| NYT | 0 | |
| Miami Herald | 0 | |
| Don Surber | 0 | |
| AP | 0 | |
| WaPo | Obama Urges Groups to Stop Attacks [on Dems who oppose ObamaCare] |
0 |
Audacity of Truth
"Change" You Can Believe In:
"Nixon didn’t try to do that. They couldn't control (the media). They didn’t try. [...] What the hell do they think we are, puppets?"
- Liberal opinion writer Helen Thomas, describing the Obama admin's penchant for heavily scripting public appearances & press conferences - 7/1/09
Clear Channel CEO responds to Harry Reid
Yesterday, Senator Harry Reid called for his fellow Senators to sign a letter addressed to the CEO of Clear Channel demanding a condemnation of remarks Rush Limbaugh did not make on his talk radio show, which Clear Channel broadcasts. Clear Channel CEO Mark Mays’ response:
“While I certainly do not agree with all views that are voiced on our stations, I will not condemn our talent for exercising their right to voice them,” Mays wrote.
He took a respectful tone, saying he regretted that Reid and others might have been offended by Limbaugh. But ultimately, Mays wrote, he didn’t believe Limbaugh’s statements were “intended to personally indict combat soldiers simply because they didn’t share his own beliefs regarding the war in Iraq.”
The full letter can be read here.
Here are the Senate Democrats who signed off on the letter condeming Rush. Included were Hillary Clinton and Senator Barack Obama, who couldn’t manage to find time to vote for or against the Defense Department appropriations yesterday.
The latest on the Rush controversy:
—- General Wesley Clark, and other far left Democrats, wants Rush taken off of Armed Forces Radio. I don’t see that happening, and envision at a military mutiny of sorts if anybody attempted it.
—- Anti-war veterans from lefty “VoteVets.org” (who are discussed here) are stepping up their attacks on Rush with a new attack ad implying that Rush would never make such a comment to the faces of anti-war veterans. Gateway Pundit details one of the anti-war vets involved in VoteVets.org who made some false claims of his own regarding an injury he claimed to have gotten on the battlefield – but didn’t.
—- Also at Gateway Pundit is a post about Senator John Kerry’s condemnation of Rush’s remarks, and speculation on why the term “phony soldier” hits a nerve with Kerry.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Trackbacks
51 Responses to “Clear Channel CEO responds to Harry Reid”
Comments
Blogads
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this blog do not necessarily reflect those of ST's advertisers, nor do their opinions necessarily reflect ST's. Stats
Oh, and I’m still waiting on that link of Rush comparing democratic soldiers to Osama Bin Laden.
The reason this stings so much for Democrats is that they are infested with “phony” soldiers, even the ones who actually were soldiers. It’s not enough for them to say “hey, I was in the service,” nooo, their impulsive dishonesty makes them lie and exaggerate their service with “phony” stories. From Max Cleland, who we all were supposed to bow down and not question because he lost his limbs in Vietnam! Well, ol’Max was drunk and blew his own arm and legs off with a grenade, most people who did that would have the common sense to keep quiet about it. Or Tom Harkin, Mr. “I was a Vietnam combat pilot” who lied about his service and was a ferry pilot instead. Or John “I wuz in Cambodia under Nixon and I have the Hat to prove it” Kerry. Or Scott Beuchamp of recent TNR infamy.
The liberals and Democrats bring this on themselves by their desperate attempts to cloak their actions with an air of respectability, by their attempts to wrap themselves in a flag that they were just pissing on, thru lies and exaggerations of their military service. They don’t like getting caught doing it, that’s the issue here, not Rush.
My point is that the media WASN’t TAlKING to him. He wasn’t paraded in front of the media as a war-hero, he was displayed as a criminal. Jesse MacBeth is a bad example of trying to prove that the media is only taking the side of anti-war soldiers.
So, I’ve posted something about Rush attacking democrats as terrorists, but this recent hoopla has buried the exact transcripts I was looking for. I can find people referring to the conversations, but I can’t find the actual conversations themselves. ( I know there was a poster of Max Cleland/Sadam/Osama on his website at one point in time, but it’s missing now. It may have been from max clelands competition in his final senate run though).
