Webb: I ‘regret’ Limbaugh calling troops ‘phony soldiers.’
By on Sep 28th, 2007 at 10:09 am
Webb: I ‘regret’ Limbaugh calling troops ‘phony soldiers.’
On MSNBC’s Countdown last night, host Keith Olbermann asked Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA), a military veteran and former Secretary of the Navy, to respond to right wing radio host Rush Limbaugh’s recent comment that troops who support withdrawal from Iraq are “phony soldiers.” “I really regret Mr. Limbaugh saying things like that,” replied Webb. The military has “a wide variety of political viewpoints, from all the way for this to all the way against it, and we need to respect that,” he added. Watch it:
Other members of Congress, including Sen. John Kerry (D-MA), Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-PA), Rep. Frank Pallone (D-NJ) and Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) have denounced Limbaugh’s comments as well.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
wanna bet re-PUKE-licans wont give a rats ass?
September 28th, 2007 at 10:16 amDon’t you regret a thing, Sen. Webb–Make Rush regret it.
September 28th, 2007 at 10:19 amNot a single comment from a Republican that I have found yet. Very telling from the party that “supports the troops.”
September 28th, 2007 at 10:23 amI regret that the trolls here, who so lean to the right (or otherwise just want to antagonize), who were frothing at the mouth regarding the MoveOn.org advertisement, remain eerily silent regarding Limbaugh’s insinuation that the soldiers with an opposing viewpoint are “phonies”
All the blabber and concern over a critique of a General who followed lock and step to what the White House wanted, and the unwarranted attack of the left for “hating the troops”, yet when a spokesperson on the right utters a blatant attack of actual soldiers fighting and dying, we hear absolutely nothing.
HYPOCRITES! CHICKENHAWKS!
C’mon Exleys, C’mon JMHs, C’mon Jake Ds (Rorys) of these threads.
September 28th, 2007 at 10:24 amthe challenge has been issued.
Defend Rush, or denounce him!!!!
Webb is fast becoming one of the few Senators with any balls, along with Hagel. Maybe there is something to having real combat vets as leaders in our government. Unlike most of the pansy-asses now serving in both Houses and all the Chickenhawks in the WH.
September 28th, 2007 at 10:25 amIt’s all good that we have the Democrats speaking out, but I wanna see the GOP introduce a resolution to condemn Rush with as much fervor and foam at their mouths as they did with moveon.org.
I know it won’t happen, though.
September 28th, 2007 at 10:25 amJim Webb for president 2008!
September 28th, 2007 at 10:29 amRegret? How about resent?
September 28th, 2007 at 10:29 amI am just plain sickened every time I see him. I spent untold hours working for his election via, you guessed it, Moveon’s phone banking organization. Thats right we were instrumental in his success but you wouldn’t know it from his attitude towards Moveon! I called his DC office and all they could say to me, is he condemned everybody who attack a soldiers patriotism. I explained how I worked so hard for him and now he Condemns me! They just repeated the spin and said they respected moveon but! I tell you he lost me forever that day. Talking about EATING YOUR OWN! Pathetic!
September 28th, 2007 at 10:30 amComment by Ed beckmann — September 28, 2007 @ 10:30 am
He was standing up for ALL of the troops and protecting them from ALL people dissing them. Why do you take this a s a personal attack on moveon?
September 28th, 2007 at 10:33 amDon’t expect any repugs to comment and/or introduce resolutions about Limpballs’ slur. That whole story is so “yesterday”. They have extracted their pound of flesh from MoveOn — and now it is time to “move on”.
Today’s “flavor of the month” is to saber-rattle about Iran. These repugs know that, when something isn’t going your way, you just have to change the subject. So with two failing wars going on, the obvious thing to do is to start a new one.
September 28th, 2007 at 10:34 amI am just plain sickened every time I see him. I spent untold hours working for his election via, you guessed it, Moveon’s phone banking organization. Thats right we were instrumental in his success but you wouldn’t know it from his attitude towards Moveon!
Comment by Ed beckmann — September 28, 2007 @ 10:30 am
And in the hours after that stupid resolution, MoveOn raised over $500,000. So I think the phrase you’re looking for is “thank you.”
September 28th, 2007 at 10:35 amMy favorite bumper sticker I saw a while back said:
“Support President bush” in big huge red letters, and underneath that line in much smaller black font “and the troops”.
It pretty much says it all, Support Bush, but we don’t really care about much else.
September 28th, 2007 at 10:41 amComment by upside99 — September 28, 2007 @ 10:33 am
I never see Repiglicans joining Dems to condemn anything! This entire matter was a concerted swift boat hatchet job orchestrated by the Rightwingnuts to attack a grass roots Liberal Organization! This had nothing to do with standing up for the troops. The best way to stand up for the troops is to get them out of Iraq. Sadly to many Dems fell for the sacm! Every Dem who joined the repigs in their effort should be embarassed
September 28th, 2007 at 10:42 amActually it doesn’t surprise me that the man who wore his son’s combat boots during his campaign would vote aye on the moveon amendment that contains the words
“strongly condemn personal attacks on the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all members of the United States Armed Forces.“
September 28th, 2007 at 10:42 amI never see Repiglicans joining Dems to condemn anything! This entire matter was a concerted swift boat hatchet job orchestrated by the Rightwingnuts to attack a grass roots Liberal Organization!
Comment by Ed beckmann — September 28, 2007 @ 10:42 am
It’s called politics. Unfortunately, sometimes even the good people in Washington have to play the game. Don’t hate the player - hate the game.
September 28th, 2007 at 10:48 amCome you GOP weenies, condemn Rush like you did moveon, or are all the screeching GOP girly men scared?
September 28th, 2007 at 10:48 am“Regret”? That’s it?
Moveon.org calls Betrayus out on his parroting of the administration’s poisonous lies, and Congress condems that, but that loudmouth drug-addled jackass has the gall to call troops that have the incredible courage to stand up to the administration and their superiors and speak the truth about this insane occupation as “phoney troops”, it’s merely regrettable?
Meanwhile, the Democrats supported the resolution condemning Moveon.org, but now, we don’t hear a single peep from the Repubs. They truly are masters at hypocrisy.
September 28th, 2007 at 10:49 amComment by Candyce — September 28, 2007 @ 10:42 am.
September 28th, 2007 at 10:51 amYou were deceived by the right wing meme and thier faux outrage over an advertisemant in the New York Times. This was an orchestrated attack on Moveon. A deliberate distraction from the real issue here. Getting out of Iraq and their blind support for Bushbag’s War.
Comment by TripMaster Monkey — September 28, 2007 @ 10:49 am
Hypocrisy is one of the Repug Family Values, Trip, or didn’t you get that memo from the rover before he slithered out of the WH men’s room?
September 28th, 2007 at 10:51 amYep, the comment by the drug addict is unfortunate.
In the mean time, we’ll keep giving this totally criminal administration whatever they ask for and not hold them accountable for their crimes because we as dems are really only here to support the republican party and their corporate agenda.
September 28th, 2007 at 10:51 amIf you think for some reason that we are an opposing party and that we represent the people that voted for us . . . well you’d better wake up and smell the coffee my friend.
Lagging GOP candidates scold front-runners for skipping debate.
Oh great, they get scolded for skipping a debate while Rush, a chickenhawk phony, calls the troops that do serve phony.
Why do the Republicans have no heuvos?
GOP against the troops [armor] before they were for the troops before they were against the phony troops.
September 28th, 2007 at 10:55 amyet you condemn MoveOn because they talk about a traitor as such?
September 28th, 2007 at 10:55 amstandards don’t mean shit to a politician. When there is no character to rely on, you get jelly
We are not amused by politicians that talk cheap and walk to the bank
Yep, the comment by the drug addict is unfortunate.
