Home > Uncategorized > Who is the Real Phony?

Who is the Real Phony?

Well, Matt and i were very pleased with Monday’s broadcast, especially the 5:05 segment when we took calls about Rush Limbaugh and the so-called “Phony Soldiers” quote. The podcast will be posted on the web site tomorrow morning if you missed it.

My position remains that this is a whole lot of nothing about nothing. I’ve read the transcripts on both Rush’s web site and the site for Media Matters and can find no place where rush specifically said that U.S. soldiers who are against our involvement in Iraq were phony soldiers. Never said it. Never happened. But now the whole thing has been spun out of control. Sen. Harry Reid is taking Rush to task and Sen. Tom Harkin on the Senate floor suggested that Rush was high on drugs again when he said it.

But he never said it, folks. Not even close.

I’m sorry to see this happen because it makes the Democrats look desperate. To me, it’s attempted payback for the MoveOn.org controversy last month. Rush has said plenty of dumb things on the radio over the years, i.e. trying to link Bill Clinton to the murder of Vince Foster, but we shouldn’t have to make things up or distort the truth to catch him in the act.

Though there is much truth to Santa Maria Bill’s argument tonight that Rush is simply getting a taste of his own medicine. After all, this is a guy who continually distorts the truth, paints liberals and Democrats with broad strokes, and never met a cheap shot he didn’t like. So now he knows how it feels. Will it change him? Doubtful. And that’s the point. All the liberals are doing is reinforcing Rush’s arguments against the main stream media.

The Senate certainly has better things to do.

I feel the same way about the recent snit surrounding Bill O’Reilly and his so-called racist remarks. O’Reilly isn’t a racist–ust a bit naive, I think. He gushes about how people in a predominantly black restaurant don’t act different than whites in a predominantly white restaurant. Sounds to me like the guy needs to get out more. People are people.

So why the rush on both sides to take everything out of context and pile on over the simplest comment? I’m perplexed.

Advertisements
  1. Rush's First Wife
    October 2, 2007 at 4:06 am

    I understand your point, Dave, but El Rushbo shouldn’t be talking about fighting and soldiers and war period. You yourself talked tonight about how he dodged the draft during Viet Nam. So why does he get to sermonize and lecture and pontificate about our need to fight. He didn’t show up for his term. He remains a phony because he’s always willing to send others off to fight. Don’t waste your time thinking about that loser.

  2. it's good to be conservative
    October 2, 2007 at 4:38 am

    Dave, The democrats are desperate! The soorosites are out attacking every conservative talk radio host with george’s money, and Hillary is behind it all.
    Geors is now funding 3 new groups dedicated to passing the fairness doctrine…They are desperate to get it done before the real race for president begins.
    If you doubt that the Radical liberal left is desperate check out Ann Coulter’s new book and read dorect quotes from democrats. It will shock you that those things were even said…
    But this is noting new, the dems do this every time they stand a chance of losing again! With the “do nothing congress” dems will be hard pressed to hold seats let alone gain the white house. This is a very fun time to be conservative! Watching the dems self destruct is about the most fun thing I have seen in a very long time…The last time was the blue dress incident. I am still chuckling over that.
    The dems are going to implode…everything without a soul always does! The zombies kill and eat a few but by the end of the movie the real people win out.
    That is the story of 08 and watchig is a pure joy for conservatives.

  3. Marilyn
    October 2, 2007 at 5:00 am

    Following is the actual clip of the interaction between the caller and Rush Limbaugh. The actual statement is towards the end of the clip, but listen also to the way he denigrates the previous veteran who called to question the war. The assumption is that no “real” soldier would question the war and “real” soldiers have purple hearts and killing or fighting experience.

    Rush’s Statement.

  4. Anonymous
    October 2, 2007 at 9:52 am

    Why does KVEC even bother to put that thrice-divorced, pill-popping airbag on the radio? Can’t you find someone who can extend your local programming schedule? Year after year he gets away with attacking people, but if someone dares attack him, then the world has come to an end!

  5. the ghost of christmas past
    October 2, 2007 at 9:55 am

    Rush has been around for 18 years and the liberals still haven’t laid a glove on him. Democrats, try as they might, just look foolish trying to discredit Rush. As for the O’Reily brohaha, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton both said that the comments made by Bill as quoted by Media Matters were totally taken out of context. O’Reilly was commenting on the perception that most whites (read: liberal whites) think that all blacks act the way black rappers act in their music videos. O’Reilly was making positive comments about Sylvia’s and the folks that were eating there. Liberals love to try to “expose” Rush and O’Reilly and all they do is expose themselves as bigoted and hypersensitive.

  6. anon1 to anon2
    October 2, 2007 at 1:39 pm

    Anonymous said:
    “Why does KVEC even bother to put that thrice-divorced, pill-popping airbag on the radio?”

    Why? It’s really quite simple! he has 15-18 million loyal listeners every day, and that translates to two things.
    1) Lot’s of real truth the radical left hates
    2) Tons of advertising revenue.

    It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure that one out.

    But here is the sloution. Change the channel.

    Rush and all the conservative talk radio is here to stay. The more you attack the stronger it gets!

    Smart people have finally figured out that the MSM media’s bias is not giving them the truth, so we have gone elsewhere. Rock on conservative talk radio! “Power to the People”!

    ps: Do not miss Ann Coulter’s new book! It’s a scream!

  7. the radical left owns CNN
    October 2, 2007 at 1:46 pm

    Dave said:
    “So why the rush on both sides to take everything out of context and pile on over the simplest comment? I’m perplexed.”

    If this bump in the road can set you off balance dave, please check out the outrageous CNN report that makes muslim terrorists look like lil kittens compared to the Jews & Christians! That SHOULD perplex you! Attaking Rush is almost as old as “hate bush”.

  8. Thomas W
    October 2, 2007 at 4:11 pm

    Dear Anonymous said;
    Having worked for three different talk stations in the last twenty some odd years, I can give you a really good reason for not having another local talk show host on. In fact I can give you several good reasons.
    1) Talk Radio is THE most expensive format in the entertainment industry. Providing syndication is the only way to keep costs down.
    2) There are not that many talk show hosts around that can sustain 3 hours of talk that is both informative and entertaining. We are very fortunate here to have Dave and his natural abilities available.
    There are two good reasons. Consider us lucky to have any local talk hosts in such a small market. I certainly do.

  9. conserned listner
    October 2, 2007 at 6:50 pm

    Thomas,
    I agree with on all counts. But it is disconserting that our local market is considered “lucky” to have local talk hosts.

    In the real world Luck won’t get you far…It’s revenues that make it all happen.

    Let’s just hope there is not a national talk show on during Dave’s time slot that would generate more revenue with little or no costs to KVEC’s new owners.

    I don’t there is a listner out there that isn’t worried about the change in ownership. My experiance with buy-outs like this is that many companies finance the purchase with cost reductions in the station they are buying while maintaining the same advertising revenue.

    I don’t mean to a bad news bear, but you have to be a realist. A few emails and phone calls will not alter the course of a major corporation like PG&E…Nor will a favorite son alter the finacial plans of a new station owner.
    Bottom line, business is business.

    I guess we all shall see. But we should not fool ourselves! Our market is teeny tiny compared to other markets, and we are a slow growth/no growth town, with lots of national franchises moving local higher priced stores onto the sidelines.
    We all need to keep our eyes open on this situation.

  10. NewsstandGreg
    October 2, 2007 at 11:32 pm

    Dave and reader,

    Isn’t it time for progressives to defend themselves from the bs machine of the right-wing echo chamber?

    Rush is exposing himself to be the real person he is. A master manipulator and mouthpiece for the Republican war party.

