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.

51 Responses to "Clear Channel CEO responds to Harry Reid"

NC Cop says:

October 2, 2007 at 9:51 pm

So Hillary And Barack refused to condemn the Moveon ad, then they managed to vote to condemn Rush Limbaugh, then they couldn’t be bothered to vote for the Defense Department Appropriations.

Yup, sounds like a typical day for the dems. They sure have their “priorities” straight.
sanity says:

October 2, 2007 at 10:44 pm

This would make a perfect ad for the Republicans.

“Democrats, doing business as usual…wasting your time, and your money.

While the Defense Dept. Appropriations are put aside, the Democrats find time to publically denounce and bring forth condemnation of someone slandering the troops.

Was it the slanderous ad made by MoveOn.org, which asked if one of our leaders, the General in charge of your sons and daughters in the military in Iraq was a traitor?

No, of course not.

It is a manufactured controversy involving Talk Radio Host Rush Limbaugh, who has been more supportive to the troops than all the Democrats put together, but due to a company called Media Matters, a liberal group funded with Soros money and Hillary Clinton’s backing, has decided to attack Rush Limbaugh, by taking the “Phony Soldiers” comment he said out of context and trying to say he meant it about ALL troops and not the fake soldiers he was currently talking about like Jessie McBeth, who lied about his service, where he served and what he did to speak out about atrocities that never happened.

Just like Sen. Tom Harkin, who also was caught lying about his service, what he was doing during his service – and yet, Sen. Harkin feels he must ask if Rush is the one on drugs?

I encourage Senators to invite Rush Limbaugh to the Senate floor to explain his actions, fully in public, so all may see. It is after all the only FAIR thing to do.

I also encourage Rush Limbaugh to take a drug test while at the Senate floor, as long as Sen. Harkin and Sen. Reid take a lie detector test at the same time.

Let the public see who is lying and who is on drugs.”

This is the voice of sanity, and I approve this message…….
Rush Limbaugh vs. Anti-War Soldiers « The Van Der GaliÃ«n Gazette says:

October 3, 2007 at 5:56 am

[…] For a slightly different take on the Limbough Controversy, I suggest clicking here and here. […]
The Oxford Medievalist says:

October 3, 2007 at 6:51 am

More on the Phony “Phony Soldiers” Controversy

Still, condemnation is one thing, removing from the air is another. While I’m surprised Blind Harry didn’t call for Rush’s removal, he has Wesley Clark to do that, calling at that Armed Services fave, “The Huff Post,” for Limbaugh to be pulled fro…
Drewsmom says:

October 3, 2007 at 6:59 am

They’re trying so hard to get Rush off the airways – it ain’t gonna happen folks, but feel free to pull hissy fits on a daily basis, just makes yall look dumber than you actually are.
Banjo says:

October 3, 2007 at 7:41 am

This stunt has the reek of the George Soros propaganda machine. They’re already looking forward to ways of winning the independent voter. Discredit or, better yet, silence people like Limbaugh. Savage amd others of their persuasion and independents will have no choice but to seek news and spin from the totally objective MSM. Soros & Co. at that point will have us right where he wants us.
Leslie says:

October 3, 2007 at 10:11 am

And so the Congress wastes time with meaningless resolutions. And nothing gets done.

This country is becoming like Ayn Rand’s nightmare vision in “Atlas Shrugged.” But there’s no John Galt.
Richard Daugherty says:

October 3, 2007 at 12:41 pm

I don’t get it. They moaned and groaned about the miss spendings by the Republican run Congress and Senate, but all they’ve done since they’ve been in Charge is waste our hard on tax dollars on investigations to “nowhere”.
What ever happened to Wes Clark. I guess he was pissed that he didn’t get to stay in the Army and get voted in for president. Man he changed or maybe he was always like that and the Army finally called him on it.
The other problem is “WE” see how the Democrats are and how they act. This didn’t happen over night. They have been like this for decades, but we still keep voting them into office. So it is partially our, the American citizen’s fault for the way they are now acting in Congress and the Senate. I find it probematic when you vote for a person just because he’s from same party you are from even though you know in your heart and mind they are wrong and then you just keep them in by voting for them the next time around. IE Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Robert Byrd and those are just some, but they are on the Republican side also.
We, as voters need to change the terms so that if our congressman or Senators are obviously not doing the job they were voted into do then we can vote somebody in that will do the job.
Thanks for doing a great job of keeping all of us really informed.
Rich
alchemist says:

October 3, 2007 at 1:36 pm

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.