Comment by Keith H. — September 28, 2007 @ 10:51 am
And it is quite telling that a drug-addled 4-Fer is the main mouthpiece and Hero for the Repugs. Not much more needs to be said, does it?
September 28th, 2007 at 10:55 amWhy doesn’t Senator Webb introduce a resolution condemning Limbaugh just like Cornyn did with MoveOn and cram Limbaugh down the Republicans’ throats? Why do the Republicans have an unerring instinct for the jugular, but the Democrats just wimp out?
September 28th, 2007 at 10:55 amJimmy-boy wants to get back into people’s good graces, particularly after running on ending the war, then Webb not only votes WITH THE REPUBLICANS to give Bush a blank check (NOT ending the war btw…) then votes WITH THE REPUBLICANS to expand Bush’s illegal NSA spying. Then as if that’s not bad enough, Jimmy-boy votes WITH THE REPUBLICANS AND LIEBERMAN to denounce freedom of speech by dignifying a Bullsh*t ‘resolution’ against MoveOn when Bush and his henchmen have committed far worse atrocities: 600,000 civilians dead, $60 million inaugural while OUR TROOPS rooted in garbage dumps for ‘hillbilly armor,’ Katrina(remember bush staying on vacation an extra three days???) The list goes on.
So don’t give me this “Webb is wonderful” crap! Webb is a liar who wants the status quo and will fold for bush like Reid and Pelosi. Webb has yet to stand up when it counts against bush. I campaigned for Webb, I voted for Webb, I want my vote back!
September 28th, 2007 at 10:56 amWHY is Webb being an apologist for Rush? This makes no sense. Webb is certainly not responsible in any way for the inflammatory things Rush says to provoke a response and garner attention. Unless Webb writes his scripts.
I “regret” that Webb didn’t respond more forcefully to the total inappropriateness (is that even a word?) of Rush’s comment.
September 28th, 2007 at 10:58 amC’mon Exleys, C’mon JMHs, C’mon Jake Ds (Rorys) of these threads.
the challenge has been issued.
Defend Rush, or denounce him!!!!
Comment by DRxJ — September 28, 2007 @ 10:24 am
Rush’s comment was completely idiotic, there is no defending him. The MoveOn add was also idiotic, though all I had to say about it was it was bad politics and blew up in MoveOns face insofar as it gave the Right something else to talk about.
Anytime someone who has not served in the military opens their mouth about members of the military they do so at great peril. I do not think you have to have served in the military to voice an opinion about foreign policy, but when you start to characterize soldiers when you yourself have never been one….watch out.
At the risk of opening very old wounds, I draw a distinction between the above mentioned attacks and the Swift Boat thing. The Swift Boat Vets were at least Vets talking about another Vet. I am not a Vet, so I kinda take the same attitude toward that as I tend to do on abortion - I have an opinion, but my opinion doesn’t count as much as a woman’s.
But I repeat - Rush should be ashamed of his gall mixed with his stupidity.
September 28th, 2007 at 10:58 amWhy do the Republicans have an unerring instinct for the jugular, but the Democrats just wimp out?
Comment by Mister Go — September 28, 2007 @ 10:55 am
I think the Dems call it “taking the high road” and “not stooping to their level”. Noble, to be sure — but it resonates with the public as “wimping out”.
September 28th, 2007 at 10:59 amComment by toasterhead — September 28, 2007 @ 10:48 am
It’s called politics. Unfortunately, sometimes even the good people in Washington have to play the game. Don’t hate the player - hate the game.
Playing “THE GAME” Is a major reason why too many Politicians went along with Bushbags lies and supported this war in the beginning . This kind of game is actually getting REAL PEOPLE KILLED right now! So don’t be so glib abut this GAME as you call it. We have to stop this deadly killing game now.
September 28th, 2007 at 11:00 amThere are plenty of reasons to regret Limbaugh.
∞
September 28th, 2007 at 11:04 amIf the GOP doesn’t introduce a like resolution denouncing Rush Limbaugh’s comments, they will lose the faltering support they have. After all, how many americans want to be affiliated with obvious hypocrits? They did it for MoveOn, now let’s see what their real motives were in the condemnation of MoveOn, shall we? They may be “hoist on their own pitard” again!
September 28th, 2007 at 11:04 amSorry, guys - this entire controversy is ridiculous. This board sounds like a bunch of children on a playground saying nyah-nyah-nyah to kids across the asphalt. “He said it too!” I mean, come on. Of course Rush said it. Are we now commanding our Senators to busy themselves “condemning” free speech? This is getting silly and, I fear, out of hand.
Eye on the prize, people, eye on the prize. Let’s get out of Iraq.
September 28th, 2007 at 11:05 amI’d have to say that I “hate the player” and “hate the game”. When will grow politicians with the personal integrity and spine enough to NOT play the game? Until we do, the game and the player are equally loathed. Sorry.
September 28th, 2007 at 11:06 amVandrop: While I agree wholeheartedly that the serious discussion and point is getting out of Iraq, why not demand a bit of personal integrity out of these sycophantic, reichstep Republicans who are now being shown to be totally hypocrites.
September 28th, 2007 at 11:07 amVandrop: I believe most americans are capable of multi-tasking, don’t you?
September 28th, 2007 at 11:08 amFurthermore, calling this controversy “ridiculous” is a tacit approval of outright hypocrisy. Soon we won’t be able to look ourselves in the mirror, for heaven’s sakes. If we continue to permit and condone flagrant hypocrisy, I’d say that there’s little left within the fabric of this country to hold it together. If you find it impossible to multi-task (keeping your eye on the ball and also demanding personal integrity of Congres), thank goodness that most americans are able to do so.
September 28th, 2007 at 11:10 amComment by Candyce — September 28, 2007 @ 10:42 am.
You were deceived by the right wing meme and thier faux outrage over an advertisemant in the New York Times. This was an orchestrated attack on Moveon. A deliberate distraction from the real issue here. Getting out of Iraq and their blind support for Bushbag’s War.
Comment by Ed beckmann — September 28, 2007 @ 10:51 am
I haven’t been deceived by anything. My comment was about Webb and Webb only. Aside from this vote, are there other votes on Iraq that Webb has made that you feel have been questionable?
September 28th, 2007 at 11:11 amEXACTLY what I wanted to say!
September 28th, 2007 at 11:14 amPlaying “THE GAME†Is a major reason why too many Politicians went along with Bushbags lies and supported this war in the beginning . This kind of game is actually getting REAL PEOPLE KILLED right now! So don’t be so glib abut this GAME as you call it. We have to stop this deadly killing game now.
Comment by Ed beckmann — September 28, 2007 @ 11:00 am
Right - which is why I’m happy with Webb’s votes on actual substantive amendments to the Defense Approps bill that matter. That’s what I care about, not his bit of fundraising for MoveOn.org.
September 28th, 2007 at 11:14 amI think the Dems call it “taking the high road†and “not stooping to their levelâ€. Noble, to be sure — but it resonates with the public as “wimping outâ€.
Comment by missmolly — September 28, 2007 @ 10:59 am
I absolutely agree. And, as a member of the public, I also agree that the Dems are spineless cowards.
September 28th, 2007 at 11:15 amAside from this vote, are there other votes on Iraq that Webb has made that you feel have been questionable?
Comment by Candyce — September 28, 2007 @ 11:11 am
Are you kidding????? Read my post at 10:56 Webb is a sham!
September 28th, 2007 at 11:16 amRight - which is why I’m happy with Webb’s votes on actual substantive amendments to the Defense Approps bill that matter. That’s what I care about, not his bit of fundraising for MoveOn.org.
