were on fire.
Rush can't even pronounce this soldier's name.
Fact check.
The reporter on the clip is also getting the entire Rush thing wrong by stating that Rush called anti-war soldiers phony. In the days before the broadcast in question Rush had been talking about phony soldiers who claim to be soldiers but are in reality not true soldiers.
I agree with what Rush says in the clip, this guy is being used by the anti-war left and the left in general. As for the "suicicde bomber" comment it is accurate. He is being sent out into the world (after being fed lies) to "explode" his own version of those lies on the general populace.
This Olberman character is focusing on the lie of the issue and not the issue that Rush has been talking about. Rush is not calling out "real" soldiers as phony just because they are anti-war he is calling out "phony" soldiers who are truly phony soldiers and are telling lies about their service.
Even the Vet in question is wrong. He is taking an out of context quote and basing an argument (and chalenge) on it. This is no different than if someone tells you that a guy down the road called you an asshole because you own a Ford when that guy never said you were an asshole just that he knows a Ford owner that is an asshole. Should that guy apologize to you for your mistake? Hell no!
I'm a vet who is pro-war. Does that make me a real or phony solider? It has no bearing on anything because I do not use my status as a veteran to push an agenda. If I was to enter the political arena and push an agenda based on my being a soldier I would expect to be checked out and if it was found I lied about my military service I would expect to be cast out and vilified by those I lied to.
Joe, when I comes to legal issues I fully respect your opinons. when it comes to politics though you seem to be coming more and more unhinged and kooky. There is an old saying, "if the shoe fits, where it." The often forgotten portion of that saying is, "if the shoe does not fit why are you trying to force your foot into it?"
I see nothing inappropriate in my post above.
I see nothing "made up" in my post above.
The only claims of inaccuracy I have made is in the fact that some groups have taken Rush's statements out of context and built a straw man out of them. By straw man I use the wikipedia definition: My post is a response to the youTube video posted by Joe. Both people in the video are attacking the straw man created by Media Matters and ignoring Rush's true position that the anti-war left is using phony soldiers in its anti-war movement. The quoted article was attached to prove that the issue of phony soldiers being uncovered occurred before the phony soldier call on the Limbaugh show. In fact the article I quoted was discussed on the Limbaugh show a few days prior to the phone call used to make the "all anti-war soldiers are phony" straw man.
What is more telling to me is your inability to see through the smear campaign being launched by Media Matters.
If you are trying to suggest that all people who are pro-war should be in lock-step support of the policies in place than I think you are building a straw man as I am not in full support of all of the policies in place.
I still believe that getting the hostiles around a table to hear their grievances is a good idea. I do not think it should be done publicly though.
My statements on the surge were based on the reports in the media at that time. I have since learned that even though the Iraqi government has not stepped up to the plate the smaller players in the arena were forced to pick sides, which is good. The surge still did not meet it's political goal but it has made things better in that one respect.
I see no ambiguity in the quotes you are providing Joe so I don't see what point you are trying to make. Please spell it out for me.