    Just listen to the recording of the show where El Rushbo volunteers the term “phony soldiers.”

    As if soldiers who will fight when ordered to, don’t really have a right to another opinion. C’mon.

    Actually, the Republicans are desperate and see their party imploding in a giant, slow-motion breakup. It’s. Painful. To. See.

    If you’re a Republican.

  11. Anonymous
    October 3, 2007 at 12:33 am

    dave I don’t listem to limbaugh or air america, so the segment with sm bill tuesday is one of the worst segments I have heard on your show. I don’t see a point in lowering your show to that level. it is one thing to discuss politics, but to air this bilge is unbecoming. I’m on hiatus for a bit. I’ll watch for the locals I respect [on both sides] and the dogs.

  12. Dave Congalton
    October 3, 2007 at 2:54 am

    Anonymous,

    So what you’re saying is that you can’t respond to Santa Maria Bill tonight or refute any of his arguments.

    If he is so incorrect, surely you can point out where he’s wrong and you’re right.

    Something to think about as you walk the dogs.

  13. reid should step down
    October 3, 2007 at 2:54 am

    Talk-show giant Rush Limbaugh sharply escalated his war of words with Democrats in the Senate Tuesday, calling for the resignation of Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev.

    He also characterized as “boneheaded” Reid’s effort to enlist senators to pressure Limbaugh’s syndicator, Clear Channel Communications, to censor him.

    “And the thing that we ought to demand here,” Limbaugh told his listeners, “is that Harry Reid step down and resign as the leader of the Democrats in the Senate, for his constant, uncontrollable contempt of our armed forces; his repeated use of our troops for political purposes. Harry Reid has failed in his mission to lead the Democrats in the Senate, to get what they want . . . He is the one who is dishonoring the troops; he is the one who is making a mockery of their service.”

    Reid has charged that Limbaugh called America’s service personnel in Iraq “phony soldiers.”

    Limbaugh’s remarks appeared to actually refer to a specific soldier, Jesse Macbeth, who appeared in a YouTube video stating that he and other American soldiers had killed Iraqi civilians. Macbeth was later sentenced to five months in prison for falsifying his service record.

    Joining Reid’s broadside against Limbaugh on the floor of the Senate was Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, who suggested that perhaps Limbaugh was “high on his drugs again” when he made the “phony soldiers” statement. Limbaugh called Harkin’s remarks “pathetic.”

    Limbaugh responded: “[It was] such a demeaning thing that [Harkin] did and so below the decorum and the stature one would associated with the United States Senate. But that’s what these people have become.”

    Limbaugh called him “Tom ‘Phony-War-Hero’ Harkin.”

    “What do I mean by that? He lied about being in Vietnam in combat,” Limbaugh said.

    Limbaugh told his listeners that the attack on him was actually intended to distract the activist base from the inability of Democratic leaders to stop the war in Iraq, and the historically low ratings of the Democratic-controlled Congress.

    “The left, ladies and gentlemen, is imploding,” Limbaugh said. “They are fixated in taking down anyone and anything in the process — me, General Petraeus, anyone they think stands in the way of their ascension to the White House, and their further consolidation of power. They are Stalinist-like.

    “Anyone who says something they don’t want to hear, that they don’t like, must be officially condemned by the state, publicly. Even private citizens who get in their way, in the free market, must be condemned, must be smeared, must be lied about.”

    Limbaugh also said Reid and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and other Middle East leaders, are employing a common tactic: distracting supporters from their own failures.

    “Ahmadinejad in Iran, no different,” Limbaugh said. “He needs the Great Satan to hang onto control there. Harry Reid needs to do the same thing. Both men, Ahmadinejad and Harry Reid, have been disappointments, miserable failures to the people they claim to lead. Both of them are in trouble, and their publicity stunts prove it.”

    Limbaugh said Reid has a “long, sorry record of abandoning troops on the battlefield. What do you think 55 resolutions to bring the troops home since they took office in January of this year is about? It’s about defeat, it was about destroying this presidency, it was about using the U.S. military to advance his own party’s political fortunes.”

    Limbaugh repeated his invitation for Reid to appear on his show. “Come on the program, say those things to my face, and let’s discuss this,” Limbaugh urged.

    “Harry Reid challenged my patriotism yesterday,” he added. “He did so openly and blatantly on the floor of the United States Senate.”

    He added, “Everyone of us who loves this country should be outraged at the things these Democrats have said, the things that they have tried to do. And it’s laughable to watch them now try to redeem themselves as supporters of the United States military, after months and months and months of proclaiming the surge a failure, after calling General Petraeus essentially a liar before he had said a word before them when he came to issue the report they required on the effects of the surge.”

  14. fed up
    October 3, 2007 at 2:56 am

    dave, you would defend hitler if he was a liberal.
    you have become pathetic…losing your grip and it’s showing

  15. Phil from Morro Bay
    October 3, 2007 at 2:57 am

    First Dave thanks for defending Rush through this latest flap (which I am sure he eats up). I find it funny that the ideologue Bill is just the other arm of the political spectrum. I know the ol JC teacher Bill is frustrated because he couldn’t make it in the cut throat world of higher education. Still he should lighten up, Bill has this very narrow view, which to me makes him extremely stupid, that those of us that listen to Rush are not on his intellectual plane. I have listened to Rush for 18 years and find him extremely funny and entertaining. I did not agree with going after Kerry on the swift boat deal and am sure the Senator served honorably. What folks like you and Bill fail to see is that if Kerry hadn’t used his Vietnam experience as the cornerstone of his campaign I am sure he would be President. (just a note I was also disgusted when Rush went after John Glenn, as well as being somewhat disgusted with his thick or thin defense of the Bush administration)

    Dave you can’t come back no matter how honorably you served and completely denigrate those you served with and the cause you served and expect it not to have repercussions when it is convenient for you to use. I don’t know if that was Bob Schrum who decided this but it was a very bad decision. One more thing Bill seems to think it is OK for a major network anchor to use a phony document to (this is what started it) try and get at Bush. Knowing Bills’ political bent I am sure he hated Rush from day one. and yet what does Santa Maria want to do, hold up Air America the much ballyhooed failed liberal network that took not only the exact tact that they claim Rush takes, but in a much more vitriolic format. I have said before and I will say again conservatives had been bashed for years before Rush and others came on the scene.

    Bill is an old sixties radical and had the view of the revolution. Like many in his generation, and I will include myself in this, he has an over inflated sense of his own importance. Bill can’t stand the fact that Rush dodged the draft which leaves the question how did Bill get out of serving, leaving another glaring fact why does bill think that because Rush didn’t serve he shouldn’t speak out and yet somewhat conveniently forgets that he wants a forum and didn’t serve either. (it either matters or it doesn’t, I have over 26 years of service and don’t feel you Bill or Rush has any less right to speak out.)

    Last but not least most Democrats really want a new direction for the country so it seems they would want a strong winning ticket. Which leaves me to question poor Bill’s acid addled brain when he says he wants to see a Gore Kucinich ticket. McGovern come to mind. This being said and done I believe Bill can annoy me as much as I am sure Rush annoys him.

    PS libs like you and Bill better get use to the idea of President Clinton and I don’t think she will end the war any time soon.

  16. Dave Congalton
    October 3, 2007 at 3:13 am

    Fed Up:

    Well, you prove that you know how to make a cheap shot. Any 6th grader can do that.

    So now why don’t you try and prove that you know how to construct a reasoned, valid argument.

    I’ll wait…

  17. Anonymous
    October 3, 2007 at 3:55 am

    When Rush makes fun of the democrats, it’s humorous – usually it is even in their own words with their own soundbites. When the left makes fun of Rush, it’s full of hate and rage and how he shouldn’t be allowed to speak of the war because he didn’t serve or how fat he is or how many times has he been married. After 19 years of his successful examples, I would think some of you would have learned something.