So, it’s a bit light on democratic servicemen, but they’re are plenty of examples of limbaugh calling democrats either terrorists, or allied with terrorists…
“Daschle’s allies in this situation include the barbarians who run North Korea, the Islamic extremists who run Iran and the mass murderer Saddam Hussein who controls Iraq. That’s the company Tom Daschle has joined” Febuary, 2006
LIMBAUGH: I’ll tell you something else. This is absolutely hilarious. “Mr. Bin Laden’s group” is how The New York Times refers to Al Qaeda. Why don’t they just say, “Osama bin Laden, D-Afghanistan”? “Mr. bin Laden’s group”? Osama bin Laden, D-Afghanistan. Democrat, Afghanistan. It’s like Congressman William Jefferson, Democrat-Louisiana.
“It’s getting close to the point where Osama bin Laden could deliver the keynote speech at the Democrat National Convention.” —Rush Limbaugh
I have to get back to work again, but I guess I’m giving up on finding the exact quote I looking for. Still I find all of these quotes pretty disgusting. So, I came short on this one point, but I think I’ve made the overall point that Rush uses over the top hyperbolae on a regular basis.
I’m shocked………really.
Indeed, Alchemist, because he is absolutely right. When I hear speeches given by the Taliban and speeches given by the democrats it is very difficult to tell them apart. Sorry, but that’s the way it is, perhaps you should take that up with some of the dems instead of Rush.
Exactly right. Alchemist, go back and look at the transcript of the last bin Laden videotape. The entire speech would be right at home coming out of the mouth of Obama, Edwards, Howard Dean, or Hillary, except for the part about converting to islam.
And with our Democrat congress now giving special recognition to Ramadan – something it never does for Christmas, Easter, Yom Kippur, or any other religious holiday – we may be getting closer to wiping out that exception.
Have you guys seen Rush’s latest rant, where he rips Harry Reid and a few other dems to pieces? Click on the link and scroll down. It’s on the bottom leeft of the screen.
LINK
I assmue everybody here can tell the difference between propoganda and an actual real world stance? One speech doesn’t exactly make you a democrat, or a “tree lover”.
For example: in that same conversation, Rush limbaugh professed that the caller for ending the Iraq war “couldn’t possibly be a Republican” because he was “talking like a democrat..” If being against the war is all it takes to ‘not be a real republican’, than I can safely say that slamming planes into buildings gets you kicked out of the democratic party. Speech be damned.
So it seems that you’re ok with that insult.
But just for the record, you’re ok with calling a purple heart veteran an “informational suicide bomber”? Especially to a guy that was injured by an IED… doesn’t sound that seem harsh?
I have no idea what you mean by that. Could you elaborate a little more, it makes no sense.
I’ve also noticed that you have moved on to something else in Rush’s speech. I guess since the “phony soldiers” remark wasn’t working out for you, then you moved onto something else. Right out of the democrats handbook. I think that Rush can say whatever he wants, that’s what I think. You’ve already had people on this site tell you that they don’t always agree with what he says, but that’s not enough for you, is it?
So being called a democrats is an insult? We agree on something!
Which purple heart veteran are you referring to? Or did that link also get “buried in the recent hoopla”?
Liberals are constantly looking for that “Get out of jail free” card that immunizes them from whatever insanity they want to spout or do. The “he’s got a Purple Heart!” thing alchemist spouts here. It does not shield a person from criticism, as much as you wish it did it does not. It confers an initial credibility and a certain amount of, for lack of a better term, points to a person. Unfortunately, they can act and speak in such a manner as to erode that initial credibility their previous actions may have granted them very quickly. The “Hey, I’ve got a Purple Heart so I get a pass for saying seditious things” doesn’t wash, but since the liberals and Democrats are so strikingly short of people who have real honor and ethics, they go for whatever badge of honor they think they can find to hide behind.
Once again, liberals can’t tell the difference between window dressing and real honor and sacrifice and credibility.
Alchemist, did you never pay attention to the news before, say, a couple of months ago? For example, you give us this:
While that’s true enough, when we’re talking about Iraq and the war against terrorism, the lines are very clearly drawn. Other than Joe Lieberman and (more recently) Brian Baird, show me the Democrat who does not echo bin Laden’s urges. Functionally, there is no difference. They want the same thing: abandonment of the struggle against AQ in Iraq and unilateral withdrawal from the Middle East. If that simple “inconvenient truth” hurts, it’s up to you to change that position.