Comment by toasterhead — September 28, 2007 @ 11:14 am
Exactly! In fact, I am one of those who was moved to make a donation to MoveOn immediately after the vote, and I certainly wasn’t alone.
September 28th, 2007 at 11:18 amI still think that the Move On ad served it’s purpose.
As far as a resolution against Rush; why give him the attention ? That’s why I appreciate Webb’s understated response to his comment.
∞
September 28th, 2007 at 11:19 amComment by Candyce — September 28, 2007 @ 11:11 am.
I haven’t been deceived by anything. My comment was about Webb and Webb only. Aside from this vote, are there other votes on Iraq that Webb has made that you feel have been questionable?
Webb voted to give Bush a blank check for the war and also voted WITH THE REPUBLICANS to expand Bush’s illegal NSA spying. The Moveon vote was a real betrayal of all of us who worked so hard with Moveon to get him elected. A kind of last straw if you will.
September 28th, 2007 at 11:22 amI forget is Limbaugh a major fundraising organization for Republicans?
Comment by CaptainMantaste — September 28, 2007 @ 11:20 am
YES
Do republican leaders consult with limbaugh before they make policy decisions?
YES. And they go on his show when pushing their agenda.
NEXT
September 28th, 2007 at 11:29 amAs far as a resolution against Rush; why give him the attention ?
Its not Rush. Its the entire right wing of this country and the MSM being able to portray those of us who are anti-war as being anti-troop.
September 28th, 2007 at 11:30 amYou cannot allow Congress to pass bills condemning a liberal organization such as MoveOn while not calling out the same behavior from Conservatives.
# 27 Comment by hanshiro — September 28, 2007 @ 10:56 am
Exactly, I live in CA. and contributed to his campaign. I won’t say Webb is a Lieberman (too early to tell), but he is a D. Feinstein.
September 28th, 2007 at 11:30 amLet’s not dismiss limbaughs characterization; but let us all acknowledge that we are not comparing apples to apples, when we equate limbaughs utterance with MoveOn.orgs calculated denegration of Petraeus (unfairly) to promote it’s partisan agenda.
Comment by CaptainMantastic — September 28, 2007 @ 11:29 am
What part of the MoveOn ad was incorrect? As opposed to Limbaugh, who just slandered our troops?
You may not agree that standing before congress and lying, spinning, and generally completely misrepresenting the Iraq situation to defend a failed policy which has resulted in more deaths than Saddam during his reign, equates to a betrayal, but I do.
September 28th, 2007 at 11:33 amNice try, but not really the same thing.
Comment by CaptainMantastic — September 28, 2007 @ 11:20 am
I notice you explicitly did not condemn Rush in your statement.
Instead your lame statement will be looked upon as support for Rush’s statement.
hypocrite.
September 28th, 2007 at 11:35 amThe hypocrisy is glaringly bright, due to the fact that not even one republican ( or troll for that matter ) has not actually condemned Limburger’s statement.
CaptainMasterbation is trying to excuse Limburger’s trashing Soldiers as a gaffe?
Figures.
September 28th, 2007 at 11:43 amCaptainMasterbation is trying to excuse Limburger’s trashing Soldiers as a gaffe? Figures.
Comment by Wayne — September 28, 2007 @ 11:43 am
Add to the fact that during the Rwandan genocide, one of the most pivotal factors in that horrific event was the media, specifically the RADIO MOUTHPIECES egging the ‘cleansing’ forward. The fact that Limbaugh still has any audience points to the absolute gullibility and resistance to individual thought of his listeners. ‘Dittoheads’ doesn’t exactly suggest great thinkers, does it?
September 28th, 2007 at 11:52 amLet’s not dismiss limbaughs characterization; but let us all acknowledge that we are not comparing apples to apples, when we equate limbaughs utterance with MoveOn.orgs calculated denegration of Petraeus (unfairly) to promote it’s partisan agenda.
Comment by CaptainMantastic — September 28, 2007 @ 11:29 am
You’re right; they’re not the same thing. Limbaugh is on the air day in and day out, spouting the same sort of right wing propaganda constantly. The MoveOn advertisement, on the other hand, appeared one time in a newspaper and likely would have passed quickly in obscurity if the Right hadn’t thrown a huge hissy fit.
Which of the two has a partisan agenda? What? Both of them? But Rush’s partisan agenda is OK with you because you’re both wingnuts.
September 28th, 2007 at 11:53 amHmmm, not ONE troll (or Republican) condemning Limdick’s slander of the soldiers.
THE SILENCE IS DEAFANING!!!
September 28th, 2007 at 12:02 pmLet’s look again: MoveOn: a conglomeration of grassroots supporters whose base votes on which issues to tackle. Made up of and funded primarily by voters.
Limbaugh: A fat drug addict who lied about his drug use until he was busted. Lied about his hearing loss until he was busted about his drug use. Lied to get out of military service-complaining about a BOIL ON HIS @SS! Lied about taking a mislabeled prescription bottle of Viagra (prescription falsification is a felony…unless you’re Limbaugh I guess) on a ‘fishing trip’ with other men to the Dominican Republic, (known for their underaged prostitutes.) Has shown his bigotry and racist streaks, which also cost him a football announcing job. The list goes on.
Gee, wonder which one will attract the screw-loose, fringe, gung-ho, bush-suck, something to hide chickenhawk crowd….
September 28th, 2007 at 12:05 pmI think you’re partisanship affects your emotions and impedes your ability to reason.
Comment by CaptainMantastic — September 28, 2007 @ 11:52 am
Oh, you seem to willfully ignore the fact I bash Dems I see as doing wrong as well as Repiglicans.
I also condemn anyone, liberal or neocon that trashes a Soldier, a fact that has started arguments here even with liberal posters that I think went too far.
Whereas you have not made one statement of condemnation of Limburger. Rather you mince words and excuse his statement as a gaffe.
Hypocrite.
September 28th, 2007 at 12:05 pmSuggesting that congress should censure Rush as they did MoveOn.org, isn’t reasonable, because they are not similar entities (Rush is an entertainer and MoveOn is a democratic fundraising organization) and the incidences were also dissimilar (Rush’s characterization was on live radio, MoveOn’s was planned and deliberate; with an opportunity for review.)
Comment by CaptainMantastic — September 28, 2007 @ 12:00 pm
That’s the lamest defense I can imagine. Ooooh, Rush’s doesn’t count because he (a trained, and experienced announcer) just blurted it out. He didn’t plan it, it just popped out.
The MoveOn advertisement (which you probably haven’t bothered to read) was full of useful and accurate information, whether you like the headline or not. Rush, on the other hand, insulted all the military personnel who do not share his opinion. And yet you want to let him off the hook.
Disgusting
September 28th, 2007 at 12:07 pmequating Rush’s mistaken view — Captainmasterbation
Mistaken view??
First gaffe, now mistaken view???
hypocrite.
September 28th, 2007 at 12:08 pmNo Glanstatic - Rush just raises a lot of votes for them through lying-by-proxy, smearing, and water-carrying their lame-ass talking points, and dittoheads like you can’t tell the difference between the monkeysh*t he flings and actual information, so you turn out at the polls to vote our Constitution down the crapper - hope you’re real proud of yourself - WOW.
September 28th, 2007 at 12:10 pmI notice, mantragic, that you skipped my question completely, which makes you a disingenuous whiner. I’ll pose it again:
What part of the MoveOn ad was incorrect? As opposed to Limbaugh, who just slandered our troops?
You may not agree that standing before congress and lying, spinning, and generally completely misrepresenting the Iraq situation to defend a failed policy which has resulted in more deaths than Saddam during his reign, equates to a betrayal, but I do.