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.

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?”
PCD says:

October 3, 2007 at 1:55 pm

7, alchemist, that bilge is what you lefties parroting George Soros want the public to believe.

I’ve heard Sen. Dick Dirtbag of Illinois repeatedly call the troops Nazis and murderers.

I didn’t forget how the Clinton White House dressed down generals reporting in full uniform.

I don’t forget Tom Harkin’s lies about his service.

And I don’t forget your propaganda here and when you were posting at Patterico’s Pontifications.
alchemist says:

October 3, 2007 at 2:13 pm

*Sigh* Do I really need to list everything Rush has ever said and point out that a large portion of it is intentionally misleading? I don’t really have that much time right now, maybe this weekend?

2. I think Dick Durbin was trying to make the point that he felt some of the things troops were doing were disgusting. And he used over the top rhetoric to make his point. I disapprove with his use of “nazi” rhetoric, but agree that american troops should not condone torture.

3. As far as the “dressing down” story… it still remains unsubstantiated except by Patterson & Klein (who profited off these publications). If another officer steps forwards who was IN THE ROOM when this edict was said out loud, or publishes a copy of a written edict, I’ll beleive it. Besides, it’s been 8 years, can we move on?

4. I’ve never been to Patterico’s Pontifications before. Another Alchemist perhaps? I usually add comments and windsofchange.net, and (in the past) at “classical values” and “donaldsensing.net”. Sorry.
NC Cop says:

October 3, 2007 at 3:05 pm

Since then, Rush has compared those vote vets to “Informational Suicide Bombers”.

Perhaps it is because of the lying they did in an attempt to smear the administration and the war.

He’s compared democratic servicemen to Osama Bin Laden.

Don’t remember that one. Got a link?

he makes some intentionally misleading (but emotionally inflamatory statement) and then is shocked (JUST SHOCKED!) when people react.

Maybe he’s just planning on running for Congress/Senate as a democrat and he’s practicing his speeches.

All senators needed to do is stand up, say “This is stupid and a waste of time, can we talk about something important now?”

Unfortunately, our Senate has been engaging in useless and pointless investigations since 2006 and has yet to talk about anything important.
PCD says:

October 3, 2007 at 3:07 pm

9, do we have to repeat each and every lie and disparagement told by Democrats about our troops? When all the facts came out about your #1, it was thoroughly disproved, and DURBIN APOLOGIZED. We can go on and on about Democrats, their anti-military policies and actions with their quotes in full, not edited as Media Matters does and unlike MM, in context.

Again, you solely relying on Media Matters leaves you unarmed in this battle of facts and wits.
TedintheShed says:

October 3, 2007 at 4:59 pm

Do I really need to list everything Rush has ever said and point out that a large portion of it is intentionally misleading? I don’t really have that much time right now, maybe this weekend?

I, for one, would like to see that. Once you under go such a task perhaps you will realize without a direct statement from the accused one can never “point out” anothers intentions, but only lend conjecture.

That said- Mr. Limbaugh does make remarks that are inflamatory to a portion of people. Other’s see them as being more insightful. It all depends upon any given viewpoint. Either way, you can not generalize such a statement and contend it is accurate though.
Banjo says:

October 3, 2007 at 6:18 pm

Alchemist is a good example of the damage the Soros disinformation campaign can do.
alchemist says:

October 3, 2007 at 9:35 pm

PCD- Again, I think using “Nazi” or “Gulags” is a loaded term. I think he creates such a powerful emotional tug that is misrepresents a debate. Calling our soldiers “nazi’s” is obviously past that line. So is calling any senator or political organization “nazis”… unless of oucrse you’re talking about the Janjaweed, than the title fits.