    If John Kerry was so innnocent in Vietnam, why did he take so long to defend himself? I’m not sure he ever did. The truly beautiful part about what Rush does is that even the most simple dunderhead gets it and that just gripes the heck out of his enemies.

  18. DMC
    October 3, 2007 at 5:48 am

    Many years ago when Anita Hill testified under oath, I believed what she said about Clarence Thomas. I find it ironic the same week Rush Limbaugh has a 90 minute interview with Clarence Thomas, it makes little or no news. Instead the news is about the senate and congress lying about a private citizen named Rush Limbaugh. Today is the first day I was convinced Anita Hill also lied. I am struck with the ease by which people lie to make a political point. I am extremely moved by this parallel and I am very disappointed. Wow.

  19. Halcyon Harry
    October 3, 2007 at 3:05 pm

    The 2nd hour on Tuesday on this subject was good radio again unless you are Santa Maria Bill. While he usually comes prepared to offer some insight into a different point of view, his appearance last night did not reflect well on his credibility. He swallowed the shallow mainstream Democratic movement’s latest blunder, the same trash he wants to clean out of DC.

    He may continue to surprise me with off-beats such as support for a Gore / Kucinich ticket. If I was in on the conversation, I would of played along with my Reagan / Goldwater “fantasy pick”. I mean, while we’re just making stuff up…

  20. kevin in paso robles
    October 3, 2007 at 5:38 pm

    SM Bill was so childish and vidictive on hometown radio Tuesday it was pathetic.
    The best thing about his segment was the fact that he showed his true character with his silly act.
    I almost felt bad for him. Almost.

  21. Dave Congalton
    October 3, 2007 at 5:51 pm

    Kevin,

    I say to you what I said to Anonymous–go ahead and refute SM Bill. Give us an argument to show where’s he wrong. The problem with his critics is that you can’t seem to rise about the personal smear which only reinforces his point.

  22. Brett
    October 3, 2007 at 8:30 pm

    Here’s the transcript. It seems pretty clear to me that Limbaugh is asserting that Iraq soldiers who oppose the war are Phony Soldiers. I just can’t see how you can read it any other way Dave.

    As Media Matters documented, Limbaugh had the following exchange with a caller on his September 26 radio show:

    LIMBAUGH: There’s a lot more than that that they don’t understand. They can’t even — if — the next guy that calls here, I’m gonna ask him: Why should we pull — what is the imperative for pulling out? What’s in it for the United States to pull out? They can’t — I don’t think they have an answer for that other than, “Well, we just gotta bring the troops home.”

    CALLER 2: Yeah, and, you know what —

    LIMBAUGH: “Save the — keep the troops safe” or whatever. 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 —

  23. The New Tone of San Luis Obispo
    October 3, 2007 at 9:42 pm

    Dave, I’ll try this again since it would not work last night.

    Bill. You are so silly. Do you your really think in your wildest dream that the two creepy people, GORE and KISSINICH could ever fool the American people to vote for them? Are you realyy that much of a sheep to swallow the lies by Algore and ride your bike to work every day to keep the earth cooler while he and his friends in the higher class ride their jets, suv, live in their mansions, get rich from mining on their own property, and buy carbon “offsets” from their own corporations? How foolish!

    Second, Rush is a commentator and a private citizen. He comments lots, and I heard both the morning update and the caller that Mrs. Clinton’s group is complaining about. They are distorting what Rush said and when he said it. No argument there.

    Third, the swift boat veterans for TRUTH have not all been debunked. Just because you know the Bushes or are from the same town does not prohibit you on speaking your opinion or your experience. The doctor that you referred to was a doctor, but his nurse filled out the paperwork. Besides, while W has released all of his military paperwork, John F. Kerry still has not released all of his military records. Not all of it, he cites privacy. What has he got to hide?

    On you repeating the lie long enough analogy, try the Bush National Guard story. There is no proof here at all, but since you have heard it so many times you can accept it.

    What problem did you have when Kerry told the students that if you study and work hard you can be do well, if not, you can get stuck in Iraq. Was he attacking real soldiers? Oh, I get it, you can read his mind and know he was not. TOo bad it is so similar to when he was with the PHONY soldiers of the winters soldiers conference that we know now many of which were never in Vietnam. There is a collections of unpatriotic bastards that told Kerry to accuse the troops of war crimes! Too bad he did that type of stuff himself when he ran down the unarmed teenager and shot him in the back during vietnam. Coward!

    Bill, I have to get back to work. You are just so screwy to think as you stated some time back that anyone would waste one second trying to find you to as you put it “do something to you”! You hide behind your SM BIll moniker and pump out the points that you read off of Media Matters or wherever and cannot confront the truth in you own mind. You demean anyone who does not see things your way as being weak minded, or unable to see the “truth” as you see it. You have very little faith in the American citizenry when you think that money equals success in the elections.

    Lastly, civil debate has never occurred here in our country! The only orderly processes are during the communist party meetings in red China or the old USSR where if you disagreed you are shot. I wonder if you want that for our country. Check out history Bill, we have a rich and wild history of strong disagreements, fillabusters lasting days, and issues that divide our country. Thank God that Algore Sr. did not win and with the help of the republicans, civil rights were established for the USA. You think that was a civil debate? You have no idea.

    Take care!

  24. gentle warning
    October 3, 2007 at 10:00 pm

    You just don’t get it Dave! You and your buddy SM bill are the reason conservative talk radio is booming!
    You can’t even see that SM Bill is not liked nor is his radical left wing diatribes.

    Dingy Harry is hated and yet fellow congressman can not get him into a real debate so he can be proved wrong! He and Pelosi are hiding under their desks!

    You can ride the sm bill pony all you like, it’s your show. But that doesn’t mean the rest of us have to cowtow to demands to prove bill wrong. You don’t listen and neither does he. We are not going to waste our time on puppets for the MoveOn’ers!

    Can’t you see by these comments here that people on the central coast don’t like to hear the “MoveOn talking points over & over again?

    Connecting yourself, your show or the station to that kind of radical nonsense may in fact not be a wise thing to do.

  25. the ghost of christmas past
    October 4, 2007 at 1:53 am

    xpI would love to be able to refute SM Bill’s claims and statements, but when you argue with an idiot, people will no longer be able to tell who the idiot is. SM Bill’s “arguments” are just conspiratorial clap-trap. To refute SM Bill is like trying to answer the question: “Have you stopped beating your wife yet?” You must deny the whole premise of SM Bill’s “arguments” to even begin to start having an intellectual conversation. Dave, I challenge you to challenge SM Bill to provide the support you claim those of us that don’t subscribe to his positions to provide links to sources proving his points of view. Michele Dostert, Bob, Rich and yourself seem to find it necessary to be credible, why do you let SM Bill off that hook and get why does he get a free pass?

  26. Anonymous
    October 4, 2007 at 2:42 am

    Having listened to SMB in the past…but not this time….the problem for all of us on either side is that he’s just not persuasive as a speaker. He tends to alienate anyone who MIGHT be persuaded… IF… they could hear the message. Perhaps he might try taking a refresher course in Speech 1A…with an emphasis in the Persuasive speech.

  27. Marilyn
    October 4, 2007 at 4:37 am

    I think people are judging their perceptions of the facts of Rush Limbaugh’s statement based on their view of Santa Maria Bill and their pre-held beliefs about non-Republicans and non-right wingers. That is not truth but using irrelevant facts to suit one’s beliefs and ideology about things completely unrelated, as Rush said to the first Mike on his show who said he was a Republican: “You cannot be a Republican because you do not support the war” before cutting him off after yelling at him.