(Rush is an entertainer and MoveOn is a democratic fundraising organization) and the incidences were also dissimilar (Rush’s characterization was on live radio, MoveOn’s was planned and deliberate; with an opportunity for review.)
Comment by CaptainMantastic — September 28, 2007 @ 12:00 pm
No, MoveOn is NOT a Democratic fundraising organization, it’s a PROGRESSIVE, meaning it isn’t solely for a particular party, just the candidates that support open government and return to Constitutional respect, Habeas Corpus, etc. You don’t even know what or whom you’re objecting to, so what the hell do you know?
September 28th, 2007 at 12:11 pmIs anyone here willing to acknowledge the difference between limbaugh that sits in front of a live mike for 750 hours a year, saying what he said - ad lib; and MoveOn.org plan and executing the Betrayus ad.
Comment by CaptainMantastic
I don’t care about Limbaugh, we already no he’s a dirty-fighting partison hack.
The people I’m pissed off at are all the republican congresmmen who screamed bloody murder abour MoveOn’s add, but remain silent about Rush’s comment. They have had plenty of time to think things through.
I’m also pissed at the spineless democrats who’ve barely said anything against his comments.
September 28th, 2007 at 12:11 pmI think you’re partisanship affects your emotions and impedes your ability to reason.
Comment by CaptainMantastic
The same could be said of you.
September 28th, 2007 at 12:13 pmActually it doesn’t surprise me that the man who wore his son’s combat boots during his campaign would vote aye on the moveon amendment that contains the words
“strongly condemn personal attacks on the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all members of the United States Armed Forces.“
Comment by Candyce — September 28, 2007 @ 10:42 am
The MoveOn ad said nothing about the troops nor did it question their honor or integrity; Cornyn is the one that decided to include the troops in his effort to denounce MoveOn. By including them, it would be nothing for the Repubs to say that a vote against his amendment was a vote against the troops, which is just more of the same old blshit that we expect of the war supporters.
September 28th, 2007 at 12:14 pmIs anyone here willing to acknowledge the difference between limbaugh that sits in front of a live mike for 750 hours a year, saying what he said - ad lib; and MoveOn.org plan and executing the Betrayus ad.
Comment by CaptainMantastic
Are you willing to acknowledge that Rush took a direct shot at members of our military by calling some of them “phone solders,” while the MoveOn ad did not?
September 28th, 2007 at 12:16 pmOooops…”phony soldiers.”
September 28th, 2007 at 12:22 pmWhy don’t you listen to Rush’s comment and get your facts straight…FOR A CHANGE!! This is all a TOTAL LIE!! Rush was only talking about one convicted lying PHONY soldier!!
LIBS OWN DEFEAT!!
September 28th, 2007 at 12:24 pmComment by John Kerry — September 28, 2007 @ 12:24 pm
Liar
September 28th, 2007 at 12:25 pmRush said “Phony soldiers”. That’s plural. There is no such thing as a phony soldier. Only phony patriots.
Pat Tillman had expressed is distrust of the administration and the invasion of Iraq before his head was blown off. Care to say Pat Tillman is a phony soldier Rush?
September 28th, 2007 at 12:33 pmTrolls are so dishonest that it is definitely laughable - in fact, i laugh at them daily. Thanks, trolls, for providing the second best source of comedy I know of.
September 28th, 2007 at 12:34 pmI just heard the whole quote. Limbaugh was talking about the likes of Jesse MacBeth. Name ring a bell? He’s the fake Ranger [never made it past basic] that claimed to have engaged in something close to war crimes in Iraq that the liberal blogs ran with.
But MacBeth isn’t the only liar that the left has sold the public. Add Beauchamp, Jeff Lucey, Amorita Randall, Lansdale, Jimmy Massey and Micah Wright all lied in one way or another to undermine the Iraq mission.
Media Matters [and TP] is so dishonest it’s almost laughable.
Comment by Toliver — September 28, 2007 @ 12:29 pm
The “whole quote”? How about the whole transcript.
Your attempt to cover for Limbaugh is laughable in this day and age, when recordings and transcripts are readily available.
September 28th, 2007 at 12:34 pmBut MacBeth isn’t the only liar that the left has sold the public…Comment by Toliver — September 28, 2007 @ 12:29 pm
*cough*jessica Lynch,Pat Tillman*cough*
Are you kidding toe-liver? Are you actually pushing that line with a straight face?
September 28th, 2007 at 12:34 pmsplit all the hairs you want - all you’ll end up with is a pile of very, very fine hair.
September 28th, 2007 at 12:35 pmI think this may have been mentioned before, but it bears repeating.
A soldier’s response:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ jon-soltz/ so-im-a-phony-soldier_b_66175.html
September 28th, 2007 at 12:36 pmcan’t make a silk purse out of a butt-pimple.
September 28th, 2007 at 12:36 pmComment by Toliver — September 28, 2007 @ 12:29 pm
Then you can point out the section in the MoveOn ad where the organization specifically took a shot at the honor and integrity of the troops.
September 28th, 2007 at 12:36 pmMedia Matters [and TP] is so dishonest it’s almost laughable.
Comment by Toliver — September 28, 2007 @ 12:29 pm
Liar, Rush equated any Soldier that speaks out as a “phony soldier”.
That you cannot bring yourself to condemn him speaks volumes.
September 28th, 2007 at 12:39 pmThat you cannot bring yourself to condemn him speaks volumes.
Comment by Wayne — September 28, 2007 @ 12:39 pm
But they can only speak what the rusher spoon-feeds them. (Or maybe he feeds them with little PILLS! heh heh)
September 28th, 2007 at 12:40 pmNotice how mantragic ran away when I asked him to point out where the MoveOn ad was incorrect? Republicans are nothing but chickensh*t cowards who cannot handle confrontation. That’s why they need an entire military-industrial complex to do their fighting for them. They need drug addicts, perverts and liars to look up to.
republicans: still huevos-free
September 28th, 2007 at 12:41 pmMedia Matters [and TP] is so dishonest it’s almost laughable.
Comment by Toliver — September 28, 2007 @ 12:29 pm
Prove them wrong on this:
As Media Matters has also documented, on the August 2, 2005, program, Limbaugh repeatedly referred to Iraq war veteran and then-Democratic congressional candidate Paul Hackett as “another liberal Democrat trying to hide behind a military uniform” and accused him of going to Iraq “to pad the resumé.”
…and explain how this does not tie in with is reference to “phony soldiers.”
September 28th, 2007 at 12:41 pmBigfoot (on conservatives and the military):
we give our military, from Generals to Privates, the support and thanks they deserve for a job well done.
I guess we can add Limbaugh to the ranks of “former” conservatives, since he just insulted the troops?
September 28th, 2007 at 12:43 pm“The MoveOn ad was a a smear that attacked a General at war. It was douchebaggery at it’s worst. You want us to lose and many of you hate the militery.”
Comment by Toliver
They used the same rhetorical tactic Fox constantly uses - asking a question instead of making a clear declarative statement. Strange, but I’ve never read you ever criticizing Fox for doing the same thing…
September 28th, 2007 at 12:47 pmWhat about Jon Soltz, righties? What about the 7 soldiers (now down to 4, I believe) who voiced their opposition AND gave their lives for their country?
Betrayed. By their leaders, by Rush, and by you talking points monkeys. Leave it to those if us with a conscience - we’ll be ashamed for you, since you’re so proudly free of that quaint human characteristic.
September 28th, 2007 at 12:47 pmMedia Matters did not print the whole quote people. They cut it off right before Limbaugh talked about MacBeth [the fake Ranger you guys ate up].
Did someone say “plural�
Add Beauchamp, Jeff Lucey, Amorita Randall, Lansdale, Jimmy Massey and Micah Wright all lied in one way or another to undermine the Iraq mission.