Same thing with calling people names like Sadam or Al Queda. Calling your opponents “part of al queda” is over the line. Calling Daschle “the Devil” is silly rhetoric and juvenile. Confusing “Obama” with “Osama” shows that you have an intelligent and rational view of american foreign policy.

And this goes equally for democrats who use the same language. Juvenile pointless and uncalled for.

My point is that the language, on it’s own, is vile. I think Limbaugh basically runs his show off this kind of language. Al Franken runs his show the same way. I think Pelosi and Rove can comdemn each other all they like, but the language is based on the same principle, smear first, and avoid debate at all costs.

On a final note, I do have to say that Ted(intheshed) has intrigued me. I’m curious if you find Limbaugh to be insightful? (although anybody else is free to throw in the 2 cents). If so, why? I used to overhear him at work all the time, and I found him predictable. Just curious,

Alchemist
NC Cop says:

October 3, 2007 at 9:56 pm

I’m curious as well Alchemist. Since you are all for well balanced, free, exchange of ideas, may I assume you go to typically “liberal” websites, say DailyKos, and chastise the left for making the same kind of rhetoric.
Great White Rat says:

October 3, 2007 at 10:23 pm

Alchemist boots an easy one:

Confusing “Obama” with “Osama” shows that you have an intelligent and rational view of american foreign policy.

REALLY?? I’d go with the opposite, myself. Anyone who can’t tell the difference between the two has no clue about current events at all, much less US foreign policy.

For the moment, I’ll assume that’s just a typo – you couldn’t really be that dumb, could you? – and that you’re making a pitiful attempt to pillory Limbaugh for one of his frequent song parodies. Any regular listener knows the one I mean.

But if you’re not that dumb, then you are disingenuous. Surely you know that the original remark, confusing Osama and Obama, came from one of your left-wing icons, none other than the Chappaquiddick lifeguard, Ted Kennedy. And he wasn’t making a joke at the time.

LINK
Severian says:

October 4, 2007 at 8:19 am

But if you’re not that dumb, then you are disingenuous. Surely you know that the original remark, confusing Osama and Obama, came from one of your left-wing icons, none other than the Chappaquiddick lifeguard, Ted Kennedy. And he wasn’t making a joke at the time.

It’s always such a shame when alcoholism destroys a mediocre mind.
alchemist says:

October 4, 2007 at 9:36 am

NC Cop. Sure, I do occassionally. More typically I prefer websites with a smaller cast of regulars. The problem I have with “Daily Kos” for example, is that there are 93 comments, and all are one line zingers. Additionally, the posts are often short and not really thought provoking. So I haven’t found a good liberal blog where I comment regularly yet.

On the other hand, I typically moderate with people I know off the net. When the Bush=Hitler reference pops up, I usually chastize friends for being “overly dramatic”. If a debate is occuring between people, and I think it’s not well informed, I might say something like “Well, a conservative would argue that this point is irrelevent because….”.

So I probably do more offline than on anyway.
PCD says:

October 4, 2007 at 9:36 am

14, alchemist, I do not believe you ever really listened to Limbaugh. I believe you believe what you are told about Limbaugh by your liberal friends and sites who do not listen to Rush or intentionally distort what is said as the Democraps and Media Matters have done at George Soros’ direction.

You will find that Ted will see that in you and get fed up with your faux objectionalism.
NC Cop says:

October 4, 2007 at 10:07 am

Ok, which sites do you go to then? I’d love to go to them and see some of the comments you make.

Also, I’m still waiting on a link about Limbaugh comparing democratic servicemen to Osama Bin Laden.
sanity says:

October 4, 2007 at 10:57 am

There is a difference between politicans and entertainers / political commentators.

Rush is a politcal commentator and entertainer. He will do parodies, make political fun of idiocy, like the term feminazi.

But he will also give you his take and opinion on Political matters and news. If he did nothing but straight political news, his show would be boring, hte mix it up style and commentary is what makes for interesting listening at times.