    There is a lot of illogic that is present within the segment that “enjoys” the Rush show. And I disagree that the measure of a good program is how “popular” it is. Burning witches was popular at one time but that did not make it right or indicative of the wisdom or honesty of the clergy and elite who were pushing it. I would argue it proved the opposite because in democracies, tyrants are enabled by the acquiescence or the support of the citizens or both. I guess then all those people who watch American Idol are an indication of how valuable that show is in the lives of the American people. I think not! It just means that it appeals to a certain segment that gets its ideas reinforced by rhetoric. There are many Americans who do not listen to talk shows on a regular basis like the Rush people do. But they do listen to far better shows and they listen to a variety of points of views and are usually more interested in understanding the world around them. Many of those enamored with Rush (and not everyone who listens to him is enamored with him, by the way) like their pre-held notions stroked and, let’s face it, Rush is good at it. He also has a lot of charisma. That too does not translate into being good or just.

    People loved Hitler and were drawn to him because of a certain charisma he had and because he knew which buttons to push, and those were the buttons that are not too different from what we are seeing right now, mainly immigration, foreigners, non-white and non-Christian religions, and the inferiority of certain people (including non-republicans and non-right wing, and soldiers who disagree with the war). Charisma does not imply goodness or justice. There are many charismatic psychopaths and criminals I can list.

    Rush Limbaugh, in my opinion, is a shallow, self-aggrandizing, self-centered, pompous, and heartless twit. The fact that he told Mike, the first caller on the clip, that he could not be a Republican because he disagreed with Bush and the war, is an indication of the kind of inconsistency SM Bill was talking about.

    At the same time it is insincere for anyone, including Rush, to belittle those soldiers or veterans who got hit with one shrapnel instead of ten (the band aid on the face in the Kerry case). The childishness and crassness with which the Kerry bashing was conducted are an indication of the kind of moral substance we are dealing with. All of a sudden, Kerry’s wartime service was belittled. Well, do we support the troops and the vets or don’t we?

    Or is it that the truth is that all this mouthful of support has no substance to it?

    God also help those disabled soldiers who dare protest the current Republican and right wing pack.

    People like Rush will always bash the opposition and they will twist the facts, take information out of context, and minimize the sacrifice of – yes even veterans and soldiers – to further their agenda.

    Rush and his ilk never supported the troops. They used them for ratings and their own ends. For, ultimately, supporting the troops is supporting them no matter what they believe in because, firstly, they are thinking and feeling human beings with opinions and hopes and, secondly, they have willingly and sometimes under objection, gone to war because of a sense of duty. It is no support if we ridicule them and accuse them of being the mouthpieces of the peace movement and MoveOn when they do not espouse a certain point of view.

    I think Mr. Limbaugh’s demeanor and crassness are his right as long as he does not advocate violence. He will, however, have to answer to his own conscience one day and he will have to answer to those he is helping destroy when the time comes.

    The pot certainly should not be calling the kettle black.

  28. Dianne
    October 4, 2007 at 5:10 am

    I have to laugh at the note to Kevin about personal attacks re SM Bill. The only thing I remember Bill said on Tuesday was that Rush was this or that (namecalling). Oh and that Rush deserved being misquoted. blah blah What I did find telling was the Clear Channel guy today who actually had some very good factual arguments for poor Bill – I must download them on my I-pod for future use. I always respect the truth.

  29. Downtown Bob
    October 4, 2007 at 8:17 am

    On Monday’s show I called in not having any idea what was really going on with the purported statement by Rush, and pledged to find out for myself what happened. I cannot understand how anyone can read the transcript and not see for themselves that Rush did say the words “the phony soldiers. The argument that will undoubtedly be thrown back will mention something about the “context” of the comments being made; but in reading the entire transcript of the conversation, I don’t see any “contextual” arguments that can be made. Rush should have just apologized, saying that he meant to indicate just those persons who never really served, and that he did not mean to suggest that anyone who had ever served no matter what they feel about the Iraq war were not who he was meaning to talk about. Had he done that immediately I think this all would have blown away with very little notice. All that said, I am amused by the strenuous defending of Rush by those Rush wouldn’t give a rat’s rear end about. Many feel that Rush is like most talk show hosts, an ideologue along the lines Sean Hannity or Randi Rhodes, but I disagree. Rush is in the “business” of talk radio for one reason only, himself. Rush is very good at his job, but his job is agenda driven only. His agenda is to help in any way possible the push by Republicans to reduce the role of government, minimizing government oversight and to help anybody like him to make as much money as possible, in any way possible. What makes Rush so dangerous at this is his smooth delivery with little micro voice inflections that serve the purpose of almost hypnotizing his listeners into believing what he says as gospel “truth”, even though he may not have any conviction behind his confessed beliefs.
    Now, as to “real” phony soldiers: how about men who dress up with the latest most advanced body armor, the latest most powerful advanced firearms, put into the middle of a war zone conflict, given permission to operate in any manner they choose with no oversight, no laws of any country to constrain them, no military uniform code of justice to observe, and getting paid five to six times the amount that real soldiers do, and you have the current situation in Iraq with the private mercenary firm “Blackwater”, the real phony soldiers. Given their absolute lawlessness, one could even call them “Death Squads” similar to those in South America that were trained at the “School of the Americas” that was located in the same general area that Blackwater has it’s headquarters located at. Coincidence?

  30. Anonymous
    October 4, 2007 at 1:30 pm

    marilyn said:
    ” Burning witches was popular at one time but that did not make it right or indicative of the wisdom or honesty of the clergy and elite who were pushing it.”

    My response:
    Then explain to me the logic behind muslims stoning women to death because their husbands or male family members accuse her of some infraction? If anything is beyond belief in 2007 that clearly is. I would like a muslim to defend that action so we all can understand.

    (I doubt I will get any answer…which is why nobody wants to waste their time debating SM Bill)

    I’m curious, why does this guy hide behind a nickmane? I don’t know of any other Congalton guest that does that. Is there an answer?

    As for Rush…it obviously infuriates the radical left and anti-American loons that this guy is on 600+ stations and has a contract that provides an income of over $240,000,000! In a true democracy people vote every day with their dollars. That’s free enterprize…love it or hate it, Rush’s popluraity will just skyrocket with this inane attack from the MoveOn wackaloon in congress and the public.
    You should all be thanked, yet t seems ironic to thank someone for being stupid.

  31. Rich from Paso
    October 4, 2007 at 2:35 pm

    Leave it to Bob to find a way to mince even the clearest of words to suit his own liberal bias. I heard the Rush bit and he was CLEARLY refering to the phony soldiers. He was also talk to a caller he thought was what he refers to as a “seminar caller” (a plant by the left) when he said he couldn’t be a conservative. Rush is called every name in the book by people without the skill he has in making liberals look ridiculous with their own words. And for Marilyn, who said that popular doesn’t make it right: then I guess you think Al Gore deserved to lose in 2000? Hmmmmm?

    Also, leave it to Marilyn to issue her edicts from on high on what she thinks is right and proper for analysis and conduct. To say that Marilyn is a true elitist is an understatement. The chain of command in her world is: Allah(God) to Marilyn to the rest of the hoi polloi. Isn’t it wonderful to have Marilyn here to set us all straight?

    Finally, yes, a lot (and I mean a lot) of the Blackwater guys are washed up ex-military action junkies that end up making the mission harder for the real soldiers with their “cowboy” operations and senseless killings of innocent civilians (is murder too strong a term here?). Never dealt with them, but I have seen their handy work and it wasn’t pretty.