So while the idea that someone who opposes continuing the war on terror is “talking like a democrat” is a generalization, it’s not too far from being 100% accurate. And it IS in fact, the stated policy of the party itself, even if an individual Democrat here and there may disagree.
You better check on that. How many Democrats were involved in the plans to morph the planned WTC memorial from commemorating the victim to damning America, until courageous people like Debra Burlingame spoke out to thwart the plans?
The old “absolute moral authority” card, eh? It won’t wash here. Yes, we honor this man’s service. But when he uses that background to lend credibility to causes that will endanger his compatriots still in the field, then he is figuratively acting exactly that role. He is willing to sacrifice his own credibility in order to destroy the work they’ve done. It’s an apt comparison.
Sev is right that having a medal doesn’t grant perpetual immunity from criticism for turning on their fellow soldiers or their country. You don’t think we forgot already how John Kerry tried to use that defense to counter the notoriety he richly deserves for undermining our men in Vietnam, did you?
I think I made my point, and that point hasn’t really been challenged (that I’ve seen). Rush (and the caller, keep him too if you want) implied that the media gives more coverate to “phony soldiers” in the media and doesn’t talk to real soldiers, who are proud to be in Iraq.
Limbaugh gave the example: Jesse MacBeth and has said that this was the example he intended. however, it’s misleading because despite Jesse’s lies to the far left, his stories were never used in the main stream media. End of story. Limbaugh is trying to imply a connection that in this particular instance doesn’t exist.
The purple heart: The transcript reads:
Hey, by all means, McGough put himself on the political circuit, he is free to pollitical attack. However, calling a man who has done service to his country a suicide bomber is reprehensible. If he feels like he was attacked, he has the right to respond back. All Rush has to say is “Well, he’s mistaken. I mean no disrepect, but you’re compltely wrong about what I said”. That’s it. Instead, he has to refer to him as a liberal “terrorist”, which is totally ridiculous. But that’s what Rush does, he can’t just be “right” (although I usually disagree on that too), he has create nicknames that denigrate or insinuate his opponent with scandals that may or may not exist.
In that same vein, I think it was perfectly acceptable to criticize Petraeus. However, claiming that he was a traitor was WAY over the top. If moveon.org had just said “we disagree with petraeus over x,y and z” that’s ok, that’s part of a civil discourse.
Bin Laden as a democrat:
Honestly, this is just so silly to even be debatable. There is nothing Bin Laden even sees eye to eye with in the democratic party. Remember we’re the secularists: rights to women, abortion, sex prevention, homosexual rights… everything radical islam disagrees with. Until he starts saying things like, “I watched Oprah, and I can really get into that female power movement”. I think it’s safe to say that he doesn’t agree with 90% of the democratic party.
Bin Laden doesn’t want to be a democrat. He wants to give his “Who Me? I’m just scholor of Islam who is being attacked by the great devil Bush” speech. It’s propaganda, and it’s so transparent I’m amazed that you would put stock into it.
…oops, sex prevention should be safe sex…
Alchemist, you really should do a little research before you jump to conclusions. For example, you claim this hasn’t been refuted:
Let’s test your theory. Do a Google search for “Jesse Macbeth”. I did, and got over 151,000 hits. From viewing the first few pages of hits, a substantial number were from the MSM.
Now Google the name “Paul Ray Smith”. I got 18,800 hits, In the first few pages of hits, most were from military blogs and similar sites. That’s a better than 8 to 1 ratio in favor of Macbeth.
In the likely event you don’t know who Sergeant Paul Ray Smith is, he’s the first Medal of Honor winner from the Iraq war. Posthumously. And his sacrifice, heroism, and valor rates less than one-eighth the media attention of a basic-training washout who lied about his service in order to smear the military and the country.
So do not try to tell us that the phony soldiers aren’t given a preferred status by the media. The evidence is all to the contrary.
As for Brian McGough, your citation shows one thing, and one thing clearly: the VoteVets group is no better than Media Matters or any Soros-funded hate center. Assuming for the moment that he didn’t know exactly what Limbaugh had said, the comparison was still apt. In that case, McGough was duped into making a dishonest, misleading ad. The ad was deliberately planned to cause the maximum possible media stir – “walk into as many people as he can”, to use Limbaugh’s term. And if he wasn’t misled, and knew his statement was a lie, then he’s not just an innocent being fooled into inflicting maximum carnage on the truth – he was a conspirator. Either way, the comparison holds up.