Do I listen all the time? No, sometimes I disagree with what he says, other times, I will tune into Medved, Praeger, Hannity or Bennett depending when I am driving to and from work.

There is a reason why liberal radio has failed; why air america has failed – the content is crap. The hosts are billigerent and angry. They remiond me of Michal Savage, I have listened ot him a few times, and while I would agree on some of his points, I find his show distatseful and angry, so I will listen to smooth jazz instead. {chuckles}

Now, moving to Politicians, they are not entertainers, and remarks of losing the war, intentional smears after hearing the truth, knowingly lying and pandering to the media, ect turns my stomach, and I don’t care which party is doing it. We pay you to do a job, not play around, not steal money, not play footsie in bathrooms, not have sex with interns, not stuff important bills with pork.

It is why this congress has the lowest approval rating in history.

Read it again…

Lowest…Approval…In…History!

As far as Rush is concerned, Reid and the others can bloviate until the cows come home and they turn blue in the face, but clear channel runs a business, and Rush is the king of talk radio. He draws the most listeners, he is the golden boy for sponsors and a made up controversy like this is not going to sway his sponsors in the slightest.

Personally, I think this is a pathetic attempt from the left, weak and noneffective. It is a waste of time for Congress, and the more time they spend on this and not on the nations business, the more thier approval ratings will keep dropping.

Hillary and Obama signed on to the condemnation for Rush also, castigating on a lie spread by media matters…which hillary is suppose to have started…well, at least she says so, media matters says no she didn’t…but I digress…

How will this effect thier campaigns if they so readily sign on to and support a lie and smear campaign?
TedintheShed says:

October 4, 2007 at 11:40 am

On a final note, I do have to say that Ted(intheshed) has intrigued me. I’m curious if you find Limbaugh to be insightful? (although anybody else is free to throw in the 2 cents). If so, why? I used to overhear him at work all the time, and I found him predictable. Just curious,

I used to watch Mr. Limbaugh on his TV show. He made some interesting points. Just as anyone, he had his moments that were indeed insightful especially when pointing out Clinton’s duplicity.

However, generally Mr. Limbaugh is a blowhard. That doesn’t mean he is always inaccurate, but like all political pundits he has an agenda. Sometimes his accuracy in detail bends to said agenda.

My Daddy gave me some advice once. He said “Son, believe nothing you read and hear, and only half the things you see.”. I apply this advoce in abundance when dealing with the media and politicians.

Satisfy your curiosity?
TedintheShed says:

October 4, 2007 at 11:51 am

You will find that Ted will see that in you and get fed up with your faux objectionalism.

That judgement for me PCD can only come in time. I will give alchemist the benefit the doubt at present. I don’t think anyone can be truly objective when discussing politics by its very definition. What I look for is a reasoned approach to the subjective, as I can disagree with someone politically but still respect their opinion if it was concluded reasonably and expressed that way as well.
alchemist says:

October 4, 2007 at 1:21 pm

NC COP: other webpages i read are in post #9.

I’ll get the other part to you this weekend. Dont’ have time right now. (I should actually get some work done)

Sanity: Actually, new poll numbers show that people trust the democratic congress more than Bush. But there’s a little more inconsistency in that number.

Technically, Michael Moore is an ‘entertainer’ too. But I found him to be a “blowhard”, and got tired of working through his inaccuracies. I found the same thing with Rush.

BTW PCD: Rush is on at 10am in Phoenix (although some radio stations switch hours because arizona has no time savings). Prager was often on about the same time (I think), and was a little more relaxed. But sometimes I got tired of being called a heathen. I also used to listen to Tony Snow, and occassionally (for very short bursts) Michael Savage.
PCD says:

October 4, 2007 at 1:31 pm

24, alchemist, thank you for admitting you didn’t hear anything first hand. You are just another monica of nutberger lies. If you want any credibility, listen to the whole clip. Including what Rush said after the caller finished with his other thought that was not part of the phoney soldier stuff.