  32. Halcyon Harry
    October 4, 2007 at 4:50 pm

    I’d like to break the link (Marilyn, others) that those of us who dare to question Santa Maria Bill are all part of the Rush army. I don’t listen to Rush or Hannity except for brief seconds if my car stereo was last on KVEC Congalton the prior time I drove it. Tried them a few times years ago, and it didn’t click. Those brief seconds confirm I’m happy with my decision.

    To the new owner(s) of KVEC, there’s 4 hours (3-7pm), 5 days a week, that I often listen to, that’s it.

    Santa Maria Bill reminded me Tuesday of the famous scene from the landmark movie “Network”. I could almost here the lather in his voice–“I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take it any more”!
    Does Dave’s booth have a window to scream out of?

    I imagine his tone is intended to be in-your-face. In fact, many of his rebuttals to a phone call start with a list of his favorite “Do you know…”, “Do you also know…”.

    So to Santa Maria Bill, “Do you know how to listen to a comment and to respond to that comment”?
    “Do you know that machine-gun firing of back-to-back questions isn’t effective communictation?”
    (tongue-in-cheek of course).

    As for Rush, he’s a member of the entertainment industry and whatever he wants to do or say in those capacities is fine by me. Is he a phony? Is our congress phony? Such a list of phonies might be almost as long as the true non-phony list.

  33. Bruce Curtis
    October 4, 2007 at 8:45 pm

    My email to MSNBC:

    Your Keith Olbermann spews the fake story about fake soldiers–as if MSNBC really needs help losing credibility–long after the nation knew MoveOn.org’s novelists had cooked up the story about talk show host Rush Limbaugh to turn attention from their “betray-us” ad embarrassment.

    This is just getting too funny for words; you look like you’re trying to be the Midnight Star of tabloid TV. What’s next; Ann Coulter has gay affair with Hilary? Elvis sighted giving Iraq strategy to Bush? Sean Hannity forced altarboys to worship Oliver North?

    Well, look on the bright side; when MSNBC ratings finish tanking and you’re off the air, you can always sell splashly-sleeved $3.99 DVD’s at Wal Mart checkout lines.

    Bruce Curtis 😉

  34. inspired by some posts
    October 5, 2007 at 3:40 am

    Rich,
    nice to see you back again. Your crystal clear logic has been missed, Hope all is well with yu my friend! Great post! Well said and way too true!

    Bruce,
    Great letter! Although we all know it will fall on deaf ears. The MSM is all but totally bankrupt. I don’t even think the 08′ election ads will save them. Keep on posting!

    Harry,
    Well spoken my friend! Thanks for your insights! Keep posting please. I like your thinking.

    Newtone,
    Welcome back. Your candor and style has been missed! Come back more often!

    Dianne,
    I love your poiniant sense of humor! sorely missed here! Great post! Come back!

    Anonymous,
    Great question to marilyn. I would have loved to have seen an answer. But the question itself stirs thought. Thanks!

    Fed up,
    Ballsy post man! Way to go! I’m glad it got into print. I feel the same way but you said it perfectly. Thanks.

    Awesome posts and well thought out responses and comebacks.

    Rush wins this debate hands down. What I am still wondering is why, when we are a nation at war, is this congress with an 11% rating spending any time at all on a talk show host. I guess that shows the power of conservative talk radio.

    “Power to the People!”

  35. reid is 100% unhinged
    October 5, 2007 at 3:45 am

    Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has sent out a mass e-mail Thursday asking recipients to demand that Clear Channel CEO Mark Mays order talk show host Rush Limbaugh to apologize for his remarks about “phony soldiers.”

    As he did earlier this week on the Senate floor, Reid said Limbaugh’s “phony soldiers” were men and women in uniform who oppose the war in Iraq.

    But Limbaugh has already pointed out on the air that the “phony soldiers” he referred to were just that – Americans who falsely claim they have been in the Armed Forces and in some cases say they have been to Iraq.

    He was specifically referring to Jesse Macbeth, who appeared in a widely seen YouTube video in which he claimed he had been a corporal serving in Iraq and Afghanistan and was awarded a Purple Heart. He also described how he and other U.S. soldiers had killed innocent civilians there.

    But it was all a lie, Rush said. He had never served in Iraq or Afghanistan. In fact, he had been discharged from the Army after several weeks of basic training.

    This is Reid’s e-mail, sent out under the banner of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee:

    I normally ignore Rush Limbaugh, but his comments last Wednesday went too far for me to remain silent. It’s one thing to call me “Dingy Harry” – it’s another to insult our men and women in uniform, calling those who oppose the war “phony soldiers” as Rush did during his Sept. 26 broadcast.

    Of course, Rush continued his tirade Monday by denying he had said anything wrong and attacking John Murtha, who served 37 years in the Marines.

    This week, 41 Democrats signed a letter to Clear Channel CEO Mark Mays, demanding that Rush apologize.

    You can send your own letter to Mays by clicking here.

    In December 2006, a poll run by the Military Times found that only 35 percent of service members approved of President Bush’s handling of the war in Iraq. Would Rush consider every other Soldier, Sailor, Airman and Marine to be phony? What about General John Batiste who retired from active duty in order to speak out against this war?

    Rush has the courage to sit behind a microphone and lash out at those who oppose George Bush’s misadventure in Iraq – yet when it was his time to serve, he received a deferment and has never worn a uniform.

    Limbaugh’s show is broadcast on Armed Forces Radio, and therefore service members around the world heard his insults. It’s time for Clear Channel to make Rush apologize.

    Demand that Clear Channel CEO Mark Mays take action by clicking here.

    Rush certainly has the right to say whatever he wants – but we have an obligation to speak out when he goes too far.

    Thank you,

    Harry Reid

    This is not a spoof, a hoax, or a joke. Dingy Harry actually wrote and sent this email. This clown is completely unhinged! Thta’s our Harry! 11% and sinking fast!

  36. Justin from Los Osos
    October 5, 2007 at 5:19 am

    You know when the nappy ho’s comment was uttered by Imus I thought that people were being more than a bit disingenuous by acting surprised by his comments. It seemed to me that people were being a bit like the cop in Casablanca “Why I am shocked shocked and dismayed to find gambling…” I thought his comments were more stupid and awkward than they were mean.

    Rush however is a different story. There is nothing in the original clip that has anything to do with Jesse Macbride he made that assertion down the road. I know you have your opinion and that it differs from mine but Dave look at the history of Rush. I remember him mocking Michael J Fox’s disease. How about him claiming that Max Cleland blew off three of his own appendages on purpose for political gain or knowingly forwarding the lies about John Kerry’s service. All this from a man who when his country called upon him too serve he opted out because of a collection of hair and puss on his ass. Yes an anal cyst. What is it that this man has done to deserve the benefit of the doubt?

    I am tired of men who never served like Limbaugh, Rove and O’reilly making claims that liberals aren’t really Americans or that their service is somehow less because of our political perspectives. I come from generations of liberals. As you know I served my country. My father a liberal did 2 tours in Vietnam. His father, a liberal, was trained as a tail gunner but never made it to a WWII theater of combat because all 3 of his liberal brothers were killed in combat. He spent the war in Camp Pinedale because of the remaining son rules.

    I am sorry Dave I value your opinion but I for one cannot accept Limbaugh’s assertions that he did not intend to call soldiers who disagree with the Iraq policy phony. Then again maybe you are right how in the hell would Rush ever know what is or isn’t a real soldier.