Comment by Toliver — September 28, 2007 @ 12:38 pm
You’re a ridiculous liar. The full transcript is available on Media Matters site, as I posted. Here’s the relevant section:
There is no point in here where Rush refers to any specific “phony” soldiers and all the backpedaling in the world on your part cannot make it so. Either you’re a liar or you’re drinking Rush’s kool aid and are incapable of thinking for yourself.
September 28th, 2007 at 12:47 pmComment by Toliver — September 28, 2007 @ 12:38 pm
Rush equated the Soldiers of the 82nd Airborne, who wrote the Op-ed as “phony soldiers”
Either condemn Rush or be complicit, troll.
September 28th, 2007 at 12:48 pmQuote and source please?
Comment by Vendetta — September 28, 2007 @ 12:43 pm
How many times do you need it posted, fool?
September 28th, 2007 at 12:48 pmThis Jesse McBeth smokescreen is laughable as is the phony outrage from the Right at the dishonesty of some individuals, while they completely ignore the regular outflow of lies from the Right.
September 28th, 2007 at 12:50 pmUnc, Wayne, check comment 29 - silence not so deafening.
September 28th, 2007 at 12:50 pmI read the transcript. Rush was commenting on one solider who lied about his involment in the military. He was in the service for 45 days never even over in Iraq. The solider didn’t receive the purple heart, never served, didn’t shoot a bullet. He called that ONE solider a phony not all servicemen and women who disagree with the war. How about getting your facts straight before shooting your mouth off and looking like an idiot! Which has been proved 85+ times on this forum. Great Job!
September 28th, 2007 at 12:51 pmThe Lynch story took off because of the 24/7 media’s thirst for a story. Army spokemen couldn’t [and did not] verify what was being reported by the press. Get your facts correct.
Comment by Toliver — September 28, 2007 @ 12:41 pm
Really want to challenge me on Jessica Lynch? Really? You claim it was solely the MSM? (like they were operating free-lance in Iraq, not having everything vetted by the bushies?…) Are you that uninformed and gullible? Christ, you get incrementally stupider by the post…
September 28th, 2007 at 12:52 pmRight where MediaMatters cuts off is when Rush tore into the left for promoting the likes of MacBeth.
Media Matters is a dishonest site.
Comment by Toliver — September 28, 2007 @ 12:49 pm
It doesn’t matter, because it’s obvious from the context of the conversation and the preceding conversation, that McBeth has nothing to do with what was said here. His response to the caller is completely devoid of such a reference.
September 28th, 2007 at 12:54 pmMedia Matters is a dishonest site.
Comment by Toliver — September 28, 2007 @ 12:49 pm
Ya think? Of course it is dishonest, but such is the world we live in. They are the masters of the out of context snippet to smear an individual who disagrees with them.
That said, Rush could’ve done better in being clear he was talking about the lying MacBeth and no one else. I think Hacket is a Patriot, Webb too, I feel nothing but admiration and appreciation for people brave enough volunteer, especially these days. I don’t have to agree with their politics or their policy views, but if you serve in combat you are a hero to me.
September 28th, 2007 at 12:54 pmlosers, we? - “fact check on the Webb thread…..fact check on the Webb thread, please”
it was so much fun at election time last fall - imagine what next fall will bring - and i say again - hope you righties are all around to share in our housecleaning party (not many of last year’s trolls chose to hang around after November)
September 28th, 2007 at 12:55 pm“How about getting your facts straight before shooting your mouth off and looking like an idiot! Which has been proved 85+ times on this forum. Great Job!”
Comment by buffett0069
He said phonies - plural. Dismissed.
September 28th, 2007 at 12:57 pmif our “partisan rancor” is bothering you, you are perfectly free to go away - not sure you were invited in the first place.
September 28th, 2007 at 12:57 pm“The Army didn’t bother to verify the press accounts of what happened with Lynch. Get your facts correct.”
Comment by Toliver
Fixed it for you.
No thanks necessary.
September 28th, 2007 at 12:58 pm“Why would context matter to you viciious smear artists?”
Comment by Toliver
Oh, the irony…
September 28th, 2007 at 1:00 pmComment by gummitch — September 28, 2007 @ 12:50 pm
So now that you know he was referring to Macbeth you change the subject to the right allegedly being selectively outraged by lying.
Nice try you guys lose.
AGAIN
Comment by Vendetta — September 28, 2007 @ 12:54 pm
You’re delusional. He was not referring to McBeth, he was responding to a caller who was in turn responding to a previous caller (the one Limbaugh said could not possibly be a real Republican). The reference to McBeth was in a later, unrelated announcement that he made, well after this conversation.
September 28th, 2007 at 1:01 pm“You liars have sold us these @holes over and over w/out many [any?] retractions.”
Comment by Toliver
He referenced soldiers in the military. He said nothing of these folks you mention.
September 28th, 2007 at 1:01 pmYou may disagree with Petraeus and his assessment of the surge, but does the fact that you disagree with him make him a liar or guilty of betrayal? Comment by CaptainMantastic — September 28, 2007 @ 12:41 pm
Apparently, you’ve purposely ignored my question. I wasn’t asking for the history of agreement with Petraeus and the Progressives, I asked pointedly where the ad was incorrect.
You’ve yet to answer a direct question with three (now 4) attempts. Chickensh*t.
Again, spinning the available information in order to give bush’s war the appearance of success is a betrayal. The information proves Petraeus not only spun the official information, but actually recatagorized DEATHS in order to make the numbers add up in favor of a failed policy. Petraeus lied. His numbers do NOT add up. That is a betrayal to the Constitution that Petraeus was sworn to uphold, not bush’s VERSION of the Constitution, but the actual document. You remember it don’t you? The one that has the Habeas Corpus suspended and due process suspended?
Chickensh*t.
September 28th, 2007 at 1:02 pm“The reference to McBeth was in a later, unrelated announcement that he made, well after this conversation.”
Comment by gummitch
After he’d had time to consider his ill-thought comments. Knowing how bad it sounded, he had to come up with something.
September 28th, 2007 at 1:03 pmToliver, Rush said “phony soldiers”. Who are the other ones? Did Rush misspeak? Then he should say so.
Context is irrelevant when looking at the specific. He said “phony soldiers”. That means more than one and I know you understand that.
McBeth was never a soldier if he didn’t make it out of boot camp so please show me the phony soldiers that he spoke of.
September 28th, 2007 at 1:05 pmRighties get their panties in a bunch when we play the game by the rules they established. That’s just too bad. I feel really bad about that.
September 28th, 2007 at 1:05 pmOh, and Toliver, you still haven’t shown us the part in the MoveOn ad that questions the honor and integrity of the troops.
September 28th, 2007 at 1:06 pmRighties get their panties in a bunch when we play the game by the rules they established. That’s just too bad. I feel really bad about that.
Comment by tombaker
Kumbaya, muthaf*cka! We ain’t your daddies’ liberals.
September 28th, 2007 at 1:08 pmThe exchange wasn’t the most enlightened, but what it wasn’t; was Rush denegrating any soldier that disagrees with the war as ‘phony’.
Comment by CaptainMantastic
Wow. The denial is thick in here. Rush referenced soldiers. Spin it anyway you want.
September 28th, 2007 at 1:12 pmhanshiro,
The Army didn’t verify the press accounts of what happened with Lynch. Get your facts correct.