Now, Will you admit Jesse MacBeth is a phoney, and all of you who monicaed his every word about the horrors the military was committing are lemmings who don’t think and reason for yourselves, but go along with your nutberger propagandists?
alchemist says:

October 4, 2007 at 3:03 pm

No I’ve only seen transcripts and 5 minute clips. do you know where to find the whole clip?
PCD says:

October 4, 2007 at 4:13 pm

26, You can start at http://www.rushlimbaugh.com. You can try the smoking gun, too. They usually have such things, too.
Great White Rat says:

October 4, 2007 at 5:28 pm

When the Bush=Hitler reference pops up, I usually chastize friends for being “overly dramatic”.

Alchemist, there’s part of your problem, and one of the reasons the “sane liberals” are not positioned to take back the Democratic party from the MoveOn/Kos/Soros thugs.

The correct response is not that they’re being “overly dramatic”. That’s like saying “well, yes, your comparison is basically valid, but can you find a more soothing way to express it?” It’s as if saying Bush=Mussolini might be satisfactory.

The correct response is that they are completely bats**t inaccurate. If they want to talk about repression, refer them to the Cambodian killing fields…and ask how many truckloads of local Democrats have been taken out and shot today. Show them pictures of Auschwitz…and inquire whether Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid were sent to the gas chambers today. You can even show them the clips of what’s happening now in Myanmar…and wonder aloud why they can hold such views when this same fate surely awaits them by nightfall.

Fact is, your extremist left-wing cohorts have no frame of reference at all about what constitutes repression. But faced with this, you “sane liberals” can’t muster the courage to say simply YOU ARE WRONG to them. And it’s all because of the money.

I’m beginning to think you’re more likely to have a yeti move in next door to you than a “sane liberal”. But if you really are one, then at some point you’ll need to make a choice. You can abandon sanity altogether and sell out to the extreme left – like your entire cast of presidential candidates. Or you’ll make common cause with us on the right to defeat the hatemongers, after which you’ll be able to reclaim your party and America can return to civil, sane, debates on policy.
alchemist says:

October 5, 2007 at 7:33 pm

Sorry it’s taken me so long to get back. Got way behind (still way behind on work) and will probably be up working until late friday night. So I’ll try to reach a couple of points. I’ll keep track of what’s said for a few more days.

1) I’m really impressed by the sheer volume of posts here. However, it does make it hard to keep up with a single story when there’s 4 or 5 other stories popping up.

2) Great white Rat: I understand what you’re saying. However, most of these people are close family and friends. We get in vehement arguments occassionally, but usually I’m not trying to piss people off, I’m trying to get them to skip the rhetoric and get back to talking to issues. I find that sometimes just an eye roll is enough to back people down to earth (and that calling someone insane usually just makes it worse). Off the net I’m much more of conversational debater than an arguer anyway.

PCD: 1) maybe I misread what you were asking about watching? If the question is “Did I listen to the specific episode?” No. “Have I listened to Rush in the past?” Sure, while I lived in phoenix, 2 or 3 times a week while I commuted to work at 10am. But radio wasn’t allowed at work, so I wasn’t a regular listened or anything. I usually work very late, so I rely on internet audio and transcripts and websites for most of my news.

2) I found the whole clip on youtube, both before and after. I actually had heard the whole thing before, but listening to it, I think Limbaugh has a better point than I initially realized. Still flawed, but I agree that he didn’t call the soldiers phoney.

Here’s the transcript I want to focus on:

LIMBAUGH: I — it’s not possible, intellectually, to follow these people.

CALLER 2: No, it’s not, and what’s really funny is, they never talk to real soldiers. They like to pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and talk to the media.

LIMBAUGH: The phony soldiers.

CALLER 2: The phony soldiers. If you talk to a real soldier, they are proud to serve. They want to be over in Iraq. They understand their sacrifice, and they’re willing to sacrifice for their country.

LIMBAUGH: They joined to be in Iraq. They joined —

CALLER 2: A lot of them — the new kids, yeah.