  37. Rich from Paso
    October 5, 2007 at 8:24 am

    How many times do people who actually heard Rush’s show and heard Rush’s explanation of the bit have to say to those who didn’t listen or didn’t know the context that he was talking about the 8 phony soldiers that were convicted of making false VA claims against the government? If every time Rush says ‘phony soldiers’ he’s refering to all anti-war soldiers serving past or present, then Brian Ross accused all anti-war soldiers of being phony soldiers 47 times when he broke his story about the 8 that were convicted on September 24th. Also, he was talking about Jesse MacBeth, who was the phony soldier that was busted for his bogus stories about attrocities in Iraq. This is a preposterous bogus outrage that looks more and more like a dirty trick by the left to get the Fairness Doctrine rammed down our throats to muzzle limbaugh and o’reilly. When Harry Reid deems it a better use of his time to demand that Rush Limbaugh be forced to apologize (and you know he won’t) by Clear Channel than to respond to his constituent needs and the business of the Nation, then you have to know that pure politics are involved. So what is the left in America’s response to a perceived slight of our military? Censorship for Rush Limbaugh in the form of Wes Clark demanding he be kicked off AFN; censorship by Democrats in Congress by trying to censure Rush (don’t think Congress can censure a private citizen. Doesn’t that violate the 1st Amend.?) and just bad form and classlessness for the Senate majority leader to start a letter campaign to get a private company to admonsish one of their employees. Since harry reid is incapable of beating Bush on Iraq War funding and surrender and since MoveOn.org took the black eye for General betray-us, he needs a straw man to beat up on in the form of Rush Limbaugh. Reid can’t even get all Democrats, much less any republicans, to sign his Rush Limbaugh condemnation letter. But that tracks correctly with his inability to get all Democrats to support troop withdrawl as well.

  38. Anonymous
    October 5, 2007 at 2:59 pm

    Dave, I will say I am surprised you supported Rush and Bill Reilly’s comments. But I will say you still get not get Mr. Reilly’s point! How many people see a group of African American’s and cross the street, How many people see a restaurant run by African American’s and stay away! All of this because white people are uncomfortable being around a majority of African American people. Mr. Reilly’s point was don’t stay away go in an enjoy we are all humans. I remember visiting my parents in San Diego and when driving by a group of Mexican American’s waiting to be selected to go out and pick OUR food my mother told me to roll up my windows, lock the doors and do not stop. I always tried to tell her that if it were not for them she would not be eating the meals she eat everyday. My comment to her was no different than Mr. Reilly’s. I like him was trying to explain to a very prejudicial person that it’s OK! You don’t have to be that way.

  39. Travis in SLO
    October 5, 2007 at 3:06 pm

    Dave, could you please find and prove or disprove the audio of Mrs. CLinton saying she helped start and charter groups such as media matters at this years daily KOS?

    Could you please verify and confirm that the transcripts from Media Matters match those put out by RUSH and confirm their differences by either podcast or another independent source?

    It would help solve the spin questions once and for all!

    Thanks, Travis in SLO

  40. the ghost of christmas past
    October 6, 2007 at 1:39 am

    Things are getting weird out there… from liberals. First, Marines have experienced a rough week in the Bay Area. They were protested at their Berkeley recruiting station by Code Pink. Then 200 marines either going to or returning from Iraq, can’t remember which, were denied entry to the oakland Airport for “security reasons” by a “miscommunication”. This on the heels of a Fox News poll that has 20% of all Democrats (1 in 5 of you) were polled believing that the world would be better off if the US loses the war in Iraq outright. Not if we just leave, but if we lose. How is losing in Iraq beneficial to the world? You leftists want those of us that support the war to define victory, well here is your chance: what does losing mean to you and how does it help the world? Please allow me to help you. I’m sure the first thing out of Marilyn’s mouth would be the words: “Well, first of all it will teach the United States that you just can’t go around the world toppling soverign country’s for oil.” In oher words, it would teach the US humility. Am I right, Marilyn? I’m sure I could take the time to scour Dave’s website and find where you said exactly the same thing. Was 9/11 supposed to teach the US humility? After all, 3,000 and some Americans died that day. What lesson was taught that day?

    So, back to my question liberals: Define at what point the United States will be defeated in Iraq and what does defeat in Iraq mean to you? If you are not for staying until victory (a stable, secure, self-reliant Iraq) is achieved, then you are for defeat.

  41. Rich from Paso
    October 6, 2007 at 2:16 am

    How can you all be so stupid to believe Media Matters? Even in the context of the text that Media Matters posted on their website that Marilyn linked to, it is clear that both Rush and the guy, Mike from Olympia, are talking about imposters posing as soldiers. They were talking how the media always quotes phony soldiers and they never quote “real soldiers”. You have Jesse MacBeth (al-Zaid, at birth) who was a phony soldier. Then you have The New Republic posting the ravings of “The Baghdad Diarist” who turned out to be an Army private that fabricated the stories (here is where the Rather-gate cognitive dissonance “well, they didn’t prove the alligations false even though the source was false” begins; i.e. just because the Baghdad Diarist was a liar doesn’t mean that soldiers aren’t playing with human skulls at a mass grave). The left is becoming notorious for believing every negative story out of Iraq, regurgiating the story without investigation and then getting their heads handed to them time and again when the source is proven to be bogus. But with Rush Limbaugh it was then and remains obvious that they were talking about how the media is always quoting “phony soldiers”. I would even give the alligation that Rush was besmirching anti-war soldiers if he was at any time anti-Iraq war or ever criticised the soldiers that were against the war. Dick Durbin and Teddy Kennedy, not Rush Limbaugh, compared our soldiers at G’itmo to Nazis. Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton and Tom Lantos, not Rush Limbaugh, called General Petreaus, in so many words, a liar when he testified before COngress. John Kerry, not Rush Limbaugh, accused our soldiers of terrorizing Iraqi women in children when they raid homes in the middle of the night. John “abscam” Murtha, not Rush Limbaugh, accused Marines of murdering civilians in cold blood because they couldn’t handle the pressure of combat. John Kerry, not Rush Limbaugh, warned students to study hard or they will end up in Iraq. On the other hand, Rush Limbaugh, not any Democrat member of Congress (Liberman is an independent voting Republican for purposes of this topic), continues to speak glowingly of the soldiers he met at Walter Reed Army Hospital and the soldiers he met while in Afghanistan in 2005. It is Rush Limbaugh, not most Democrat members of Congress, that believes that it is important to stay in Iraq and win for the sake of America and the Iraqis. It is Rush Limbaugh and not any member of Congress, that receives e-mails of support fom soldiers, sailors and Marines thanking him for “his service” to the America’s military for speaking the truth. It is Rush Limbaugh, not members of Congress, that defends the competence and the capabilities of our armed forces to win the war in Iraq. Harry Reid has already conceded defeat and that The Surge is a failure, both points are in despute by members of Harry Reid’s own party. Yes, the left can point to the the ex-generals or the 8 from the 82nd’s op-ed or the talking heads of anti-war vet groups as supporting their position. But when it comes to the troops on the ground in Iraq, soldiers are making fun of John Kerry, not Rush Limbaugh. So where is the evidence that Rush Limbaugh has ever bashed anti-war soldiers? If you can point that nugget of information out, I will lend more credence to your position. But with my own ears hearing the broadcast and with my own eyes reading the transcript at both Rushlimbaugh.com and mediamatters.org, I never at any time, then or since, thought that he was talking about anyone other than Jesse MacBeth or the other bogus soldiers that have been exposed recently.

  42. Downtown Bob
    October 6, 2007 at 5:08 am

    Rich: I went to Rush’s website looking for the transcript of the program of the 26th of September, but it is in a place reserved for paying members of Rush’s site. I would like to read Rush’s own transcript to compare it to the one from Media Matters to look for any differences or inconsistencies. If there are no differences between the two, show me anywhere in the transcript where Rush or his caller even mentioned the Jessie Macbeth story. Here is a section of the transcript from Media Matters:

    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.