Comment by Toliver — September 28, 2007 @ 12:55 pm
Aww, watch this, toe-lover is gonna get slammed:
But congressional investigators have dug up evidence that a military official did in fact provide at least one newspaper with details of Lynch’s alleged exploits. In an April 3, 2003, story, The Military Times, a specialist newspaper, quoted Navy Capt. Frank Thorp as saying Lynch waged quite a battle prior to her capture. At the time, Thorp was one of the U.S. military’s senior spokesmen in the Persian Gulf. Now a rear admiral, he serves today as a deputy to Dorrance Smith, the Pentagon’s public relations chief. (Smith was not head of public affairs at the time Lynch was captured.) “We do have very strong indications that Jessica Lynch was not captured very easily … Reports are that she fired her [M-16 rifle] until she had no more ammunition,†Thorp said at the time, shortly after Lynch was retrieved from an Iraqi hospital by U.S. forces.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18368821/site/newsweek
I await your abject and fawning apology toe-lover, you know-nothing bush-suck propagandist.
September 28th, 2007 at 1:12 pmWord, mr. barfly, word.
Rush was a disgrace long before he called our troops phonies, “Captain”
September 28th, 2007 at 1:13 pmThe exchange wasn’t the most enlightened, but what it wasn’t; was Rush denegrating any soldier that disagrees with the war as ‘phony’.
Comment by CaptainMantastic — September 28, 2007 @ 1:09 pm
So you’re like, what, psychic? Because you’ve managed to interpret three words from Rush as though you knew exactly what he meant, and it had nothing to do with what he actually SAID. And that what he actually said really didn’t mean what he said but an entirely different point he was trying to make.
Delusional. You’re completely delusional.
September 28th, 2007 at 1:13 pmI just heard the comments and I still ask the question. Who is a phony soldier? Rush clearly says “phony soldiers”. That is more than one. And that deserves an explaination from Rush. Not from people attempting to defend him. It is also a slap in the face of all soldiers. If he is unable, or unwilling to name these ‘phony soldiers” then he is calling them all phony.
It’s particularly sad and funny that so many are attempting to defend the indefensible.
September 28th, 2007 at 1:15 pmWho here has heard the whole thing in context [w/the MacBeth [part]?
None of you? Didn’t think so.
Like I said, I’ll post the full transcript when someone makes it available.
Get your crow ready for lunch.
Comment by Toliver — September 28, 2007 @ 1:13 pm
Didn’t wait for an answer, did you? I’ve not heard it, but I’ve seen a transcript of the McBeth portion, on a wingnut website, where it’s quite clear it is not part of this particular conversation, even though the wingnut was trying to excuse Rush, just like you are.
Eat your own crow, buffoon.
September 28th, 2007 at 1:16 pmToliver, where any of those names mentioned by Rush in that same call?
September 28th, 2007 at 1:16 pmC’mon Cap. Rush just gave his listeners a glimpse into his shriveled soul, and you’re so partisan, you’ll climb out on a very slender branch to defend his smear.
September 28th, 2007 at 1:16 pmPost the wingnut site that has the transcript if you have nothing to fear.
Comment by Toliver — September 28, 2007 @ 1:17 pm
Do your own search, if you can work out how it’s done.
I’ve got to scrub the PC down just from visiting that site.
September 28th, 2007 at 1:19 pmIt’s particularly sad and funny that so many are attempting to defend the indefensible.
Comment by hellinabucket — September 28, 2007 @ 1:15 pm
Yet BushCo and the Repugs, along with their little minions, have been doing that for 6 1/2 years …. and it has worked, as none of the Cabal is in jail or up on charges.
September 28th, 2007 at 1:19 pmSo when are they going to stop “regretting” what Limbaugh said and introduce a resolution to condemn what he said? What’s good for the goose and all that. If they don’t do something, they will, once again, be showing what wimps they are.
September 28th, 2007 at 1:20 pmHey, Captain Chickensh*tastic, I’m still waiting for you to provide evidence of where the MoveOn ad was incorrect, or where a General can cook the numbers, present false evidence before congress, yet not commit betrayal to the laws and Country he swore to uphold. (p.s. “Following orders” is known as the ‘Nuremberg defense’ and not a viable excuse.)
I’ve a feeling I’ve got a long wait…
September 28th, 2007 at 1:21 pmI just tried and couldn’t find it. It figures you won’t post the full transcript. Such dishonesty.
Comment by Toliver — September 28, 2007 @ 1:23 pm
If you haven’t listened to the entire exchange, toe-lover, how in the HELL can you come in here calling people liars when you don’t know what the hell you’re even talking about. You can’t even FIND the damn transcript? Christ, arguing with these Limbaugh idiot-heads is like booing at the special olympics…
September 28th, 2007 at 1:26 pmRush, on the other hand, attempts to make the point, that the left uses people that lie about their status in the military to make their anti-war stance more credible.
The exchange wasn’t the most enlightened, but what it wasn’t; was Rush denegrating any soldier that disagrees with the war as ‘phony’.
Comment by CaptainMantastic
Wow, I am amazed that the Right Wing Loon Captain was able to know what Limbaugh really meant from those few words. Is he psychic? Can he read Limbaugh’s thoughts? Or is this just a Right Wing Loon’s interpretation of what Limbaugh meant so that they can make excuses for him? That’s what Right Wing Loons do, they make things up when they don’t have the truth behind them.
September 28th, 2007 at 1:26 pmTell you what, Toliver. I’ll make it easy for you. Take each point that MoveOn raises in their ad, and tell us why it was OK for Petraeus to exclude that information in his report to Congress.
Next, tell us that by excluding this information, why it is not fair to question the good general’s motives.
September 28th, 2007 at 1:27 pmShortly before the report on the effectiveness of the surge in September, many democrats including Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer acknowledged that some success had occurred in Iraq, notably in al Anbar province.
Comment by CaptainMantastic
The Right Wing Loon Captain is once again misrepresenting what Democrats have said. Sorry Mr. Loon but the “success” in Anbar province had nothing to do with the escalation Betrayus was responsible for. They were bribing the Iraqi’s in Anbar province long before the escalation started.
September 28th, 2007 at 1:29 pmHere toliver:
http://blackandright.mensnewsdaily.com/ 2007/ 09/ 28/ rush-and-the-phony-soldiers/
I read the transcript that followed the phony soldiers slam. It goes on about MacBeth. He should get more than what was thrown at him. But MacBeth is the only one described but Rush specifically said “phony soldiers” and then later “fake soldiers” to describe MacBeth. No other soldiers were discussed and the initial impression is still left that there are active duty military that are “phony”.
Now do you stand behind Rush Limbaugh and believe there are active duty military that are phony? Or are you going to understand that without an admission of error from Rush he has slandered the entire military?
September 28th, 2007 at 1:31 pmComment by CaptainMantastic — September 28, 2007 @ 1:26 pm
The goal of the surge, as laid out by the administration itself, was to get a handle on security issues and allow reconciliation within the Iraqi government.
That did not happen, yet you and Petraeus and Bush and Cheney and every other supporter of this war insist that the surge has worked.
September 28th, 2007 at 1:31 pm“Apparently, you’ve purposely ignored my question. I wasn’t asking for the history of agreement with Petraeus and the Progressives, I asked pointedly where the ad was incorrect.â€
Here’s what Petraeus said during his confirmation hearing…Comment by CaptainMantastic — September 28, 2007 @ 1:26 pm
Is english your first language? I did NOT ask for a sample of Petraeus’ testimony. You really want to duck the direct question; unsuccessfully so. You keep throwing up a forest of verbiage to hide in. Chickensh*t
Where-was-the-ad-incorrect?
Apparently you’d prefer to duck the fact that the MoveOn ad was correct, the General’s numbers did NOT add up, and the testimony before congress was filled with blatant and easily debunked lies and spin. While I wait for toe-lover’s abject apology, I’ll accept your obvious capitulation.
Chickensh*t.