On bin Laden and the Dems: your points about domestic policies are well taken, but they leave two factors in crystal clear focus:
First, bin Laden does in fact speak for the Democrats on foreign policy and American national security matters. Even you can’t dispute that.
Second, that your side would ally with bin Laden on anything when islamofascism is at such odds with everything else you claim to believe speaks volumes about what you really believe to be important. You’d ally with a force for pure evil like al Qaeda rather than support a war against it led by George Bush.
Internet is as internet does. I’ve done at least some research, and I can’t find a single article from a reputable news sources that quotes jesse Macbeth. I can find lots of hits for Operation stolen valor, but that’s a story that’s good for the military, and discredits Jesse Macbeth. This is in contrast to the point of Limbaugh’s rant. There are plenty of examples where this is not the case, but jesse macbeth is not one of them.
As far as votevets: They probably just misunderstood Limbaugh. Misunderstanding or no, Limbaugh hasn’t acted any classier. For a guy that’s been ‘persecuted’ by the media, he’s sure drug in a lot of the dirt himself.
???? No only will I refute it, I don’t even how understand how that would be possible? Does he call Hillary on Thursdays and Pelosi on friday nights?
Please explain.
Ok, let’s look at your very first post on this thread, shall we?
So you see free speech as disgusting and despicable and don’t believe everyone has the right to it. What’s there to argue about? If that’s your opinion, so be it, you’re entitled to it.
You think Rush’s brand of insinuation disgusting. Ok, again, your opinion there are many who don’t. I don’t agree with everything he says or the way he says it, but I also agree with alot of what he does say.
Now, you think that the Congress shouldn’t waste it’s time with Rush’s comments. Ok, agreed.
As far as I can tell all of your “points” have been opinion and frankly I’m not going to waste my time trying to change it. Believe whatever you want, it’s your right.
I see nothing in here about suicide bombers. I see nothing mentioned about killing innocent people. What I do see is Rush saying that they lied to this kid, which they did, and then stick HIM in front of the cameras to say it instead of their puppeteer, Wesley Clark. As I said, I guess you’re gonna see what you want to see.
Well, maybe he doesn’t call them on friday nights, but Al Qaeda sure seems glad that the dems won the elections in 2006:
Al Qaeda welcomes election results
Now why do you suppose, alchemist, that this nation’s worst enemy would be glad the dems took over?
Please explain?
Now you’re just being foolish. Besides, why would bin Laden need to call them? They’re already on the same wavelength. Take any Democrat presidential candidate’s stand on Iraq, add some boilerplate about converting to islam, and I challenge anyone to see the difference between that and the AQ position.
Oh, and by the way, if Jesse Macbeth is just a recent story dredged up by Operation Stolen Valor and hyped by Limbaugh, then why did we all know about him more than a year ago? ST first covered his fraud here, in May of 2006, and you’ll find the vast majority of those Google hits are dated long before Rush ever spoke his name.
GWR: Do you have any real media coverage of Jesse before he was accussed? Most americans, I think, get their news from newspapers, major media outlets, radio (or their associated webpages). As such, Jesse Macbeth was highly covered by smaller anti-war groups, but I can’t find any evidence that he was covered by any newspaper or network prior to the investigation of his authentiticity. (Although, if he’s been investigated for a year, that may be difficult to find).
And I don’t blame Limbaugh for ‘hyping’ Macbeth, I am accusing him of ‘mis-implying’ how it was covered.
About Bin Laden calling hillary, yeah, I was being silly, it’s been a long week. I just don’t think the two groups are even remotely related. Nor do they have the same mission, goals or idea for the future. I just don’t think we’re going to come to any agreement on that. And I hardly beleive that Bin laden says what he really thinks. He says what is the most profitable for his propaganda. It’s Baghdad Bob-esque, and I just don’t read into it that much.
Finally: NC Cop: Does he call him a suicide bomber? No, does he use language that is eeirily similar (intentionally similar) to someone strapping explosives to ‘their belt’ and going out to a crowded area? Yes. This is how the modern political game works these days, you don’t actually say what you think… you imply it. And democrats are guilty of this too, and I despise that as well, and try to convince democrats I know not to use the language (kindly, but often) and I would like Republicans to do the same.
I’m not really sure it’s going to happen on either side though.