    LIMBAUGH: Well, you know where you’re going these days, the last four years, if you signed up. The odds are you’re going there or Afghanistan or somewhere.

    CALLER 2: Exactly, sir.

    So, Rich, reading that version of the transcript, given the lack of mention of Jessie Macbeth prior to that conversation and the assertion that Rush has altered his transcript, please explain how Media Matters has it wrong.

  43. kevin in paso robles
    October 6, 2007 at 5:39 am

    I apologize for my personal attack on SM Bill.
    If you can’t say any thing PC, you should keep it to youself.
    Thank you.

  44. Rich from Paso
    October 6, 2007 at 6:22 am

    Marilyn, the point remains the same: those on the left are the ones slandering the military every day while Rush Limbaugh says two words together “phony” and “soldiers” and he is being smeared by all of the anti-war groups for besmirching all soldiers that are anti-war. That is the only point of this thread and the only point of this post. You can continue to try to make this thread about Bush and the execution of the war, but that dodges the issue here. The real phonies, as the topic of this thread asks, are the Democrats in Congress that slander the soldiers of America (I would say “our”, but I will wait to see you say “our soldiers” first before I attempt to speak for you on that) and then raise holy hell when Rush puts the two aforementioned words together. Once again, in case you missed it, it is the liberal left that accused all soldiers of being torturers after abu Ghraib. It is the liberal left that took the illegal acts of five miscreants and attempted to take down everyone above them all the way to President Bush and then proceed to paint all servicemembers with the same broad brush.

    The fact remains, no matter how much you wish to abscure the facts and try to redirect the discussion, that Rush Limbaugh did not slander anti-war soldiers when he refered to arrested imposters as “phony soldiers”.

  45. Rich from Paso
    October 6, 2007 at 8:10 am

    Okay, Bob, I will oblige you. Below is the transcript from the member’s side of the Rush Limbaugh website.

    Another Mike. This one in Olympia, Washington. Welcome to the EIB Network. Hello.

    CALLER: Hi, Rush. Thanks for taking my call.

    RUSH: You bet.

    CALLER: I have a retort to Mike in Chicago, because I am serving in the American military, in the Army. I’ve been serving for 14 years, very proudly.

    RUSH: Thank you, sir.

    CALLER: I’m one of the few that joined the Army to serve my country, I’m proud to say, not for the money or anything like that. What I would like to retort to is that, what these people don’t understand, is if we pull out of Iraq right now, which is not possible because of all the stuff that’s over there, it would take us at least a year to pull everything back out of Iraq, then Iraq itself would collapse and we’d have to go right back over there within a year or so.

    RUSH: There’s a lot more than that that they don’t understand. The next guy that calls here I’m going to ask them, “What is the imperative of pulling out? What’s in it for the United States to pull out?” I don’t think they have an answer for that other than, “When’s he going to bring the troops home? Keep the troops safe,” whatever.

    CALLER: Yeah.

    RUSH: It’s not possible intellectually to follow these people.

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

    RUSH: The phony soldiers.

    CALLER: Phony soldiers. If you talk to any real soldier and they’re proud to serve, they want to be over in Iraq, they understand their sacrifice and they’re willing to sacrifice for the country.

    RUSH: They joined to be in Iraq.

    CALLER: A lot of people.

    RUSH: You know where you’re going these days, the last four years, if you sign up. The odds are you’re going there or Afghanistan, or somewhere.

    CALLER: Exactly, sir. My other comment, my original comment, was a retort to Jill about the fact we didn’t find any weapons of mass destruction. Actually, we have found weapons of mass destruction in chemical agents that terrorists have been using against us for a while now. I’ve done two tours in Iraq, I just got back in June, and there are many instances of insurgents not knowing what they’re using in their IEDs. They’re using mustard artillery rounds, VX artillery rounds in their IEDs. Because they didn’t know what they were using, they didn’t do it right, and so it didn’t really hurt anybody. But those munitions are over there. It’s a huge desert. If they bury it somewhere, we’re never going to find it.

    RUSH: Well, that’s a moot point for me right now.

    CALLER: Right.

    RUSH: The weapons of mass destruction. We gotta get beyond that. We’re there. We all know they were there, and Mahmoud even admitted it in one of his speeches here talking about Saddam using the poison mustard gas or whatever it is on his own people. But that’s moot. What’s more important is all this is taking place now in the midst of the surge working, and all of these anti-war Democrats are getting even more hell-bent on pulling out of there, which means that success on the part of you and your colleagues over there is a great threat to them. It’s frustrating and maddening, and why they must be kept in the minority. I want to thank you, Mike, for calling. I appreciate it very much.

    Here is a Morning Update that we did recently, talking about fake soldiers. This is a story of who the left props up as heroes. They have their celebrities and one of them was Army Ranger Jesse Macbeth. Now, he was a “corporal.” I say in quotes. Twenty-three years old. What made Jesse Macbeth a hero to the anti-war crowd wasn’t his Purple Heart; it wasn’t his being affiliated with post-traumatic stress disorder from tours in Afghanistan and Iraq. No. What made Jesse Macbeth, Army Ranger, a hero to the left was his courage, in their view, off the battlefield, without regard to consequences. He told the world the abuses he had witnessed in Iraq, American soldiers killing unarmed civilians, hundreds of men, women, even children. In one gruesome account, translated into Arabic and spread widely across the Internet, Army Ranger Jesse Macbeth describes the horrors this way: “We would burn their bodies. We would hang their bodies from the rafters in the mosque.”

    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. Jesse Macbeth isn’t an Army Ranger, never was. He isn’t a corporal, never was. He never won the Purple Heart, and he was never in combat to witness the horrors he claimed to have seen. You probably haven’t even heard about this. And, if you have, you haven’t heard much about it. This doesn’t fit the narrative and the template in the Drive-By Media and the Democrat Party as to who is a genuine war hero. Don’t look for any retractions, by the way. Not from the anti-war left, the anti-military Drive-By Media, or the Arabic websites that spread Jesse Macbeth’s lies about our troops, because the truth for the left is fiction that serves their purpose. They have to lie about such atrocities because they can’t find any that fit the template of the way they see the US military. In other words, for the American anti-war left, the greatest inconvenience they face is the truth.

    In context, the very next thing Rush talked about was Jesse MacBeth. So, Bob, you tell me how he was talking about anti-war real soldiers when the next thing he talked about was Jesse MacBeth, a bona fide phony soldier?

  46. Rich from Paso
    October 6, 2007 at 12:30 pm

    Additionally, I have review the hour that the “phony” and “soldiers” words were spoken in and there was no skip, jump or edit in the recording. That said, I think that it is intellectual fraud to put forward the Media Matters transcript and then alledge that Rush Limbaugh altered his transcript, the one you never read. That is a dirty trick to claim that MM has the only genuine copy and therefore me or anyone else can’t refute you. You are better than that, Bob, to buy into that drival. If you are going to stand by that comment, then I alledge that MM doctored the excerpt that they put on their website. Well, actually they did leave out the story about Jesse MacBeth after Mike from Olympia spoke to Rush. By the way, Mike from Olympia states that he is a currently serving soldier that has been to Iraq twice. He is the one that brought up the topic of “phony soldiers”. Is Mike, the two-time Iraq vet, anti-Iraq war vets as well? Are you all going to smear a vet because you think that he and Rush smeared anti-war vets? Come on, guys! This is a ridiculous waste of time for you, me and everyone else wasting their time on this topic. Shouldn’t Harry Reid be busy trying to lose the war in Iraq instead of losing a battle of sound bites with Rush Limbaugh?