Sorry, I know everybody’s read this already, but I’m going to get nitpicky here.

The accusation here is not that anti-war soldiers are phoney, but in critiquing the media for only talking to anti-war soldiers who aren’t real. “the phonies”. I beleive this is Rush’s argument.

And it’s fair when you are talking about leftists groups that backed Jesse (I assume that media matters and daily kos et al. backed Jesse). However, when you are looking at the actual MEDIA (newspapers, news stations, etc) I can’t find any mention of Jesse Macbeth’s stories in a major news outlet before he was tried by the military, and demonstrating that he was a fake.(Although I accept stories may have been buried since then, let me know if you know where one exists).

So in this case, the media (ABC particularly) was not “taking the side of phoney soldiers”, the media was reporting on how fake soldiers have misused military titles. That’s a report that actually pulls the rug out from under leftists groups, not a report that supports them.

Now, if Rush had talked about the article “Shock Troops” that showed up in the New Republic, “I’d say, ok that’s a valid point.”

However, since Rush claims he said MacBeth “37 times”, I would instead guess that he trying to paint a picture that all news outlets gave preferencial coverage to Macbeth, which is blatantly untrue. Less bad than calling soldiers “phonies”, but still painting with the overly broad stroakes that Rush likes to use.

Feel free to rip that much up, and I’ll try to cover those last points I keep missing tomorrow.
NC Cop says:

October 6, 2007 at 10:04 am

The only problem, alchemist, is that Rush specifically mentioned MacBeth two minutes later in the broadcast. The brief segment you highlighted misrepresents the wider discussion.

RUSH: Now, recently, Jesse Macbeth, poster boy for the anti-war left, had his day in court. And you know what? He was sentenced to five months in jail and three years probation for falsifying a Department of Veterans Affairs claim and his Army discharge record. He was in the Army. Jesse Macbeth was in the Army, folks, briefly. Forty-four days before he washed out of boot camp.

This was said a mere two minutes after the phony soldiers comments. You, like the media and the left, seem to be focusing on only two words that Rush said “Phony soldiers” without taking into account the entire segment.

I also find it interesting that nobody is finding offense in the caller who agreed with Rush and who claims to be a military veteran of 14 years.
NC Cop says:

October 6, 2007 at 10:04 am

Oh, and I’m still waiting on that link of Rush comparing democratic soldiers to Osama Bin Laden.
Severian says:

October 6, 2007 at 10:56 am

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.
alchemist says:

October 6, 2007 at 1:36 pm

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.
NC Cop says:

October 6, 2007 at 5:21 pm

but this recent hoopla has buried the exact transcripts I was looking for.

I’m shocked………really.
NC Cop says:

October 6, 2007 at 5:23 pm

“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.
Great White Rat says:

October 7, 2007 at 8:22 am

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.
G-Monster says:

October 7, 2007 at 2:26 pm

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
alchemist says:

October 8, 2007 at 7:15 am

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?
NC Cop says:

October 8, 2007 at 10:16 am

If being against the war is all it takes to â€˜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 IEDâ€¦ 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”?
Severian says:

October 8, 2007 at 10:47 am

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.
Great White Rat says:

October 8, 2007 at 11:05 am

Alchemist, did you never pay attention to the news before, say, a couple of months ago? For example, you give us this:

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?
alchemist says:

October 8, 2007 at 3:46 pm

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:

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.
alchemist says:

October 8, 2007 at 3:47 pm

…oops, sex prevention should be safe sex…
Great White Rat says:

October 8, 2007 at 4:39 pm

Alchemist, you really should do a little research before you jump to conclusions. For example, you claim this hasn’t been refuted:

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.
alchemist says:

October 8, 2007 at 5:01 pm

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.

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.
NC Cop says:

October 8, 2007 at 8:15 pm

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?
Great White Rat says:

October 9, 2007 at 12:08 am

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.
Great White Rat says:

October 9, 2007 at 12:46 am

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.
alchemist says:

October 9, 2007 at 9:38 am

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.

Comments are closed.