September 28th, 2007 at 1:32 pmTo Right Wing Loon Captain:
Here’s what Schumer said:
And let me be clear, the violence in Anbar has gone down despite the surge, not because of the surge. The inability of American soldiers to protect these tribes from al Qaeda said to these tribes we have to fight al Qaeda ourselves. It wasn’t that the surge brought peace here. It was that the warlords took peace here, created a temporary peace here. And that is because there was no one else there protecting.
As you can clearly see, HE WAS NOT attributing the so-called “success” in Anbar to the escalation of troops.
September 28th, 2007 at 1:33 pm(Gratuitous round of hi-5’s for all the lefty good guys around here who have become so very good in the last couple years i’ve been hanging around at fighting the dittoheads - taking it to righty in terms he can’t dodge, and never letting up on them. they’ve been asking for it since 1980, and it’s a pleasure to be around to witness them getting their richly-deserved comeuppance)
September 28th, 2007 at 1:33 pmHaving just googled “Rush Limbaugh phony soldiers,” I’ve discovered the wingnut sites are all avoiding this smear like the plague. If his words were defensible, you’d think at least one would rise to defend him.
September 28th, 2007 at 1:34 pmthe local Capt. here is under the impression that any success by our military will be opposed by the progressives. He is wrong. He is under the impression that Al Anbar is a military success. He isn’t completly right. There has been numerous postings stating the success is largely due to the Sunni tribes taking the lead which was much more a political achievement.
Capt. you do yourself a disservice when you think in such a manner. That’s a wall you built and then cheer when it crumbles.
I will not speak for everyone here, only myself when I say the military will perform as it should. The greatest fighting force the world has ever seen. The rationale that placed them where they are is the biggest blunder in my lifetime and the needless death of our soldiers and the wasting of our dollars is unforgiveable.
September 28th, 2007 at 1:36 pmToliver - you craven threadjacker. If you don’t like what we think and say, you are free to “change the channel”, but do not expect anyone here to give a happy monkeyf*ck what your overly long, hairsplitting, equivocating, reactionary, conflationist posts have to say. Who invited you in the first place? How did you even find out this site existed, and why aren’t you busy trying to hold your own political party together, instead of wasting your time here?
September 28th, 2007 at 1:36 pmHey toe-lover, you ignored this so I’ll post it again, you disingenuous f*ck:
hanshiro,
The Army didn’t verify the press accounts of what happened with Lynch. Get your facts correct.
Comment by Toliver — September 28, 2007 @ 12:55 pm
Aww, watch this, toe-lover is gonna get slammed:
But congressional investigators have dug up evidence that a military official did in fact provide at least one newspaper with details of Lynch’s alleged exploits. In an April 3, 2003, story, The Military Times, a specialist newspaper, quoted Navy Capt. Frank Thorp as saying Lynch waged quite a battle prior to her capture. At the time, Thorp was one of the U.S. military’s senior spokesmen in the Persian Gulf. Now a rear admiral, he serves today as a deputy to Dorrance Smith, the Pentagon’s public relations chief. (Smith was not head of public affairs at the time Lynch was captured.) “We do have very strong indications that Jessica Lynch was not captured very easily … Reports are that she fired her [M-16 rifle] until she had no more ammunition,†Thorp said at the time, shortly after Lynch was retrieved from an Iraqi hospital by U.S. forces.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18368821/site/newsweek
I await your abject and fawning apology toe-lover, you know-nothing bush-suck propagandist.
Comment by hanshiro — September 28, 2007 @ 1:12 pm
Tsk..poor toe-lover….too much Limbaugh makes toe-lover a bigger douchebag than he already is.
September 28th, 2007 at 1:38 pm“Oh, the Pretraeus ad was incorrect in that is smeared an honorable man [that didn’t cook one F’n book].
Comment by Toliver
But all they did was ask the question, not make a declarative statement. Do you now condemn Fox for doing this as well? They use this tactic all the time, yet we don’t see you complaining when they do it.
September 28th, 2007 at 1:41 pmOh, the Pretraeus ad was incorrect in that is smeared an honorable man [that didn’t cook one F’n book].
Comment by Toliver — September 28, 2007 @ 1:35 pm
“Honorable man” who used cooked numbers and information that he knew was not supported by the truth. I believe Centcom chief Admiral Fallon called him an “ass-kissing little chickensh*t.” Not much of a recommendation, huh?
September 28th, 2007 at 1:42 pmno — i’m not even angry - you’re just a craven thread-jacker, spinning like a top, free to go somewhere you’re welcome (hint: that’s not here)
September 28th, 2007 at 1:46 pmOh, the Pretraeus ad was incorrect in that is smeared an honorable man [that didn’t cook one F’n book].
Comment by Toliver
When he talked about the successes of Anbar province (which began before the surge even started), I knew he was going to give a slanted portrayal of the situation.
To me, that’s cooking the intel.
September 28th, 2007 at 1:46 pmSo far toe-lover and captain chickensh*tastic have ducked every piece of hard evidence and provided none to dispute the issue except their faux and hypocritical indignation. And dodges, like “Oh it was the ARMY, not the NAVY. It was TUESDAY, not WEDNESDAY”… Christ, if there’s a straw to grasp, however weak, they’re shameless enough to debase themselves.
Pardon me while I laugh in their faces: BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHHA!
It must suck to be the deluded.
September 28th, 2007 at 1:48 pmToliver, Limbaugh knew he’d stepped in it, and had to backpedal.
So he’s got good hindsight, but also can’t keep from blurting what he really feels.
September 28th, 2007 at 1:51 pmOh, the Pretraeus ad was incorrect in that is smeared an honorable man [that didn’t cook one F’n book].
Comment by Toliver — September 28, 2007 @ 1:35 pm
That’s all you’ve got? They smeared Betrayus therefore the ad is wrong?
Try again. I want you to explain to us why each issue in the ad is wrong.
September 28th, 2007 at 1:54 pmnot one of the rush sympathizers will acknowledge he said “phony soldiers” plural.
Any following argument is going to fall flat until you man up.
September 28th, 2007 at 1:54 pmCan anyone show me where the “Left” is standing behind MacBeth? I’m being told that’s whats happened but I can’t locate any support.
phony patriots.
September 28th, 2007 at 1:56 pmhanshiro,
Admiral Fallon never said that. Third-rate news outfits that quote made-up sources are not something worthy of believing.
Comment by Toliver — September 28, 2007 @ 1:47 pm
Provide the link that disputes the event. Here’s the original story:
WASHINGTON, Sep 12 (IPS) - In sharp contrast to the lionisation of Gen. David Petraeus by members of the U.S. Congress during his testimony this week, Petraeus’s superior, Admiral William Fallon, chief of the Central Command (CENTCOM), derided Petraeus as a sycophant during their first meeting in Baghdad last March, according to Pentagon sources familiar with reports of the meeting.
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=39235
Your turn, chickensh*t
September 28th, 2007 at 1:58 pmComment by CaptainMantastic — September 28, 2007 @ 1:45 pm
Ahhh…the old treason card. How Republic of you.
You left out these definitions:
- to be unfaithful in guarding, maintaining, or fulfilling.
- to deceive, misguide, or corrupt.
- To be false or disloyal to.
- To lead astray; deceive.
- Cause someone to believe an untruth.
September 28th, 2007 at 1:59 pmnot one of the rush sympathizers will acknowledge he said “phony soldiers†plural.
Any following argument is going to fall flat until you man up.
Comment by hellinabucket — September 28, 2007 @ 1:54 pm
So true.
It should be noted Keltoi is the only conservative on this thread that actually condemned Limburger.
A tip of the hat to Keltoi for standing up for all Soldiers
September 28th, 2007 at 2:00 pm“Your transcript may be the nail in the coffin. Nice work!”
Actually, I’ve already dealt with that.