  47. Downtown Bob
    October 6, 2007 at 4:33 pm

    Rich, thank you for posting the transcript from Rush’s site. Looking over the entire transcript from both Rush and MM, it is evident that there was a slight compression of by Rush; the suggestion is that this was done to give the impression that his comments were directed at only Jessie Macbeth and/or others like him who really did not have combat experience. You are correct when you say that this is not such a big deal in the larger scheme of things, and especially the time wasted in the chambers of the US Senate; I for one however cannot seem to get past the plural s that was on the end of the word soldiers, and have to assume that either he actually misspoke, or intentionally inferred that anyone who served and had a different viewpoint about Iraq than him was “not really a true soldier”. Go back to the previous caller transcript where the caller identified himself as ex-military and a Republican and was questioning our role in Iraq and read for yourself how much trouble Rush had in believing that the caller was a “real Republican” and by extension he questioned his claim of being ex-military. Having that conversation immediately preceding the “phony soldiers” comment makes it look to many as if Rush was questioning anyone that identifies themselves as current or ex-military and questions the current policy as to whether or not they are “real soldiers”.
    Once again I believe we have reached an impasse; Rush supporters will believe to their dying day that the man said nothing wrong, has never said anything ill about anyone who ever wore the uniform and supports anyone who is serving active duty. Those of us who do not listen to Rush and don’t like his viewpoints are not going to be swayed from our belief that he is totally partisan, will smear anybody that dares to question President Bush or Rush, no matter if they are active duty, retired, or non-military. Like I said before, if Rush had come back the next day and said something like “I want everyone to be clear that my comments about phony soldiers was intended to be about those who have never served only, and I meant no ill will towards those who have served and now question the policies of President Bush.” – but Rush being Rush could not bring himself to do the right thing. He wants to push the ideal that he can say anything about anybody on any topic and not pay a price for it. I think he relishes any publicity in attempt to stay in the public eye, no matter how relevant he is or isn’t. He is a master at what he does and his vocal “nuances” do serve the purpose of a near hypnotization. I don’t think his listeners realize how much they hang on his every word and probably feel like they have missed something important if they don’t get to hear him every day. That is kind of creepy, like an addiction. But then some people need someone to tell them how or what to think. Sad.

  48. Rich from Paso
    October 6, 2007 at 7:32 pm

    You are just plain irrational, Bob. You missed the fact that there have been several imposters pretending to be soldiers. That is a plural s. You believe what you want to believe. I think that there was no compression or any other tricks. If you actually listened to the show instead of relying on me or Media Matters to post a transcript for you to read, you would know, as I do, that there was no break or anything in his delivery.

    I am troubled again by your dime store psychobabble on what Rush’s voice resonnates like or what motivates him. You have no idea what goes on in his head, yet your arrogance motivates you to try to diagnosis him. To me that is what is sad.

  49. the ghost of christmas past
    October 10, 2007 at 11:53 am

    How stupid does Hillary Clinton think Americans are? Pretty damn stupid if you use her latest proposal as a guide. She is proposing a government subsidized 401(k) for poor people where the “government” (i.e. tax payers) match the 1st $1000 of contribution towards a retirement plan. Only problem: the program already exists and it is called “Social Security”. Another faux “free” program to lull you sheep into voting for her for your handouts. Why doesn’t she just cut to the chase and propose a socialist dictatorship? Hugo Chavez is going “Damn! why didn’t I think about that?” down in Venezuela. Who’s the real phony? Hillary Clinton for perpetrating that she is anything other than the Marxist she is.

  50. Downtown Bob
    October 11, 2007 at 8:00 pm

    Rich: Yes, that’s it, I’m the irrational one. I will not listen to Rush waiting for him to make his next gaffe so that I can hear it from his own lips; I have more valuable things to do with my time. When reading both copies of the transcript (thanks for the copy from Rush), I don’t see anywhere where the topic of multiple phony soldiers was discussed. As I said before, we have reached an impasse, with both sides choosing to believe what they want. As for my “psychobable” concerning Rush’s talking; this is an opinion forum. Is it possible that maybe I came a little too close to the mark? Perhaps you recognize that he is somewhat hypnotic in his delivery? I respect the skill with which he uses his “gift”, I just happen to believe that he has no vested interest in what he talks about unless it is a means to further enrich himself or further the aims and agenda of the Republican Party.

  51. Rich from Paso
    October 12, 2007 at 2:12 am

    Don’t flatter yourself, Bob. Your “insights” aren’t even in the same area code let alone even remotely close to hiting the mark. I think that you are actually projecting on to those that listen to Rush how easily swayed and beguiled you are by his “hypnotic’ voice. You must figure that if you could almost be convinced of how right Rush is, then those that agree with Rush must be more easily beguiled than you, the staunch, die-hard liberal. Truth is that the reason for Rush’s popularity and success is not that he hypnotizes his audience, it is that Rush affirms what his audience believed before they listened to him. Rush sees his job as not preaching to choir but to you hard-headed liberals that believe that you know what is best for 300 million Americans despite 225 years of proven success at self-governance.

    As for the phony soldiers, I no longer want to discuss it with you because you are incapable of reading the english language. it is right there in black and white how he immediately began talking about Jesse MacBeth and his fraudulent claims of being an 82nd Airborne Ranger anti-war activist. If you can’t comprehend that and still believe that Rush was painting with the broad brush all anti-war liberal soldiers then there is nothing more to discuss. Evidence and proof of facts will not penetrate the wall against reason you have errected. And since you admit that you will let Media Matters do the listening for you (since you won’t do it yourself) I can only stand by and wait for you to parrot the next bogus charge leveled by MM against the next conservative talk show host. This is the irrationality that I speak of: you will listen to Hillary Clinton’s Media Matters before you will listen to the man himself speak the words you claim are so offensive. Sounds to me that you are just afraid to be either entertained or open to the ideas of the right, so you avoid anything and everyone that might challenge your belief system.

  52. Downtown Bob
    October 12, 2007 at 6:00 am

    Rich: Megadittos! Golly, you are so right, I am afraid to listen to somebody as refreshing as Rush Limbaugh; NOT. What I said is that I don’t want to waste my time listening for his next gaffe, of which I am sure there will be many. As for Rush trying to reach “hard headed liberals” and not supposedly “preaching to the choir”; speaking for myself only, no other “liberals”- there is nothing Rush can ever say that will make me believe he is attempting to tell the truth, unless he wants to explain why he is a drug addict, a three time divorcee and what it is that he gets out of carrying water for the Bush Administration. I am aware that he has vocally “spanked” President Bush before for a perception that his administration didn’t or doesn’t do the “right” thing on topics like illegal immigration or whatever, but the very second somebody on the left criticizes the President, Rush will flame that speaker with as much rancor and virulence as possible. So when you make a vapid point about Rush “trying to reach out to liberals”, try to remember that is a hollow talking point Rush uses as a launching point for his next tirade. Like most on the far right, the only compromise that Rush is interested in is having anyone with an opposing viewpoint embrace his as their own, period.
    As I said before ( two or three times now) I understand that there is absolutely no chance that you will ever believe that Rush said anything wrong when he mentioned to his caller about “phony soldiers”, even when viewed in the context that he blasted the wounded Iraqi war veteran who made the commercial challenging Rush to call him a “phony soldier” to his face, and Rush also blasted those seven soldiers who wrote the letter that was published in the NY Times, only to have two of those soldiers killed in a car wreck in Iraq, and another one was shot in the head. I am really not convinced that Rush believes that any soldier who has served on active duty in Iraq should have his viewpoint honored, no matter what his view of how our mission in Iraq is going.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: