home

Standing Up Against The New McCarthyism And Ending The Iraq War

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Media
Posted on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 11:31:47 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Paul Waldman writes a good piece about Rush Limbaugh saga. I especially like his connecting Rush's New McCarthyism techniques to the Republican Party New McCarthyism on Iraq:

Think about how much time and effort they expend on convincing Americans that progressives and Democrats are "anti-military," "hate the troops," and even "hate America." So any progressive veteran who criticizes Bush administration policies represents a profound threat to all the arguments they have made. It becomes particularly thorny when nearly the entire current leadership of the conservative movement -- not only media figures like Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly, but also political figures including President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Karl Rove, Newt Gingrich, Tom DeLay, Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, and many others -- were of draft age during the Vietnam war but managed to stay out of harm's way.

But Democrats and their allies like Move On do not win this battle by aping this strategy, as Move On wrongly did; this battle is won by Democrats standing up against these McCarthyite tactics and, more importantly, standing up to Bush on Iraq. That means not funding the Iraq debacle after a date certain. More.

In essence, the Republican message on national security is that Democrats are wimps. And Democrats like Carl Levin (D-MI), who write things like this, confirm the GOP message:

I voted against going to war in Iraq; I have consistently challenged the administration's conduct of the war; and I have long fought to change our policy there. But I cannot vote to stop funding the troops while they are in harm's way, conducting dangerous missions such as those recently begun north of Baghdad.

When Republicans portray Democrats as wimps, people like Carl Levin confirm that view with their mealy mouthedness. And pundits like Jon Alter reinforce this view:

It isn't easy to make the case for capitulation and gamesmanship when human lives are at stake, but I'm going to try. That's because many Americans—especially on the left—don't understand why Democrats in Congress had no choice but to proceed the way they have this week on the war in Iraq.

Last May I wrote in response to Alter:

I'm going to concentrate only on the politics of the situation here, let's leave the human lives at stake aside. Ahhhhhh. Just writing that sentence tells us what is wrong with this thinking. The POLITICS won't let us leave that aside. For this is the essential Democratic problem, they are viewed as standing for nothing. For having no principles. As Ruy Texeira and John Halpin put it:
The thesis of this report is straightforward. Progressives need to fight for what they believe in -- and put the common good at the center of a new progressive vision -- as an essential strategy for political growth and majority building. This is no longer a wishful sentiment by out-of-power activists, but a political and electoral imperative for all concerned progressives. . . . [T]he underlying problem driving progressives' on-going woes nationally [is] a majority of Americans do not believe progressives or Democrats stand for anything.
Alter's thinking is a reflection of this.

This is why pushing back on Limbaugh is important, but not as important as not funding the Iraq Debacle.

< Weekend Open Thread and Diary Call | Go Rockies! >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Standing Up Against The New McCarthyism And Ending The Iraq War | 183 comments (183 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    The more things change, . . . (5.00 / 0) (#8)
    by oculus on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 01:34:08 PM EST
    From James Reston, Jr.'s The Conviction of Richard Nixon:

    Charles Colson [during the Watergate cover-up] on Vietnam War draft resisters:

    The pathetic impertinence of arguing that those who deserted or dodged the draft did so because they were endowed with some moral sensitivity denied to the rest of us would scarcely seem worth addressing at all. It is, however, on precisely this point that we begin to see the pernicious influence of those who have victimized impressionable young men. . . .They are not, as some have said, victims of war--rether they are victims of their own character deficiencies and of those politicians who tragically exploited them.
    So, was Colson arguing that (5.00 / 0) (#17)
    by scribe on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 02:53:06 PM EST
    the young men victimized were the draft dodgers, or the schlubs who believed the Nixon administration and went off to war like sheep?

    And, to Colson's eyes, who were the persons exerting the pernicious influence? And who were the victims of their own character deficiencies?

    If Colson is arguing that draft-age youth who dodged the draft (legally or otherwise) out of a profound commitment to peace, or the peace-loving message of the New Testament (or similar scripture - take your pick), or revulsion at the thought of killing for fun and profit were somehow deficient in their character, then Mr. I'm A Born-Again Christian Colson (he's quite serious about that...) has some serious explaining to do.  Starts with "H", ends with "y-p-o-c-r-i-s-y".  And the good Bible banger he is, should go back and look at what the New Testament says about hypocrites (e.g. Matthew 23:14* - "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you devour widows' houses even while for a pretense you make long prayers;  therefore you shall receive greater damnation.") and guide himself accordingly.

