My first time doing this so bear with me please.
First, the Op-Ed piece by General Petraeus on Iraq referred to in previous blogs was written by General Petraeus on September 26, 2004 and published in the Washington Post and carried in other papers. At that time General Petraeus was in charge of training Iraqui security and military forces. The article speaks of all the "progress", "optimism", "successes" that we are accomplishing in training Iraqui armed and security forces. It talks of numbers of trained and ready Iraqui forces that no one even refers to these days. The unfortunate reality is those nice numbers of fully trained Iraquis have never materialized. The article is written six weeks before the 2004 General Election which saw George Bush elected in large part because we were told tings were going very well in Iraq with amazing "progress", "as they stand up we will stand down"" (the task that General Petraeus was supposedly accomplishing) and there were just a few "diehards" to deal with. Funny how things have just not turned out that way. The article was in my opinion a thinly veiled political endorsement.
Second, the Petraeus Report to Congress was put together with tremendous input from the White House, despite the backpedaling statements from the Bush Administration after this became common knowledge. There are multiple references to this in many media sources. This report was a political statement / justification for extending the Iraq War with no strategic changes. For some strange peculiar to American rationale we are supposed to believe it is without bias and political agenda because it was given by a military officer. Our military history shows us that our military leaders have always been very aware of, and often supported the political agendas of their civilian leaders. The Iraq War along with Vietnam have been the the most politically compromised wars in our history. Why do you think they have not been successful. Does anyone actually believe that the Bush Administration would actually pick a military leader for Iraq who was not willing to actively support their political goals (that dog don't hunt). The Bush Administration history since 2000 shows us that loyalty is the prime requirement to serve in this administration.
With the two above points in mind General Petreaeus is both a public and political figure. (in fact I would bet my dog that there are many Republicans who not only know this but want it, can you say 2012 candidate ) He was fair game for the Move-On ad. It might be more beneficial to all concerned if one actually looked at the points being made by the ad. The format of the ad could have perhaps been better done. But, unfortunately we seemed to be more concerned with cute and sarcasm in our political ads at this time.
History has repeatedly shown us that the difficulties we are facing now as a nation over the Iraq War, will probably unfortunately pale in comparison to the difficulties we will face in the future as a result of the war. We prefer to talk about and reward attack and bias over substance, hence the Move-On style of ad.
As for Rush Limbaugh and those that believe and follow his "facts" and reasoning. For them "lack of control is my dilemma, obsession with self is my malady". They are always found in democracies, they need only be held accountable for their actions as others are. When accountability is applied they will always claim to be a victim, that they meant something else, that our accountability of them has to do with our failings not theirs. It's just the way it is.
As for Congress, we elect them. I believe that most would rather deal with the silly nonsense of "he said, she said", then actually show some leadership, representation, and just plain "guts" and come up with some way out of this mess. I personally don't have a lot of hope this will change. They have a long history of accepting lies, ridiculous rationales, no knowledge of history, and self-serving voting when it comes to the Middle East.
Free speech is a primary right in a democracy. Unfortunately, I find this whole Move-On / Rush controversy to be more of a comment on the state of our Nation and it's "leaders"; than a objective discussion concerning our democratic ideals, the Iraq War, or our political process. Yet, Americans, Iraquis, and others die; the United States plummets in the eyes of the World (and this will cost us); we go further into debt; the goals / words of the dictators / zealots of the World are only reinforced by our interventions; etc. No one can OBJECTIVELY / FACTUALLY explain why we are in Iraq, and using OBJECTIVE / FACTUAL information explain how we are moving toward the OBJECTIVE / FACTUAL goals that a DEMOCRATIC / NON-COLONIAL nation would have. We would rather throw around adjectives, disparage and mis-represent those we don't agree, and play "he said she said".

The controvesry is only in dittoheads twisted mind, david.

We have the tape and the transcipt. You are fighting a lost, propoganda, cause. Those taht want to know the truth do. Those that don't, don't.

Regardless rush is done. Now we cna move to rebuild this great nation again. Without the liars and propogandists for profit.

The difference is the senate took action against Rush Limbaugh by writing a letter to his employer. The constitution is clear that congress will not take action against individuals regarding free speech.

The difference is the senate resolution regarding General Petraeus does not mention MoveOn.Org at all in their resolution. Both the Senate and House bills mention Rush Limbaugh by name.

The issue of free speech is the same. The difference is how it is being handled by Congress.

There is controversy regarding what Rush said or meant. There is no controversy regarding what MoveOn.Org said or meant.

David Longstreet

"""The weekly update from Media Matters for America

Here at Media Matters, as in many other places, this was a week of Rush Limbaugh, not only because of what he said about American soldiers and veterans who oppose the Iraq war, but because of what he said about us. There has been some wild spinning coming from Limbaugh on this issue, so let's do a brief recap of what he has said and done since this whole to-do began:

Wednesday, September 26: On his radio show, Limbaugh gets into a discussion with a caller about people who oppose the Iraq war. "It's not possible, intellectually, to follow these people," he says. The caller replies, "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 then interjects, "The phony soldiers," to which the caller responds, "The phony soldiers. If you talk to a real soldier, they are proud to serve." The two then go on to talk about how real soldiers want to be in Iraq. A full one minute and 50 seconds later -- after the caller went on to discuss the purported presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and after Limbaugh thanked the caller for calling -- Limbaugh brings up Jesse MacBeth, who had claimed falsely to have served in Iraq and witnessed atrocities.

Friday, September 28: Responding to the controversy aroused by his "phony soldiers" comment, Limbaugh claims on his show that he had not been talking "about the anti-war movement generally," but rather "about one soldier ... Jesse MacBeth." He then tells his listeners he will present to them the "entire" segment from the day before, so they can hear what he actually said. But the clip he airs actually cuts out a full 1 minute and 35 seconds of discussion that occurred between Limbaugh's original "phony soldiers" comment and his subsequent reference to MacBeth, making it appear as though he had segued directly from "phony soldiers" to MacBeth, when this was not in fact the case. Limbaugh also claims he was "talking about one soldier with that 'phony soldier' comment, Jesse MacBeth," when in fact he said not "soldier" (singular) but "soldiers" (plural). Limbaugh also states during his program, "And by the way, Jesse MacBeth's not the only one," adding to his list of "phony soldiers" Congressman John Murtha, a Vietnam combat veteran and recipient of a Bronze Star and two Purple Hearts whose service on active duty and in the Marine Reserve spanned 37 years before he retired as a colonel.

Tuesday, October 2: After the group VoteVets.org airs a television advertisement in which a wounded Iraq veteran, Brian McGough, criticizes Limbaugh for the "phony soldiers" comment, Limbaugh compares McGough to a suicide bomber. "He discusses his service in Iraq, the wounds he suffered there," Limbaugh says, "and he says to me in this ad, 'Until you have the guts to call me a "phony soldier" to my face, stop telling lies about my service.' You know, this is such a blatant use of a valiant combat veteran, lying to him about what I said, then strapping those lies to his belt, sending him out via the media in a TV ad to walk into as many people as he can walk into."

Thursday, October 4: Displaying his ongoing commitment to reasoned discourse, Limbaugh puts up a picture on his website of Josef Stalin sporting Media Matters' logo on his chest. Because posting audio and transcripts of Rush Limbaugh so people can see what he says is pretty much like heading up one of history's most brutally repressive regimes and murdering 20 million or so people. Just about, anyway.

Now that we're all caught up, we can talk about what this means. In order to understand it, you have to realize that Limbaugh's attack on soldiers who disagree with Bush's policy on the war is in perfect keeping with statements he has made in the past. While most commentators will at least nod to the notion that those who disagree with them can still love their country, Limbaugh has stated on numerous occasions his belief that people who oppose the war are unpatriotic. To take just one example, this past August, he said, "I want to respectfully disagree with the president on the last part of what he said. I am going to challenge the patriotism of people who disagree with him because the people that disagree with him want to lose."

Once you've constructed and maintained this argument -- that only people who hate America could possibly disagree with George W. Bush on national security questions -- what do you do when you encounter veterans who do, in fact, disagree? People who have put their very lives at risk in order to serve their country? So much of the rhetoric coming from people like Limbaugh operates on the premise that people who hold different opinions aren't merely wrong or mistaken, they have bad motives.

Think about how much time and effort they expend on convincing Americans that progressives and Democrats are "anti-military," "hate the troops," and even "hate America." So any progressive veteran who criticizes Bush administration policies represents a profound threat to all the arguments they have made. It becomes particularly thorny when nearly the entire current leadership of the conservative movement -- not only media figures like Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly, but also political figures including President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Karl Rove, Newt Gingrich, Tom DeLay, Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, and many others -- were of draft age during the Vietnam war but managed to stay out of harm's way.

Let's be clear: I'm not arguing that any particular individual on that list didn't have legitimate reasons to avoid serving in Vietnam -- some may have. Nor am I arguing that the opinions of veterans on matters of national security are necessarily more valid simply because they are veterans. The point is that accusations of troop-hating and insufficient patriotism are difficult to wield at veterans, particularly when thrown by those who were subject to the draft but managed to avoid it.

Unless, that is, they can argue that the veteran in question isn't a real veteran, that his service wasn't real service, that his sacrifice wasn't real sacrifice, and that his patriotism isn't real patriotism. So that's exactly what they do.

If this were the first, or second, or even third time this had happened, one might be able to come up with another plausible explanation. But what we heard this week with Rush Limbaugh was a replay of a record we've heard many times before: a war critic with a military record emerges, and the right responds by attacking his patriotism, arguing that his service wasn't real, or both. Consider the following:

John Kerry, a Vietnam veteran and recipient of a Silver Star, a Bronze Star, and three Purple Hearts, saw a campaign of truly epic dishonesty waged during the 2004 presidential election to convince the American people that he didn't deserve his medals and that the injuries he sustained in combat were phony. Among the many ways conservatives got into the act: At the 2004 Republican convention, delegates wore Band-Aids with purple hearts on their cheeks to mock Kerry's medals. ABC News anchor Peter Jennings asked Newt Gingrich at the time whether the purple heart Band-Aids made him uncomfortable. "No," Gingrich replied, "I think it's funny." (The conservative Media Research Center cited this exchange as an example of liberal media bias because it was shocked that anyone would take offense at a gesture "meant to make light of John Kerry earning purple hearts in Vietnam for superficial wounds.")
Max Cleland, who lost both legs and one arm in Vietnam, was the subject of an attack ad from challenger Saxby Chambliss (reason for avoiding Vietnam service: bum knee) featuring photos of Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden, claiming that Cleland was hindering efforts to fight terrorism. "Max Cleland says he has the courage to lead," the announcer said, "But the record proves Max Cleland is just misleading."
When Congressman John Murtha -- to repeat, a Vietnam combat veteran, recipient of a Bronze Star and two Purple Hearts, whose service on active duty and in the Marine Reserve spanned 37 years before he retired as a colonel -- became critical of the Iraq war, he was attacked relentlessly by conservatives. Ann Coulter said that Murtha is "the reason soldiers invented fragging," slang for soldiers killing a member of their own unit. Coulter later said that if Murtha "did get fragged, he'd finally deserve one of those Purple Hearts."
Nebraska Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel, a decorated Vietnam veteran, was called "Sen. Skeptic (R., France)" by the National Review when in 2002 he raised questions about the Bush administration's push for war -- in other words, Hagel didn't represent the United States but a foreign country. More recently, Rush Limbaugh has said: "By the way, we had a caller call, couldn't stay on the air, got a new name for Senator Hagel in Nebraska, we got General Petraeus and we got Senator Betrayus, new name for Senator Hagel."
When Rep. Joe Sestak, a retired rear admiral, walked in a Memorial Day parade wearing his uniform during the 2006 campaign (without doing any campaigning, as per military regulations), the Republican State Committee of Pennsylvania sent out a press release titled "Sestak's Got No R-E-S-P-E-C-T For Uniform" according to an August 7, 2006, article in the Navy Times.
In 2006, incumbent Republican Congressman Mike Fitzpatrick held a press conference in which he presented an Air Force major named Kevin Kelly who accused Fitzpatrick's challenger, Democrat Patrick Murphy, of claiming to be more of a combat veteran than he was. As The Philadelphia Inquirer reported on October 11, 2006, "Kelly claimed that Murphy, who was in Baghdad during 2003 and 2004 as a captain and lawyer with the 82d Airborne, exaggerated his combat experience. But in response to a reporter's question, Kelly could not cite any place, incident or publication where he heard Murphy make such claims."
Democrat Paul Hackett, an Iraq war veteran, ran for Congress in a special election in Ohio in 2005. Rush Limbaugh said of Hackett, "it appears that, you know, he goes to Iraq to pad the résumé."
We could go on to list the many Democrats who have had their patriotism assaulted -- like Air Force veteran Tom Daschle, who was accused of treason by Rep. Tom Davis (R-VA) (Davis said that comments Daschle made in 2002 questioning the success of the war on terror had "the effect of giving aid and comfort to our enemies," language taken directly from the Constitution's definition of treason), and was the subject of a press release by since-disgraced Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL) titled "Foley Questions Daschle's Patriotism." But that would take far more space than we have at hand. One thing that all these cases have in common is that no one in the media even considered referring to these conservative attacks as "anti-military," while media figures routinely characterize progressives as "anti-military" if they take issue with policies like the Iraq war, not to mention the converse, that Iraq war supporters are by definition "pro-military" folks who "support the troops" (see here, here, here, here, or here).

So let's consider Limbaugh's comment about Hackett. As far as Limbaugh is concerned, a progressive can't possibly join the military out of a commitment to national service or simple patriotism; if a progressive joined the military, his or her motives must have been dishonorable, in this case to "pad the résumé." By the same token, if a soldier opposes the war, he must not be a real soldier. After making the "phony soldiers" statement, Limbaugh and his caller went on to discuss how real soldiers want to be in Iraq. "They joined to be in Iraq!" said Rush.

Yet you would have had trouble finding too many Republicans in Washington willing to step forward and condemn Limbaugh, or do what Democrats are asked to do whenever a progressive anywhere says something controversial, and "distance themselves" from his remarks. Why? Because Rush Limbaugh is one of the most important components of the conservative spin machine. After all, when Republicans scored their dramatic electoral victory in 1994, they named him an honorary member of the 104th Congress. He'll have to go a lot further than insulting soldiers to get them to turn on him.

At one level, one can have some sympathy for O'Reilly and Limbaugh. Every day, they spend a lot of time on the air -- three hours in Limbaugh's case, and three more for O'Reilly (one hour on television and two on radio), talking extemporaneously about the issues of the day. As seasoned performers, they both know that passion and anger, whether genuine or feigned, are necessary elements of their oeuvre. Given all that, it would hardly be remarkable if every now and again they said something they regretted.

But to hear them tell it, they never regret anything they say. No word that escapes their mouths is anything other than exactly what they meant. If people are offended, they just don't understand, or they've been manipulated by the enemies of the right.

When people do get offended, or fed up at the seemingly unending stream of falsehood and misrepresentation, the right-wing media do what they always do: attack the messenger. So lately, Media Matters has been the subject of some awfully nasty comments from Limbaugh, O'Reilly, and their allies; a recent favorite is Bill O'Reilly calling Media Matters President David Brock "the biggest villain, in my opinion, in the country" (eat your heart out, terrorists!). And don't even ask about the emails we get -- let's just say Rush and Bill's fans are extremely angry and prone to vulgarity, and need to work on their spelling.

This strategy isn't hard to interpret. If you can get people talking about a sinister left-wing conspiracy, then suddenly they aren't talking about you and your statements anymore. And for the likes of Limbaugh, it's always somebody else's fault.
"
"
"

""The weekly update from Media Matters for America

Here at Media Matters, as in many other places, this was a week of Rush Limbaugh, not only because of what he said about American soldiers and veterans who oppose the Iraq war, but because of what he said about us. There has been some wild spinning coming from Limbaugh on this issue, so let's do a brief recap of what he has said and done since this whole to-do began:

Wednesday, September 26: On his radio show, Limbaugh gets into a discussion with a caller about people who oppose the Iraq war. "It's not possible, intellectually, to follow these people," he says. The caller replies, "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 then interjects, "The phony soldiers," to which the caller responds, "The phony soldiers. If you talk to a real soldier, they are proud to serve." The two then go on to talk about how real soldiers want to be in Iraq. A full one minute and 50 seconds later -- after the caller went on to discuss the purported presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and after Limbaugh thanked the caller for calling -- Limbaugh brings up Jesse MacBeth, who had claimed falsely to have served in Iraq and witnessed atrocities.

Friday, September 28: Responding to the controversy aroused by his "phony soldiers" comment, Limbaugh claims on his show that he had not been talking "about the anti-war movement generally," but rather "about one soldier ... Jesse MacBeth." He then tells his listeners he will present to them the "entire" segment from the day before, so they can hear what he actually said. But the clip he airs actually cuts out a full 1 minute and 35 seconds of discussion that occurred between Limbaugh's original "phony soldiers" comment and his subsequent reference to MacBeth, making it appear as though he had segued directly from "phony soldiers" to MacBeth, when this was not in fact the case. Limbaugh also claims he was "talking about one soldier with that 'phony soldier' comment, Jesse MacBeth," when in fact he said not "soldier" (singular) but "soldiers" (plural). Limbaugh also states during his program, "And by the way, Jesse MacBeth's not the only one," adding to his list of "phony soldiers" Congressman John Murtha, a Vietnam combat veteran and recipient of a Bronze Star and two Purple Hearts whose service on active duty and in the Marine Reserve spanned 37 years before he retired as a colonel.

Tuesday, October 2: After the group VoteVets.org airs a television advertisement in which a wounded Iraq veteran, Brian McGough, criticizes Limbaugh for the "phony soldiers" comment, Limbaugh compares McGough to a suicide bomber. "He discusses his service in Iraq, the wounds he suffered there," Limbaugh says, "and he says to me in this ad, 'Until you have the guts to call me a "phony soldier" to my face, stop telling lies about my service.' You know, this is such a blatant use of a valiant combat veteran, lying to him about what I said, then strapping those lies to his belt, sending him out via the media in a TV ad to walk into as many people as he can walk into."