“Don’t wait for progressives to acknowledge that you make a fair point. That will never happen.”
Pot, meet kettle. Read my post. Limbaugh was just engaging in CYA with his later comments.
September 28th, 2007 at 2:03 pmOriginal definition of surge success:
“If security is improved and the government can begin reconciliation.”
New definition of surge success:
“If security is improved.”
The surge has worked! Woo Hoo!
September 28th, 2007 at 2:04 pmI can’t get inside the man’s head, but I suspect that Senator Webb was using his “Senate floor voice” when he said he “regretted” Mr Limbaugh’s statement.
It’s an odd culture - you’re not allowed to call someone a liar or a thief, even when the whole world see them dissembling and stealing.
September 28th, 2007 at 2:05 pmI’m sure you understand, as well as I do, that progressives are more interested in maintaining Rush as their conservative boogeyman, than they are understanding what he really has to say.
Comment by CaptainMantastic — September 28, 2007 @ 1:59 pm
That’s because we lack psychic powers. We can only judge him by what actually comes out of his big mouth.
September 28th, 2007 at 2:06 pmThat’s because we lack psychic powers.
Comment by gummitch — September 28, 2007 @ 2:06 pm
Speak for yourself….. /snark
=)
September 28th, 2007 at 2:08 pmLimbaugh claims Murtha is a “phony soldier.” Now, at what point do lying f*cks like toe-lover and captain douchebagastic admit that Limbaugh is a smear-merchant and a liar?
http://www.crooksandliars.com/ 2007/ 09/ 28/ limbaugh-outrage-amplified-troop-and-dems-responses/
September 28th, 2007 at 2:11 pmI knew you were going to write that Wayne.
September 28th, 2007 at 2:16 pmSure is quiet. captain douchebagastic can’t tell me where the MoveOn ad was wrong, and toe-jammer can’t provide any sources to dispute the Fallon comment about Petraeus being an “ass kissing little chickensh*t.” Oh but he can run away from the bush-spin on Lynch and Tillman. Christ, these fools are dense. You could show them live film of bush f*cking a sheep and they’d still blame the shepherd and claim it’s all outta context.
It’s like shootin’ turds inna toilet bowl….
September 28th, 2007 at 2:16 pmNow, at what point do lying f*cks like toe-lover and captain douchebagastic admit that Limbaugh is a smear-merchant and a liar?
Comment by hanshiro — September 28, 2007 @ 2:11 pm
Has Hell froze over yet?
September 28th, 2007 at 2:17 pmAnd now Rush is smearing Murtha. So Toliver, care to apologize? Your talking points have all been shredded, now that Rush has attacked Murtha, a decorated veteran.
September 28th, 2007 at 2:18 pmComment by CaptainMantastic — September 28, 2007 @ 2:17 pm
This may be difficult for you to understand but the procedure when quoting someone is to provide a reference. You know, a link, a citation, something besides some words with quotation marks on either end.
And, if possible, the quotation should actually make a point.
September 28th, 2007 at 2:20 pmComment by CaptainMantastic
Still hiding behind strawmen? care to apologize for Rush’s comments about Murtha? Or is he also a “phony soldier?”
The right-wing blogs are silent - is it because they don’t want to be associated with Rush’s smear, or is it because they are glad to see him taken down a few pegs?
September 28th, 2007 at 2:23 pmI knew you were going to write that Wayne.
Comment by hellinabucket — September 28, 2007 @ 2:16 pm
Couldn’t help myself =P
September 28th, 2007 at 2:25 pmComment by CaptainMantastic — September 28, 2007 @ 2:17 pm
Rush calling Murtha a “phony soldier” just blew all your arguments and defense of Limburger out the window, troll-face
September 28th, 2007 at 2:28 pmCapt, if you were to address the facts and not jump to other subjects then you may garnish a more polite treatement.
Rush said “phony soldiers” plural, more than one. He isn’t backing down from that and has now escalated it again against a decorated war veteran (Murtha). He is slapping the face of every soldier by his statement. Without clarification he casts them all in the same lot.
Do you understand this?
September 28th, 2007 at 2:31 pmno Captain - we’re no strangers to the fake civility righties practice, and we’re not going to play that way any more. if you don’t like it, you remain free to leave - it’s as easy as a mouse-click.
September 28th, 2007 at 2:32 pm“I know most here disagree with my take on the limbaugh comment,”
Try “nearly all.”
Your “take” was revealed to be nothing more than a partisan whitewash coupled with a wrong assertion: that Limbaugh was only referencing these few “phony soldiers” you mentioned, not all soldiers who don’t agree with the mission. But Rush has himself throttled that poorly-constructed strawman, with his clear attack of Murtha.
September 28th, 2007 at 2:35 pmCapt, do you think that if someone were to search the archives here that you wouldn’t have a questionable insult, slur or abusive comment thrown in your face.
You are skirting the issue at hand. Rush said “phony soldiers†plural, more than one. He isn’t backing down from that and has now escalated it again against a decorated war veteran (Murtha). He is slapping the face of every soldier by his statement. Without clarification he casts them all in the same lot.
Do you understand this?
September 28th, 2007 at 2:41 pm“So, then, doesn’t that disqualify your feigned outrage over Rush’s phony soldier comment?”
Comment by CaptainMantastic
Ever heard of the term, false equivalence?
This is a good example.
September 28th, 2007 at 2:55 pmWell, since Toliver has refused for several hours to point out, with any credibility, why the issues raised by the MoveOn ad are incorrect (other than “they smeared Petraeus, so the ad is wrong”…I did say credible, didn’t I?), I’ll state his position for one of the issues.
In measuring the number of deaths to prove or disprove the success of the surge, deaths are being broken down as “important” and “not important.” The important ones are the deaths that result by shooting someone in the back of the head. The unimportant ones are the deaths caused by being shot in the front of the head.
The MoveOn ad points out that Petraeus left out the unimportant deaths, meaning fewer people are officially being killed, further meaning that the surge is working. In other words, the numbers are being skewed.
And why does Toliver support this? Because someone in his government tells him it’s not important to count all deaths, and he agrees.
September 28th, 2007 at 2:56 pmso, according to progressives, occassionally verbal abuse, adolesant cursing and namecalling are acceptable.
Comment by CaptainMantastic
Wahhh! You can always hit the report abuse button…
September 28th, 2007 at 2:57 pmI know most here disagree with my take on the limbaugh comment, but while we are censuring MoveOn.org and limbaugh, is anyone willing to admonish hanshiro for the lack of civility?
Comment by CaptainMantastic — September 28, 2007 @ 2:26 pm
When you stop lying, ducking and changing the subject, I’ll treat you with a measure of civility. You’ve clearly lost the debate and avoided answering direct questions. All you’ve left is to cry because I called you a douchebag? That’s your fallback?
Speaking of civility, and I’ll use your favorite fat drug addict to make the point:
On the August 23, 2005, broadcast of his radio show, Limbaugh said, “It’s time for somebody to tell the people on the left, you’re damn right we’re questioning your patriotism.”
On the September 17, 2004, edition of his radio show, Limbaugh said that half of 2004 Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry’s (MA) base “hates the military, hates America, hates Bush, hates the world except for France and Germany.”
LIMBAUGH: Hey, Barack Obama has picked up another endorsement: Halfrican American actress Halle Berry. “As a Halfrican American, I am honored to have Ms. Berry’s support, as well as the support of other Halfrican Americans,” Obama said.
He didn’t say it, but — anyway, there are those out there — greetings.
Douchebag is as douchebag does.
September 28th, 2007 at 3:00 pmcapt, you have time to acknowledge the first part of my post but not the second.
man up.
and your response to hanshiro tells me you support what Rush said there as well. It’s also interesting you can jump to respond to him but ig