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.

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?

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.

I think I made my point, and that point hasn’t really been challenged (that I’ve seen).

Ok, let’s look at your very first post on this thread, shall we?

1. I don’t beleive that everyone has the right to free speech. As despicable and disgusting as free speech is, it is a right.

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.

2. However, I still think Rush’s brand of insinuation disgusting. Since then, Rush has compared those vote vets to “Informational Suicide Bombers”. He’s compared democratic servicemen to Osama Bin Laden. This is what he does; he makes some intentionally misleading (but emotionally inflamatory statement) and then is shocked (JUST SHOCKED!) when people react. What he says is intentionally rhetorical and misleading in order to get more press coverage. THAT IS HIS JOB.

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.

3. Is this rhetrocic illegal, or cause for a congressional censure. No, the congress has better things to worry about (hopefully). Same thing goes for the moveon.org ad. All senators needed to do is stand up, say “This is stupid and a waste of time, can we talk about something important now?”

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.

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.

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.

???? 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.

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

The Democrats’ victory in Tuesday’s Congressional elections was a move in the right direction, the speaker said.

Now why do you suppose, alchemist, that this nation’s worst enemy would be glad the dems took over?

Please explain?

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.

First, bin Laden does in fact speak for the Democrats on foreign policy and American national security matters. Even you can’t dispute that.

???? 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.

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.

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.

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:

Oct. 2nd LIMBAUGH: VoteVets.org has — they describe themselves as an organization comprised of veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns who oppose current policy in Iraq. They’ve put together a TV ad that takes aim at me. This ad’s going to run on Fox News, on CNN, it’s going to run on WMAL radio in Washington, $60,000 ad buy that’s going to run, I think, on our local West Palm Beach station down here. And there’s a man identified as Brian McCoff — McGough — it’s M-C-G-O-U-G-H, I’m not sure how he pronounces it, McGo, McGuff — I haven’t watched the ad.

He discusses his service in Iraq, the wounds he suffered there, 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.

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.

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.

One speech doesn’t exactly make you a democrat, or a “tree lover”.

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.

I can safely say that slamming planes into buildings gets you kicked out of the democratic party

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?

you’re ok with calling a purple heart veteran an “informational suicide bomber”?

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?

Once again, liberals can’t tell the difference between window dressing and real honor and sacrifice and credibility.

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.

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 it seems that you’re ok with that insult.

So being called a democrats is an insult? We agree on something!

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?

Which purple heart veteran are you referring to? Or did that link also get “buried in the recent hoopla”?

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?

LINK

When I hear speeches given by the Taliban and speeches given by the democrats it is very difficult to tell them apart.

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.

“It’s getting close to the point where Osama bin Laden could deliver the keynote speech at the Democrat National Convention.” —Rush Limbaugh

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.