Thursday, October 4: Displaying his ongoing commitment to reasoned discourse, Limbaugh puts up a picture on his website of Josef Stalin sporting Media Matters' logo on his chest. Because posting audio and transcripts of Rush Limbaugh so people can see what he says is pretty much like heading up one of history's most brutally repressive regimes and murdering 20 million or so people. Just about, anyway.

Now that we're all caught up, we can talk about what this means. In order to understand it, you have to realize that Limbaugh's attack on soldiers who disagree with Bush's policy on the war is in perfect keeping with statements he has made in the past. While most commentators will at least nod to the notion that those who disagree with them can still love their country, Limbaugh has stated on numerous occasions his belief that people who oppose the war are unpatriotic. To take just one example, this past August, he said, "I want to respectfully disagree with the president on the last part of what he said. I am going to challenge the patriotism of people who disagree with him because the people that disagree with him want to lose."

Once you've constructed and maintained this argument -- that only people who hate America could possibly disagree with George W. Bush on national security questions -- what do you do when you encounter veterans who do, in fact, disagree? People who have put their very lives at risk in order to serve their country? So much of the rhetoric coming from people like Limbaugh operates on the premise that people who hold different opinions aren't merely wrong or mistaken, they have bad motives.

Think about how much time and effort they expend on convincing Americans that progressives and Democrats are "anti-military," "hate the troops," and even "hate America." So any progressive veteran who criticizes Bush administration policies represents a profound threat to all the arguments they have made. It becomes particularly thorny when nearly the entire current leadership of the conservative movement -- not only media figures like Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly, but also political figures including President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Karl Rove, Newt Gingrich, Tom DeLay, Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, and many others -- were of draft age during the Vietnam war but managed to stay out of harm's way.

Let's be clear: I'm not arguing that any particular individual on that list didn't have legitimate reasons to avoid serving in Vietnam -- some may have. Nor am I arguing that the opinions of veterans on matters of national security are necessarily more valid simply because they are veterans. The point is that accusations of troop-hating and insufficient patriotism are difficult to wield at veterans, particularly when thrown by those who were subject to the draft but managed to avoid it.

Unless, that is, they can argue that the veteran in question isn't a real veteran, that his service wasn't real service, that his sacrifice wasn't real sacrifice, and that his patriotism isn't real patriotism. So that's exactly what they do.

If this were the first, or second, or even third time this had happened, one might be able to come up with another plausible explanation. But what we heard this week with Rush Limbaugh was a replay of a record we've heard many times before: a war critic with a military record emerges, and the right responds by attacking his patriotism, arguing that his service wasn't real, or both. Consider the following:

John Kerry, a Vietnam veteran and recipient of a Silver Star, a Bronze Star, and three Purple Hearts, saw a campaign of truly epic dishonesty waged during the 2004 presidential election to convince the American people that he didn't deserve his medals and that the injuries he sustained in combat were phony. Among the many ways conservatives got into the act: At the 2004 Republican convention, delegates wore Band-Aids with purple hearts on their cheeks to mock Kerry's medals. ABC News anchor Peter Jennings asked Newt Gingrich at the time whether the purple heart Band-Aids made him uncomfortable. "No," Gingrich replied, "I think it's funny." (The conservative Media Research Center cited this exchange as an example of liberal media bias because it was shocked that anyone would take offense at a gesture "meant to make light of John Kerry earning purple hearts in Vietnam for superficial wounds.")
Max Cleland, who lost both legs and one arm in Vietnam, was the subject of an attack ad from challenger Saxby Chambliss (reason for avoiding Vietnam service: bum knee) featuring photos of Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden, claiming that Cleland was hindering efforts to fight terrorism. "Max Cleland says he has the courage to lead," the announcer said, "But the record proves Max Cleland is just misleading."
When Congressman John Murtha -- to repeat, a Vietnam combat veteran, recipient of a Bronze Star and two Purple Hearts, whose service on active duty and in the Marine Reserve spanned 37 years before he retired as a colonel -- became critical of the Iraq war, he was attacked relentlessly by conservatives. Ann Coulter said that Murtha is "the reason soldiers invented fragging," slang for soldiers killing a member of their own unit. Coulter later said that if Murtha "did get fragged, he'd finally deserve one of those Purple Hearts."
Nebraska Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel, a decorated Vietnam veteran, was called "Sen. Skeptic (R., France)" by the National Review when in 2002 he raised questions about the Bush administration's push for war -- in other words, Hagel didn't represent the United States but a foreign country. More recently, Rush Limbaugh has said: "By the way, we had a caller call, couldn't stay on the air, got a new name for Senator Hagel in Nebraska, we got General Petraeus and we got Senator Betrayus, new name for Senator Hagel."
When Rep. Joe Sestak, a retired rear admiral, walked in a Memorial Day parade wearing his uniform during the 2006 campaign (without doing any campaigning, as per military regulations), the Republican State Committee of Pennsylvania sent out a press release titled "Sestak's Got No R-E-S-P-E-C-T For Uniform" according to an August 7, 2006, article in the Navy Times.
In 2006, incumbent Republican Congressman Mike Fitzpatrick held a press conference in which he presented an Air Force major named Kevin Kelly who accused Fitzpatrick's challenger, Democrat Patrick Murphy, of claiming to be more of a combat veteran than he was. As The Philadelphia Inquirer reported on October 11, 2006, "Kelly claimed that Murphy, who was in Baghdad during 2003 and 2004 as a captain and lawyer with the 82d Airborne, exaggerated his combat experience. But in response to a reporter's question, Kelly could not cite any place, incident or publication where he heard Murphy make such claims."
Democrat Paul Hackett, an Iraq war veteran, ran for Congress in a special election in Ohio in 2005. Rush Limbaugh said of Hackett, "it appears that, you know, he goes to Iraq to pad the résumé."
We could go on to list the many Democrats who have had their patriotism assaulted -- like Air Force veteran Tom Daschle, who was accused of treason by Rep. Tom Davis (R-VA) (Davis said that comments Daschle made in 2002 questioning the success of the war on terror had "the effect of giving aid and comfort to our enemies," language taken directly from the Constitution's definition of treason), and was the subject of a press release by since-disgraced Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL) titled "Foley Questions Daschle's Patriotism." But that would take far more space than we have at hand. One thing that all these cases have in common is that no one in the media even considered referring to these conservative attacks as "anti-military," while media figures routinely characterize progressives as "anti-military" if they take issue with policies like the Iraq war, not to mention the converse, that Iraq war supporters are by definition "pro-military" folks who "support the troops" (see here, here, here, here, or here).

So let's consider Limbaugh's comment about Hackett. As far as Limbaugh is concerned, a progressive can't possibly join the military out of a commitment to national service or simple patriotism; if a progressive joined the military, his or her motives must have been dishonorable, in this case to "pad the résumé." By the same token, if a soldier opposes the war, he must not be a real soldier. After making the "phony soldiers" statement, Limbaugh and his caller went on to discuss how real soldiers want to be in Iraq. "They joined to be in Iraq!" said Rush.

Yet you would have had trouble finding too many Republicans in Washington willing to step forward and condemn Limbaugh, or do what Democrats are asked to do whenever a progressive anywhere says something controversial, and "distance themselves" from his remarks. Why? Because Rush Limbaugh is one of the most important components of the conservative spin machine. After all, when Republicans scored their dramatic electoral victory in 1994, they named him an honorary member of the 104th Congress. He'll have to go a lot further than insulting soldiers to get them to turn on him.

At one level, one can have some sympathy for O'Reilly and Limbaugh. Every day, they spend a lot of time on the air -- three hours in Limbaugh's case, and three more for O'Reilly (one hour on television and two on radio), talking extemporaneously about the issues of the day. As seasoned performers, they both know that passion and anger, whether genuine or feigned, are necessary elements of their oeuvre. Given all that, it would hardly be remarkable if every now and again they said something they regretted.

But to hear them tell it, they never regret anything they say. No word that escapes their mouths is anything other than exactly what they meant. If people are offended, they just don't understand, or they've been manipulated by the enemies of the right.

When people do get offended, or fed up at the seemingly unending stream of falsehood and misrepresentation, the right-wing media do what they always do: attack the messenger. So lately, Media Matters has been the subject of some awfully nasty comments from Limbaugh, O'Reilly, and their allies; a recent favorite is Bill O'Reilly calling Media Matters President David Brock "the biggest villain, in my opinion, in the country" (eat your heart out, terrorists!). And don't even ask about the emails we get -- let's just say Rush and Bill's fans are extremely angry and prone to vulgarity, and need to work on their spelling.

This strategy isn't hard to interpret. If you can get people talking about a sinister left-wing conspiracy, then suddenly they aren't talking about you and your statements anymore. And for the likes of Limbaugh, it's always somebody else's fault.
"
"

www.mediamatters.org

So many of these comments are based on a falsehood. I was actually listening to the shows that week and the false soldier comment was only one of a series of comments about that idiot puppet of the left who lied about his service and defamed our soldiers. And, there are many others who have lied about their service. To accuse Rush of this is absurb.

I think there is no more fairness in this country when someone like Rush and Hannity or any other target of the left like Imus (thanks to Hillary and Media Matters) are recorded and listened to; Every word is analyzed by drooling lefties rubbing their hands together in glee when they find something for their boss and who get paid to attack the "enemy" hoping to find something - anything that they can twist into a smear that they can use. This is akin to nazis or communists who want to find something, anything to ruin those who oppose them, who happen to have another view of things. What is next re-education camps?

What happened to the "Diversity" that you libs like to espouse? Freedom of speech is convenient for you when you want to burn flags, or entertain some foreign dictator who happens to think all Jews and Americans should die, or convince the world that global warming is caused solely by man, but it is an "inconvenient truth" when anyone says something that doesn't jive with your own thinking.

Why do you use force to get your points across? Because that is the only way you can convince. Why do you use liberal judges to legislate that which would not be approved by the majority or a vote? Can you really be this twisted in your hearts and brains or are you really stupid enough to think communism can work here when it hasn't worked anywhere else on earth?

Your arguments cannot stand much scrutiny that is why you would rather destroy and smear people and dodge tough questions than debate. Why are the Dems afraid to debate on Fox? Becasue they cannot stand much scrutiny.

"The weekly update from Media Matters for America

Here at Media Matters, as in many other places, this was a week of Rush Limbaugh, not only because of what he said about American soldiers and veterans who oppose the Iraq war, but because of what he said about us. There has been some wild spinning coming from Limbaugh on this issue, so let's do a brief recap of what he has said and done since this whole to-do began:

Wednesday, September 26: On his radio show, Limbaugh gets into a discussion with a caller about people who oppose the Iraq war. "It's not possible, intellectually, to follow these people," he says. The caller replies, "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 then interjects, "The phony soldiers," to which the caller responds, "The phony soldiers. If you talk to a real soldier, they are proud to serve." The two then go on to talk about how real soldiers want to be in Iraq. A full one minute and 50 seconds later -- after the caller went on to discuss the purported presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and after Limbaugh thanked the caller for calling -- Limbaugh brings up Jesse MacBeth, who had claimed falsely to have served in Iraq and witnessed atrocities.

Friday, September 28: Responding to the controversy aroused by his "phony soldiers" comment, Limbaugh claims on his show that he had not been talking "about the anti-war movement generally," but rather "about one soldier ... Jesse MacBeth." He then tells his listeners he will present to them the "entire" segment from the day before, so they can hear what he actually said. But the clip he airs actually cuts out a full 1 minute and 35 seconds of discussion that occurred between Limbaugh's original "phony soldiers" comment and his subsequent reference to MacBeth, making it appear as though he had segued directly from "phony soldiers" to MacBeth, when this was not in fact the case. Limbaugh also claims he was "talking about one soldier with that 'phony soldier' comment, Jesse MacBeth," when in fact he said not "soldier" (singular) but "soldiers" (plural). Limbaugh also states during his program, "And by the way, Jesse MacBeth's not the only one," adding to his list of "phony soldiers" Congressman John Murtha, a Vietnam combat veteran and recipient of a Bronze Star and two Purple Hearts whose service on active duty and in the Marine Reserve spanned 37 years before he retired as a colonel.

Tuesday, October 2: After the group VoteVets.org airs a television advertisement in which a wounded Iraq veteran, Brian McGough, criticizes Limbaugh for the "phony soldiers" comment, Limbaugh compares McGough to a suicide bomber. "He discusses his service in Iraq, the wounds he suffered there," Limbaugh says, "and he says to me in this ad, 'Until you have the guts to call me a "phony soldier" to my face, stop telling lies about my service.' You know, this is such a blatant use of a valiant combat veteran, lying to him about what I said, then strapping those lies to his belt, sending him out via the media in a TV ad to walk into as many people as he can walk into."

Thursday, October 4: Displaying his ongoing commitment to reasoned discourse, Limbaugh puts up a picture on his website of Josef Stalin sporting Media Matters' logo on his chest. Because posting audio and transcripts of Rush Limbaugh so people can see what he says is pretty much like heading up one of history's most brutally repressive regimes and murdering 20 million or so people. Just about, anyway.

Now that we're all caught up, we can talk about what this means. In order to understand it, you have to realize that Limbaugh's attack on soldiers who disagree with Bush's policy on the war is in perfect keeping with statements he has made in the past. While most commentators will at least nod to the notion that those who disagree with them can still love their country, Limbaugh has stated on numerous occasions his belief that people who oppose the war are unpatriotic. To take just one example, this past August, he said, "I want to respectfully disagree with the president on the last part of what he said. I am going to challenge the patriotism of people who disagree with him because the people that disagree with him want to lose."

Once you've constructed and maintained this argument -- that only people who hate America could possibly disagree with George W. Bush on national security questions -- what do you do when you encounter veterans who do, in fact, disagree? People who have put their very lives at risk in order to serve their country? So much of the rhetoric coming from people like Limbaugh operates on the premise that people who hold different opinions aren't merely wrong or mistaken, they have bad motives.

Think about how much time and effort they expend on convincing Americans that progressives and Democrats are "anti-military," "hate the troops," and even "hate America." So any progressive veteran who criticizes Bush administration policies represents a profound threat to all the arguments they have made. It becomes particularly thorny when nearly the entire current leadership of the conservative movement -- not only media figures like Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly, but also political figures including President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Karl Rove, Newt Gingrich, Tom DeLay, Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, and many others -- were of draft age during the Vietnam war but managed to stay out of harm's way.

Let's be clear: I'm not arguing that any particular individual on that list didn't have legitimate reasons to avoid serving in Vietnam -- some may have. Nor am I arguing that the opinions of veterans on matters of national security are necessarily more valid simply because they are veterans. The point is that accusations of troop-hating and insufficient patriotism are difficult to wield at veterans, particularly when thrown by those who were subject to the draft but managed to avoid it.

Unless, that is, they can argue that the veteran in question isn't a real veteran, that his service wasn't real service, that his sacrifice wasn't real sacrifice, and that his patriotism isn't real patriotism. So that's exactly what they do.

If this were the first, or second, or even third time this had happened, one might be able to come up with another plausible explanation. But what we heard this week with Rush Limbaugh was a replay of a record we've heard many times before: a war critic with a military record emerges, and the right responds by attacking his patriotism, arguing that his service wasn't real, or both. Consider the following:

John Kerry, a Vietnam veteran and recipient of a Silver Star, a Bronze Star, and three Purple Hearts, saw a campaign of truly epic dishonesty waged during the 2004 presidential election to convince the American people that he didn't deserve his medals and that the injuries he sustained in combat were phony. Among the many ways conservatives got into the act: At the 2004 Republican convention, delegates wore Band-Aids with purple hearts on their cheeks to mock Kerry's medals. ABC News anchor Peter Jennings asked Newt Gingrich at the time whether the purple heart Band-Aids made him uncomfortable. "No," Gingrich replied, "I think it's funny." (The conservative Media Research Center cited this exchange as an example of liberal media bias because it was shocked that anyone would take offense at a gesture "meant to make light of John Kerry earning purple hearts in Vietnam for superficial wounds.")
Max Cleland, who lost both legs and one arm in Vietnam, was the subject of an attack ad from challenger Saxby Chambliss (reason for avoiding Vietnam service: bum knee) featuring photos of Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden, claiming that Cleland was hindering efforts to fight terrorism. "Max Cleland says he has the courage to lead," the announcer said, "But the record proves Max Cleland is just misleading."
When Congressman John Murtha -- to repeat, a Vietnam combat veteran, recipient of a Bronze Star and two Purple Hearts, whose service on active duty and in the Marine Reserve spanned 37 years before he retired as a colonel -- became critical of the Iraq war, he was attacked relentlessly by conservatives. Ann Coulter said that Murtha is "the reason soldiers invented fragging," slang for soldiers killing a member of their own unit. Coulter later said that if Murtha "did get fragged, he'd finally deserve one of those Purple Hearts."
Nebraska Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel, a decorated Vietnam veteran, was called "Sen. Skeptic (R., France)" by the National Review when in 2002 he raised questions about the Bush administration's push for war -- in other words, Hagel didn't represent the United States but a foreign country. More recently, Rush Limbaugh has said: "By the way, we had a caller call, couldn't stay on the air, got a new name for Senator Hagel in Nebraska, we got General Petraeus and we got Senator Betrayus, new name for Senator Hagel."
When Rep. Joe Sestak, a retired rear admiral, walked in a Memorial Day parade wearing his uniform during the 2006 campaign (without doing any campaigning, as per military regulations), the Republican State Committee of Pennsylvania sent out a press release titled "Sestak's Got No R-E-S-P-E-C-T For Uniform" according to an August 7, 2006, article in the Navy Times.
In 2006, incumbent Republican Congressman Mike Fitzpatrick held a press conference in which he presented an Air Force major named Kevin Kelly who accused Fitzpatrick's challenger, Democrat Patrick Murphy, of claiming to be more of a combat veteran than he was. As The Philadelphia Inquirer reported on October 11, 2006, "Kelly claimed that Murphy, who was in Baghdad during 2003 and 2004 as a captain and lawyer with the 82d Airborne, exaggerated his combat experience. But in response to a reporter's question, Kelly could not cite any place, incident or publication where he heard Murphy make such claims."
Democrat Paul Hackett, an Iraq war veteran, ran for Congress in a special election in Ohio in 2005. Rush Limbaugh said of Hackett, "it appears that, you know, he goes to Iraq to pad the résumé."
We could go on to list the many Democrats who have had their patriotism assaulted -- like Air Force veteran Tom Daschle, who was accused of treason by Rep. Tom Davis (R-VA) (Davis said that comments Daschle made in 2002 questioning the success of the war on terror had "the effect of giving aid and comfort to our enemies," language taken directly from the Constitution's definition of treason), and was the subject of a press release by since-disgraced Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL) titled "Foley Questions Daschle's Patriotism." But that would take far more space than we have at hand. One thing that all these cases have in common is that no one in the media even considered referring to these conservative attacks as "anti-military," while media figures routinely characterize progressives as "anti-military" if they take issue with policies like the Iraq war, not to mention the converse, that Iraq war supporters are by definition "pro-military" folks who "support the troops" (see here, here, here, here, or here).

So let's consider Limbaugh's comment about Hackett. As far as Limbaugh is concerned, a progressive can't possibly join the military out of a commitment to national service or simple patriotism; if a progressive joined the military, his or her motives must have been dishonorable, in this case to "pad the résumé." By the same token, if a soldier opposes the war, he must not be a real soldier. After making the "phony soldiers" statement, Limbaugh and his caller went on to discuss how real soldiers want to be in Iraq. "They joined to be in Iraq!" said Rush.

Yet you would have had trouble finding too many Republicans in Washington willing to step forward and condemn Limbaugh, or do what Democrats are asked to do whenever a progressive anywhere says something controversial, and "distance themselves" from his remarks. Why? Because Rush Limbaugh is one of the most important components of the conservative spin machine. After all, when Republicans scored their dramatic electoral victory in 1994, they named him an honorary member of the 104th Congress. He'll have to go a lot further than insulting soldiers to get them to turn on him.

At one level, one can have some sympathy for O'Reilly and Limbaugh. Every day, they spend a lot of time on the air -- three hours in Limbaugh's case, and three more for O'Reilly (one hour on television and two on radio), talking extemporaneously about the issues of the day. As seasoned performers, they both know that passion and anger, whether genuine or feigned, are necessary elements of their oeuvre. Given all that, it would hardly be remarkable if every now and again they said something they regretted.

But to hear them tell it, they never regret anything they say. No word that escapes their mouths is anything other than exactly what they meant. If people are offended, they just don't understand, or they've been manipulated by the enemies of the right.

When people do get offended, or fed up at the seemingly unending stream of falsehood and misrepresentation, the right-wing media do what they always do: attack the messenger. So lately, Media Matters has been the subject of some awfully nasty comments from Limbaugh, O'Reilly, and their allies; a recent favorite is Bill O'Reilly calling Media Matters President David Brock "the biggest villain, in my opinion, in the country" (eat your heart out, terrorists!). And don't even ask about the emails we get -- let's just say Rush and Bill's fans are extremely angry and prone to vulgarity, and need to work on their spelling.

This strategy isn't hard to interpret. If you can get people talking about a sinister left-wing conspiracy, then suddenly they aren't talking about you and your statements anymore. And for the likes of Limbaugh, it's always somebody else's fault.
"

"Does anyone have any trouble with the US Senate taking action against a private citizen?"

"strongly condemn personal attacks on the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all members of the United States Armed Forces"

Read whast you posted again Crawdad. Go back to bottom feeding. Hypocrite gop

The senate did not condemn Moveon.org nor did they mention the organization by name. The resolution reads...

"To express the sense of the Senate that General David H. Petraeus, Commanding General, Multi-National Force-Iraq, deserves the full support of the Senate and strongly condemn personal attacks on the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all members of the United States Armed Forces."

S.Amdt.2934 & s.Amdt 2011.

Everyone that supports Rush L. right to free speech needs to visit and sign

http://www.standwithrush.com/

Does anyone have any trouble with the US Senate taking action against a private citizen?

'Petraeus/Betray us' is parody..
"Phony soldiers" is slander.

Chris,

I respectfully ask if you have read more information surrounding Rush's explanation of what occurred on his talk show. From what I have read it seems at least plausible, if not outright obvious, that he was referring to a separate issue. To me there is a clear difference between the Moveon.org issue and the Rush Limbaugh episode. Moveon.org maligned our top military officer with deliberation and forethought. The charges that liberals are leveling against Rush do not hold water, after I read more thorough accounts of what he actually said on his radio show.

Rush Limbaugh is one of the most destructive forces in our Democracy. He casts doubts on even the most well intentioned. When he is finally off the air we will be freed of the Tokyo Rose kind of propoganda that he has been spuing for these many years. He doesn't have the courage or humility to admit when he mis-speaks. If I never here is cynical voice again it won't be soon enough.

General Petraeus is an ally of Bush II which is why Bush II selected him after firing all the generals who did not agree with him and interviewing many other generals who did not accept Bush II's military plan. Petraeus ignored many facts to come up with his flawed strategy so is fair game for political attacks. Remember how Bush II kept saying since May, Wait for General Petraeus in September to make an assessment, knowing that Petraeus would be the echo chamber of Bush II, the phony general.
Rush Limbaugh is so desperate to have his view of the Iraq war prevail that he is attacking anyone who does not accept his views. Iraq soldiers are attacked as being phony soldiers and Republicans are attacked as phony Republicans if they advocate an end to US fighting in Iraq. Limbaugh is a friend of Cheney/Bush II so is their mouthpiece to the world and shows how desperate all of them are to keep this war going amidst all the US population demands that the war end. Do not forget we have not secured the Iraqi oil yet which is what this war is all about.

The problem is that most of you bloggers don't get your facts right before you open your mouth and put it on the blog. The we
see how stupid and biased you realy are!!!

Read the transcript on what Rush said and you will see he was taken out of context and was referring to someone who claimed to be a soldier and was not.

Chris wrote this story like the typical media journalist and obviously didn't do
his research or he perhaps would not have said what he said. But like a lot of journalists today he wouldn't have had a story if he told the truth!!
Thanks to Tarheel he got it right!!
I had to laugh at David's commments - Rush is repulsive but MoveOn.org is not!! Probably most of you don't know that George Soros is the money behind MoveOn!
And you probably don't know he was kicked out of England for causing problems in their financial markets and in their politics. Mr. Soros is now trying to push
his political agenda in the U.S. The little people who follow this group are just pawns in Mr. Soro's game!!
Rufus - You act like you know a lot but
you really don't!! You don't have your facts right. How far in school did you go anyway?? You sound like an idiot most of the time!
Jan - you are a ditto head for the libs!!
You don't have your facts right either!!
Jim D in FL thanks for your comments. At least there are a few rational, logical and knowledgable people on the blogs!!

I like 15 year old pimple face cowards, fresh meat

fascists fascists everywhere

"http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/

""And I Used To Walk On The Moon"

by digby

I don't know if you've heard the latest on Rush's scramble to dig himself out from under his nasty comments about phony soldiers and suicide bombers, but it's pathetic. (Via Media Matters, of course.)

LIMBAUGH: All right, anybody care what I actually said about this? Would you like to hear what I actually said? This was Tuesday on the program, and I was talking about the ad that they are running.

[begin audio clip]

LIMBAUGH: You know, this is such a blatant use of a valiant combat veteran, lying to him about what I said, then strapping those lies to his belt, sending him out via the media in a TV ad to walk into as many people as he can walk into. This man will always be a hero to this country with everyone. Whoever pumped him full of these lies about what I said and embarrassed him with this ad has betrayed him. They're not hurting me, they're betraying this soldier. Now, unless he actually believes what he's saying, in which case it's just so unfortunate and sad when the truth of what I said is right out there to be learned.

[end audio clip]

LIMBAUGH: I called him a hero. I called him a hero. The other reference is to where the drive-by media runs in, blows things up, creates all these messes, and then heads on down the road to create another one. I called him a suicide bomber -- you see how this works. I didn't call anybody who legitimately serves a "phony soldier." I didn't call this guy a suicide bomber. That's out there -- I called him a suicide bomber. [laughter] Here's McGough. He was on MSNBC last night talking about the fact that I called him a suicide bomber.

McGOUGH [audio clip]: My reaction is disgust, how someone can sit in that chair and say that I am a car bomber, or excuse me, a suicide bomber, is disgusting. I've seen the aftereffects of a suicide bomb. I've had friends that were hurt in suicide bombs. It makes me mad down to a place where I can't even think to describe. It's just repugnant.

I suppose Limbaugh's mouth breathing fans will buy that. They'll buy anything, obviously, since they listen to Rush and vote for George W. Bush. But it's quite clear that he was using the metaphor of a suicide bomber to describe this soldier. Even George W. Bush could see that.

But I think the smear is even more insidious than that. He was describing someone who didn't know his own mind, couldn't think for himself, had these "lies" strapped on him and was "sent out" to "walk into as many people as he can walk into." The image is of a brain damaged person --- or a child --- who was sent out with explosives strapped to him, not knowing what they were asking him to do. Why, even if the poor deluded fellow actually "believes" what he's saying, it's sad and unfortunate.

You've seen the ad by now I'm sure. (If not, watch it here at C&L.) Brian McGough was wounded in Iraq and suffered a traumatic brain injury. It did not affect his ability to think or speak, as is obvious from the video and his subsequent appearance on Keith Olbermann. But the subtext of Rush's suicide bomber statement is that he is some sort of automaton whose brain isn't functioning properly or he would never have made that video. It's extremely insulting.

We know Rush thinks this way. He's done it before. You'll all recall that he disgustingly went after Michael J. Fox last November, saying that Fox was "acting" or that he was too addled to know what he was doing and was "being used." He knows exactly what he's saying and what his audience hears when he says it.

As I wrote about the Fox insult:

[Rush said:]

This is a script that they have written for years. Senate Democrats used to parade victims of various diseases or social concerns or poverty up before congressional committees and let them testify, and they were infallible. You couldn't criticize them. Same thing with the Jersey Girls after the 9-11 -- and in the period of time when the 9-11 Commission was meeting publicly. Victims -- infallible, whatever they say cannot be challenged. I don't follow the script anymore.

That's absurd, of course. The right holds up all kinds of people as being unassailable, particularly (Republican) [soldiers and]veterans and religious figures. But that's not even the point. Nobody says you can't criticize a "victim's" point of view or disagree with their take on the issue. Rush could have made a straightforward argument that stem cell research is wrong. But the right wing almost never does this on any issue anymore. Virtually every time, they attack the person's character.

They do this for a number of reasons. The first is to give their followers some reason to reject a compelling argument like that set forth by Fox. They send this idea into the ether that Fox is faking it and create a controversy that suddenly makes what seems to be self-evident --- Michael J. Fox is suffering horribly from a dread disease that might be cured with stem cell research --- into a matter of interpretation. It furthers their meme that Democrats are phonies and flip-floppers who don't stand for anything. It helps their base come to terms with their own internal contradictions. They have turned spin into a worldview.

But they also want to advance the idea that the message always depends upon who is delivering it and you can accept or reject it purely on the basis of tribal identification. ("Don't think, meat.") And to do that they've introduced a form of congitive relativism in which there is no such thing as reality. The press's lazy "he said/she said" form of journalism reinforces it.

He went after soldiers this time and it's caused him some grief because it came on the heels of their magnificent Man Called Petraeus pageant, where they trotted out a powerful, political general as being "infallible, whatever they say cannot be challenged." Rush was obviously criticizing veterans who don't agree with him.

Indeed, just prior to the phony soldier comment was this:

LIMBAUGH: Mike in Chicago, welcome to the EIB Network. Hello.

CALLER 1: Hi Rush, how you doing today?

LIMBAUGH: I'm fine sir, thank you.

CALLER 1: Good. Why is it that you always just accuse the Democrats of being against the war and suggest that there are absolutely no Republicans that could possibly be against the war?

LIMBAUGH: Well, who are these Republicans? I can think of Chuck Hagel, and I can think of Gordon Smith, two Republican senators, but they don't want to lose the war like the Democrats do. I can't think of -- who are the Republicans in the anti-war movement?

CALLER 1: I'm just -- I'm not talking about the senators. I'm talking about the general public -- like you accuse the public of all the Democrats of being, you know, wanting to lose, but --

LIMBAUGH: Oh, come on! Here we go again. I uttered a truth, and you can't handle it, so you gotta call here and change the subject. How come I'm not also hitting Republicans? I don't know a single Republican or conservative, Mike, who wants to pull out of Iraq in defeat. The Democrats have made the last four years about that specifically.

[...]

LIMBAUGH: Mike, you can't possibly be a Republican.

CALLER 1: I am.

LIMBAUGH: You are -- you are --

CALLER 1: I am definitely a Republican.

LIMBAUGH: You can't be a Republican. You are --

CALLER 1: Oh, I am definitely a Republican.

LIMBAUGH: You are tarnishing the reputation, 'cause you sound just like a Democrat.

CALLER 1: No, but --

LIMBAUGH: The answer to your question --

CALLER 1: -- seriously, how long do we have to stay there --

LIMBAUGH: As long as it takes!

CALLER 1: -- to win it? How long?

LIMBAUGH: As long as it takes! It is very serious.

CALLER 1: And that is what?

LIMBAUGH: This is the United States of America at war with Islamofascists. We stay as long -- just like your job. You do everything you have to do, whatever it takes to get it done, if you take it seriously.

CALLER 1: So then you say we need to stay there forever --

LIMBAUGH: I -- it won't --

CALLER 1: -- because that's what it'll take.

LIMBAUGH: No, Bill, or Mike -- I'm sorry. I'm confusing you with the guy from Texas.

CALLER 1: See, I -- I've used to be military, OK? And I am a Republican.

LIMBAUGH: Yeah. Yeah.

CALLER 1: And I do live [inaudible] but --

LIMBAUGH: Right. Right. Right, I know.

CALLER 1: -- you know, really -- I want you to be saying how long it's gonna take.

LIMBAUGH: And I, by the way, used to walk on the moon!

CALLER 1: How long do we have to stay there?

LIMBAUGH: You're not listening to what I say. You can't possibly be a Republican. I'm answering every question. That's not what you want to hear, so it's not even penetrating your little wall of armor you've got built up.

Rush believes that anyone who disagrees with him must be a Democrat in sheep's clothing and that Democrats all want to "wave the white flag." And he doesn't believe that anyone who holds the views that this caller holds could possibly have been in the military. ("And I, by the way, used to walk on the moon.")

When confronted with undisputed veterans who disagree with him he implies they have been brainwashed or brain damaged and are being used by others. He simply refuses to acknowledge that the military is not an adjunct of the Republican Party and that there are many people in it who disagree with what he's saying. (He can't even admit that there are civilian Republicans who disagree with what he's saying.)

The Republicans have so fetishized the troops that it causes severe cognitive dissonance (and a potential fracture with their base) for Rush to come right out and say what he wants to say, which is that veterans and soldiers who disagree with the president on the war are traitors. But it slips out in little ways: "staff puke" and "phony soldier" and his insistence that you can't be a good "Republican" (soldier) and be critical of the war. This time he got caught in the middle of a political firestorm about criticizing the military and so had to defend his comments. But it's not unusual. It's what he thinks. It's what a lot of Republicans think.

It's all wrapped in the warped worldview I described above, in which the Democratic party is not just wrong, it's fundamentally illegitimate. And anyone who disagrees is a traitor, including, apparently, the vast majority of Americans who do not support this war.

And that is why I truly resent my tax dollars being spent to help this man spread extremist, ultra partisan lies about Democrats and liberals all day, every day, to American troops overseas on Armed Forces Radio. He can do it all he wants in the free market here in the states. And if Clear Channel wants to start a radio network in Iraq and feature him 24 hours a day, they can have at it. But this man's only purpose is to spread lies about me and lies about soldiers like Brian McGough and spew rank partisan propaganda on behalf of the Republican Party on my dime.

I'm with Wes Clark on this. Rush can say what he wants on the air, and if he thinks I'm a traitor he has the right. He can operate as an arm of the Republican party, take his orders from the white house and spread GOP propaganda far and wide. We have free speech in America. But there's nothing in the constitution that says I have to pay for it to be piped to troops on the battlefield.
"

"Chris Matthews: White House Pressured MSNBC To Tame Hardball
By: Logan Murphy @ 2:15 PM - PDT NOW he tells us...

AttyTood:

Don't you just love these truth tellers in American journalism like Katie Couric and Chris Matthews who are suddenly here to complain that the Bush administration has manipulated Big Media like them, and they're not going to take it anymore? At least not now that George W. Bush and Congress have a record-low approval rating, and after 3,809 U.S. troops have died in Iraq.

Here is MSNBC "Hardball" host Matthews:

In front of an audience that included such notables as Alan Greenspan, Rep. Patrick Kennedy and Sen. Ted Kennedy, Matthews began his remarks by declaring that he wanted to "make some news" and he certainly didn't disappoint. After praising the drafters of the First Amendment for allowing him to make a living, he outlined what he said was the fundamental difference between the Bush and Clinton administrations.

The Clinton camp, he said, never put pressure on his bosses to silence him.

"Not so this crowd," he added, explaining that Bush White House officials -- especially those from Vice President Cheney's office -- called MSNBC brass to complain about the content of his show and attempted to influence its editorial content. "They will not silence me!" Matthews declared.

As Nicole wrote recently, Matthews' behavior is puzzling at times to say the least -- but even with his staunch opposition to the occupation of Iraq, it's really egregious that he hasn't talked openly about this up to this point. PERRSpectives looks at some of the glowing things that Tweety has said about these "thugs and criminals".

"

Censure zouk, if you must

Your a coward zouk. I got kim washing my dishes and at my beck and call. She says you are a 15 year old pimple face coward. i agree

I farted and the phone in my butt rang, guess which happened first

"GI to her family: Ask many questions if I die
By: Nicole Belle @ 10:39 AM - PDT Sadly, after Pat Tillman, this doesn't seem so hard to believe anymore...and if her death was the result of a Blackwater employee, the administration and Department of Defense will likely do everything in their power (and given the news yesterday, a few things technically not in their power) to force this story down the memory hole.

Patriot Ledger (h/t Heather):

Ciara Durkin was home on leave last month and expressed a concern to her family in Quincy: If something happens to me in Afghanistan, don't let it go without an investigation.

Durkin, 30, a specialist with a Massachusetts National Guard finance battalion, was found dead last week near a church at the Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan. She had been shot once in the head, the Army says.

Fiona Canavan, Durkin's older sister, said today that when her sister was home three weeks ago, she told family members that she had come across some things that concerned her and had raised objections to others at the base.

''She was in the finance unit and she said, 'I discovered some things I don't like and I made some enemies because of it.' Then she said, in her light-hearted way, 'If anything happens to me, you guys make sure it gets investigated,"' Canavan said. ''But at the time we thought it was said more as a joke."[..]

Canavan said that her sister was openly gay, but that the family had no specific reasons to think that had anything to do with her death.

Filed Under: Military, War Coverage

"

WWW.CROOKSANDLIARS.COM

wORSE STILL WILL. tHINK ABOU TTHE THOUSANDS OF DEAD SOLDIERS, LIKE pAT tiLLMAN OF SAN JOSE CA. their dead now. Who will speak for them? Are they phoneies?

Yvonne. Your party is a party of fascists hypocrites .You get what you deserve.

Rush, coulter, hannity ,o'reilly. FASCISTS. They are you standard bearers? I feel sorry for the children of gop parents and grandparents.

"Move On (who has millions in membership)."

I was in uniform from 1967 to 1971 and took every opportunity I could to denounce that war, while serving my country at the same time. I wasn't drafted; I enlisted voluntarily. I suppose Limbaugh would have called me a phony soldier. And for my part back then, I didn't have much nice to say about the likes of Westmoreland, similar to some perspectives on Petraeus today.
These days I look at people like Limbaugh, Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, and others who have always been willing to put someone else's life on the line for our liberties, and wonder, How did we ever let this bunch of losers take control of our country?

What bothers me most is... unless it is slander, we are supposed to have freedom of speech or opinion. In the case of slander, it is taken to a civil court through a law suit. However...why is Congress making it an issue when someone disagrees? And why did some of the very people in Congress that Move On helped put in office and have worked with Move On participate in attacking them for their opinion? Pressured or deals made? As far as Rush, he is always looking for outrageous publicity it seems, I don't believe he is really as stupid as he sounds, he is the style of talk show host that was popular a time back, in fact that is how his show started, where being obnoxious and yelling at people in his studio was what it was all about. He still should have, as we all should, freedom of speech. Getting a slap on the hand from Congress just for the purpose of a "back at ya" would be acting just like the Republicans did with their Congressional "discusion" putting down the free speech of Move On (who has millions in membership).

Come on JD, I have read the complete transcript. Rush's "clarification" is an attempt to re-write the record.

Rush with his "phony" soldiers, O'Rielly with his racist remarks....they can deny what they said all they want. I've heard the tapes, read the transcripts (all in context). There's no defense. MoveOn stood by their ad. It was a sad day when the President used a military man as a political football, like Lucy pulling the ball away from Charlie Brown, to take the heat off himself. I agree that Congress should spend their time more wisely and stay above this fray. And Perino was out of line by planting a Fox reporter in the back of the press room to ask Bush the final question during his press conference (allowing no follow-ups) about the MoveOn ad allowing him to give his opinion of it.

"Why they can."

Wait, they can. That is.

The gop is done. This is a microcasim of why

Well said larryb. Thank you.

And the spin machine needs to be labeled for what it is.

As far as medidamatters goes. They smear no one. The reason they post the right-wings garbage on their site is FOR THIS SPECIFIC REASON. So rush and 'oreilly and savage can't say "I've never said that"..
Why they can. And the dittohead fascists will STILL believe them. What country are we living in?

Congress shouldn't just be questioning Prince about Iraq; it should be prohibiting any activity of mercenaries on our soil, and investigating the crimes committing in tyhe course of this administration's determination to gut the Second Amendment and to give the executive his own bloody army of proven torturers, ready to train on citizens here as well as at home.

Remember: Italy was a parliamentary democracy -- with newspapers, cinema, a wide span of political parties, dissent and a vital modern culture -- when the Blackshirts began to beat selected individuals in newspaper offices, in the countryside, around voting booths. Italy was still a democracy when the Blackshirts murdered a major opposition figure, shocking a society that was still technically free into silence. Same tactic was used by the National Socialists -- who studied Mussolini -- before they came formally to power. In what was still a working democracy a targeted paramilitary responded to Hitler's directives - intimidating protesters, beating up critics, essentially taking ownership of the streets -- even while Germany still had a working Parliament and Constitution. Remeber when TSA officials were making passengers at the airport drink their baby's milk -- including human breast milk? Both the Blackshirts and the Brownshirts forced citizens to drink liquids such as emetics as anintimidation tactic.

Reports are coming in from around the US that passengers in line at airports are being told by TSA agents to `FREEZE!!' in line -- for up to half an hour. A Mills College professor was taken into a holding cell (most of us don't know that US airports now have what are essentially interrogation cells -- Maher Arar was kept in one for two days and prevented by US agents from calling his lawyer -- then rendered to Syria for torture). She was told that if she moved she would be considered to be assaulting her interrogator. For the record, National Socialists forced their prisoners to freeze in place -- sometimes until they dropped.

I note that Congress is outraged that there were plans to stage a fake scenario of a dirty bomb detonation in three US cities next week -- plans that were not fully revealed to Congress. The second stage of a fascist shift on the blueprint I identified in The End of America calls for disorienting public spectacles, sudden scenes of shocking violence against civilians (see the tasering of a student in Gainesville, Florida, and the death of a woman who looks like you or me in a holding cell in the Phoenix airport) and the declaration that a situation is unstable so call for a paramilitary force in order to keep the people safe.

Congress doesn't get who Blackwater contractors are. Prince likes to wrap his people in the flag and say they are facing `bad guys.' Prince actually systematically recruits the baddest of the `bad guys': Jeremy Scahill reports that Blackwater intentionally recruits former military and paramilitary personnel from regimes that specialize in neofascist repression of their own populations and who train their paramilitary and military in the torture and subjugation of their own critics, journalists, political leaders and other civil society figures: Ecuadorans, Nigerians, Chileans, Syrians. That is who we can find ourselves facing in the streets of New York -- or Kansas City -- tomorrow unless Congress rolls back the horrific laws that gave the President and Prince these dark-side powers.

What still evades the framing of this debate, though, is that the violent lawlessness perpetrated against civilians in Iraq by this newly created thug caste is a taste of what is in store for us at home -- unless Congress confronts the President's and Prince's plans to bring Blackwater increasingly to a neighborhood near you. It is remarkable that the hearings focus on what Blackwater is doing in Iraq -- but not on what Blackwater plans to and is legally able to do here in the US when the President determines there is a `public emergency' that requires the restoration of `public order' -- a power that he arrogated more completely with the 2007 Defense Authorization Act. The second phase of the blueprint of what I have called in The End of America a `fascist shift' is what we are beginning to see now: increasing physical intimidation of civilians and increasing staging or provocation of situations in the a federalized national guard or a Blackwater paramilitary force is sent in at the behest of a leader -- over the heads of the people's representatives -- to `restore public order.'

Congress is finally asking questions of Erik Prince, the head of Blackwater, the private mercenary organization that massacred seventeen civilians in Iraq recently. As I mentioned before, Blackwater operates in Iraq entirely outside the rule of law and has close ties to the White House. The New York Times today reported just how close -- Prince's sister-in-law is a major Bush fundraiser and ally.

I did my six in the USCG. That doesn't make me any kind of Audie Murphy, but I know a little bit about long, lonely hours in government service far from home. What I don't understand is all of this reverence for a f**king general officer. Doesn't anyone read Catch-22 or The Pentagon Papers anymore? Generals aren't gods. Frequently, they aren't even very admirable. We hope they are at least competent warriors, but that's not a given either. What they most definitely are, is politicians. You cannot play the military game at their level any other way. Petreus was setup by Bush as his latest white knight to Save the Union in Iraq. Petraeus could have used his platform to force the Washington Pols to deal with the situation in Iraq but chose to support a failed status quo instead. Bravo to Move-on for calling him on it. BTW, I highly recommend Andrew Bacevitch's excellent article "Sychophant Savior" (http://www.amconmag.com/2007/2007_09_24/article2.html) in the American Conservative for a write-up on what a "good" political general could have done in Petraeus' place.

Oh please, JD -- Rush has 'clairifed' -- you mean, backtracked and lied. Try being less gullible. He has since gone on to call a group of Iraq veterans who complained about his first comnet 'sucicide bombers.'

He is an indefensible scumbag.

'I'm used to being yelled at by emotional basket cases, after all I'm married.' -- I pity your wife

' no small thing after the Oklahoma City bombing when the president of the United States tried to blame me for it through his spokesman. '

rush is not only evil, but severaly demented

Everyone forgets that the MoveOn.org ad was in direct response a day or two before his testimony that the White House, read Bush, would write the report and that there would be NO TRANSCRIPT. They obviously don't have the brains to figure out that the whole thing would be recorded by c-span, which is just as good as a transcript. And in spite of the GENERAL'S opening statement that he had prepared the report himself, he and the Bush administration have told so many lies you have to be brain dead to believe anything they have to say.
Just yesterday, in her White House Briefing, Dana Perino stated AGAIN that IRAQ attacked us on 9/11/01, just before she said "This country does not torture."
Rush is just a blowhard idiot in the same vein as Ann Coulter. In any case, the democrats shouldn't have caved to the idiots and they should all get on with the business of stopping the war.

your party is done JD. We both know this. Hypocrites. Fire Battiste from cbs for speaking his mind? Why? The gop was offened? I'm offended by rush and fox. Practice what you preach you hypocrite. Your party is done. The time for you fascists to reap what you have sow is almost at hand.

"My problem is that former Gen.Battiste spoke out "truthfully" about what was "really" happening on the ground in Iraq and he gets lambasted by the right-wingers as a traitor.Why??"

aND HE WAS FIRED FROM cbs, for speaking the truth. I have boycotted cbs since. Fire a general who retired to speak his mind? Free Speech? Only if you are gop

jan, you didn't read my comments. It's OK, I'm used to being yelled at by emotional basket cases, after all I'm married.

What I said, is, that Rush has since clarified his remarks that he was only referring to Jesse and the other FAKE SOLDIERS who've been trumpeted by the left. He's said this many times on his show.

Moveon.org has done nothing to 'back off' of their ridiculous ad.

Get it now?

I accept your apology in advance.

My problem is that former Gen.Battiste spoke out "truthfully" about what was "really" happening on the ground in Iraq and he gets lambasted by the right-wingers as a traitor.Why??
It was toyed around in the media for weeks that the White House had actually written the Petraeus report,yet he stated that he wrote it without showing anyone before presenting it to the hearing.That alone I find impossible to believe.
And why did George "sneak" into Iraq a week before the report was due??????????
Every General before him that seemed to disagree with the White House was either fired or told to retire. So shy is it that Petraeus is still around, because he says what the neo-clowns want him to say???? Heck,even the head of Central Command had bad words to say about Petraeus.(Chicken sh#t,a$s kisser). It's just the same old story for the last 7 years, all lies. So why should this be any different?

As for Limbaugh, I wouldn't even think of listening to him,so I don't. He's nothing but a coward hiding behind his microphone spewing nonsense. He should be in jail for that drug business he was involved with,but he has friends in "high" places,so he's not. If some black youth had been caught with what he had,Oxycontin,and how he got them,doctor shopping,he would have been put away for a long time,a long time ago.
Why wasn't he put in jail for that????????

Check out the cover of "The American Conservative" magazine: General Petraeus beneath the headline "Sycophant Savior." The story inside says Petraeus should have asked for more troops to continue and escalate the surge if it is working. By not doing so, "he has broken faith with the soldiers he commands and the Army to which he has devoted his life. He has failed his country." Betrayed us, indeed. Where's the outrage?

rush"Now, having said that, Chris, being concerned that whatever the Drive-Bys put out there sticks and that there's nothing anybody can do to change it, look, I'll use myself as a personal example on this. I'm in my 20th year of doing this, and over the course of these 20 years, I've lost count of the number of episodes like this one. There have been many. This one may take the cake, but, hey, it was no small thing after the Oklahoma City bombing when the president of the United States tried to blame me for it through his spokesman. That's no small thing, folks"

Ya know, if everyone would ignore Rush and Moveon.org then could all move on and forget these lousy pieces of garbage dragging down our society at large. I'm a Conservative Republican, but I have no use for Rush or Moveon.org I think they both represent everything that is wrong with politics today. Nothing but people bashing. Not policy bashing, but people bashing. We need to move politics back to policy discussion vs. people bashing and personal campaigns against a particular person. Rush and moveon do nothing but people bash for their own gain. What a distasteful organization and what a pathetic human being.

"Yeah Rush should what he does. "

shouldn't do what he does. Murders shouldn't muder people. Who do you stop them? Pray they stop killing people? No. you do something about it. You hold them accountable for their actions. This si a foreign concept to the gop

Great preaching. But Rush has been on the air for 20 years and has not changed. We can pray for world peace all day. We can pray we will be able to fly with no planes also. Praying only get's us so far. What are we going TO DO?

Yeah Rush should what he does. Will he? He makes millions doing what he does. Do somethign abou tit, or don't. Mediamatters is doing somethin, but not smearing. They merely repeat these people's words back to them.

LAst post. This is a waste of time. I have been trying to help bring our people together. After today I see this is impossible. The gop will never give up their avatars willingly. they will never right their own ship as the previous congress showed us. The left must do ti for them, as moveon and mediamatters are trying to do. But they are the bad guy"s, huh? Who else is going to stop these fascists and lying propogandsits? Are they goign to walk off the air themselves. Are they going to stop the tactics they have been ussing their entire carrer? This nation has no hope. I'm fleeing to canada or western europe. Good luck america. Your going to need it.

A senior U.S. military official tells the Washington Post that the Sept. 16 firing incident at Nissor Square involving Blackwater USA was unprovoked and that the 11 civilian victims were unarmed:

"It was obviously excessive, it was obviously wrong," said the U.S. military official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the incident remains the subject of several investigations. "The civilians that were fired upon, they didn't have any weapons to fire back at them. And none of the IP (Iraqi Police) or any of the local security forces fired back at them."

Military reports also "appear to corroborate the Iraqi government's contention that Blackwater was at fault."

Separately, an Iraqi investigation "recommends that the security guards face trial in Iraqi courts and that the company compensate the victims." A panel led by the Iraqi Defense Minister said that "Blackwater guards sprayed western Baghdad's Nisoor Square with gunfire Sept. 16 without provocation.

Rush Limbaugh and moveon.org are opposite ends of the same problem. Both attempt to control the political subjects discussed by making radical stmts, false comparisons and outragious accusations. They both are seeking a greater audience by inflaming public opinion. Both do this for their own aggrandizement and enrichment, not for the benefit of a country that is desperate for serious discussion of very serious problems (war in Iraq, mounting deficits, health insurance costs, growing environmental concerns, etc). The solution is not congressional condemnations or support, it is too become aware of the tactics and arguments employed by these people to incite strong emotional reactions so they can control the political discussion. The false arguments they use need to be understood by the general public, e.g. straw man comparisons, circluar arguments, false analogies etc. These people need to be called on their use of these fake arguments and there selfish motives for employing them to immunize people to their effects. We need to insist on genuine arguments where people can disagree without being labeled, traitors, communists, dupes, liars or nazis. We don't need inflamatory entertainment masquarading as political discourse. These people and the issues they attempt to incite should be ignored. Ignominy is the fate they both richly deserve and what they fear the most.

ummary: On October 4, Rush Limbaugh asserted that he "didn't call" wounded Iraq veteran Brian McGough "a suicide bomber" on his October 2 show and said he was "grateful" for McGough's service. Limbaugh said on October 2: "[T]his is such a blatant use of a valiant combat veteran, lying to him about what I said, then strapping those lies to his belt, sending him out via the media in a TV ad to walk into as many people as he can walk into."

On the October 4 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh asserted that he "didn't call" wounded Iraq veteran Brian McGough "a suicide bomber" on his October 2 show and said he was "grateful" for McGough's service. McGough appeared in an ad released by VoteVets denouncing Limbaugh's September 26 characterization of service members who support troop withdrawal from Iraq as "phony soldiers.

With Limbaugh and MoveOn, we are dealing with elements on the left or right fringe. What they say or do has little impact on the election. Those who love to hate Limbaugh will denounce him, just as those who love to hate MoveOn will denounce that group.

The large block of independent voters, the ones who actually have to be convinced to vote one way or another in the election, could care less what Limbaugh and MoveOn say.

The difference is that the MoveOn ad, while harsh and ugly in execution, was based in fact -- the General's statements to Congress were misleading. The ad was designed to stir debate and discussion. Limbaugh's statements were slanderous and rediculously untrue -- more than anyone, men and women serving in Iraq have earned the right to weigh in with their thoughts on the war. Limbaugh's comments were designed to stifle debate and choke off discussion. HUGE difference there.

"Do not speak to fools. They scorn the wisdom of your words"

Ruben

Have you read the transcript - anyone who has could not possibly make the statement you did. As JimD said:

"I have read the complete transcript of Rush's conversation, I do not see how anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of the English language can plausibly maintain that Rush was talking about Jesse McBeth. The real phony soldier does not enter the discussion until well after the phony soldier comments."

"Innuendo and, increasingly, explicit claims of anti-semitism have become political weapons of the war-hungry Right in all sorts of foreign policy debates, most frequently now with regard to Iran. That is the real goal of constantly labelling liberal blogs and anti-war groups as Nazis, Hitler, Brownshirts, Gestapo troops, etc. Groups such as the ADL which claim to be devoted to opposing such tactics seem extremely reluctant -- to put it generously -- to condemn these tactics when used by those expressing unrelated political views that they seem to embrace (such as a hard-line against Iran). If they really believe in their ostensible principles, they ought to apply them equally.

-- Glenn Greenwald

"