    If, on the other hand he is calling those who supported the Nixon administration the young men of defective character, well, all we have to do is look at Karl Rove, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld to see what he was talking about.  Adversity doesn't build character, it reveals it, and theirs is palpably manifest.

    Seems to me the quoted paragraph cuts either way with equal facility.
    -
    * The irony in my choosing that reference to hypocrites, rather than any of the others, was intentional.  But, I'm not a government functionary....

    Parent

    Colson made this statement after (none / 0) (#67)
    by oculus on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 09:43:15 PM EST
    Watergate when Congress was deciding whether to offer amnesty to "draft dodgers."  He was vehemently against amnesty, and also trying to divert the public's attention from the in progress Watergate cover up.  He stated the "draft dodgers" were victims of their own character flaws but were unduly influenced by politicians against the war.

    I'm in the middle of The Conviction of Richard Nixon, by James Reston, Jr., a really interesting book, especially if you recall the Watergate hrgs., David Frost's interviews of Nixon in 1977, and/or if you were fortunate enought to see Frost/Nixon on Broadway.  

    Parent

    Petraeus and McCarthyism (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Dadler on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 01:56:09 PM EST
    When a General gets before Congress and spews half-truths and outright b.s., when he is obviously only there to be a lackey and yes-man for a failed president's policy disaster of the murderous variety, then he is a fair target for the harshest of criticism.  When the messenger WILLFULLY MANIPULATES THE MESSAGE they have ceased to be the mere errand boy they would like us to believe they are.

    While our sh*t stinks as much as anyone else's, the notion that one lousy MoveOn ad (which was merely bad Daily Show material taken too seriously) is somehow up there with McCarthyism, or with (Rush's irrational nonsense for that matter), is an inuslt to those who actually suffered under McCarthyism.  The only thing Petraeus will suffer is a General's fat military pension and book deal(s).  While the soldier's Rush attacks will have a much more difficult road and risk being court-martialed or discharged without benefits.

    It is not up there (none / 0) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 02:48:31 PM EST
    It was merely idiotic.

    Parent
    Gotta disagree with you, BTD, but (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by scribe on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 03:28:24 PM EST
    not on the reason one might think.  You say:

    But Democrats and their allies like Move On do not win this battle by aping this strategy, as Move On wrongly did; this battle is won by Democrats standing up against these McCarthyite tactics and, more importantly, standing up to Bush on Iraq. That means not funding the Iraq debacle after a date certain.  

    The MoveOn Betrayus* ad was both perfectly appropriate and properly timed.  This, for the following reasons (and I won't even bring up the free speech angle):

    (1) Everyone with eyes knows the Republicans are thugs and McCarthyites, but that doesn't preclude them from also selling their program.  Their true nature had to be shown, and before they could close their latest deal.

    By putting that ad out there when they did, MoveOn set off the Rethugs' fulminating, foam-at-the-mouth rage at just the moment they could least afford it:  when they were trying to close a deal that required them to stay on message.  They'd spent months building up to Magical September.  We had all the curlicues of pseudo-wavering Republicans stepping away only to be "convinced" by the "proofs" to come from Betrayus' dog-and-pony show.  We had Potemkin inspection tours.  We had deep, thoughtful, insightful puff pieces written by Very Serious People.  All this was building up to
    Betrayus riding in on his white Arabian charger with The Word....

    And, at the very moment all this was supposed to come togther in an orgiastic celebration of Mars and Empire and bloodshed, MoveOn cut their b*alls off by taking the stage, going off-script and making them respond - and they responded in a way that made clear to everyone that instead of being responsible adults, the Rethugs were (and are) rabid lunatics.

    Would you buy a used war from this raving lunatic?  

    Look at it from another angle.  Hitler could be quite calm, rational, professional, persuasive and diplomatic.  He would never have been considered a serious politician by the Gutsherrn (Large-scale capitalists and nobility) who funded the Nazi Party, and never would have risen absent those qualities.  Had he been all about all screaming, all the time, he would have wound up on a Viennese street corner holding up his book and ranting about the Jews and Communists like the other nut, telling that the world is about to end.  Some time back, I watched a History Channel program reviewing surreptitious audiotapes (experimental technology at the time) made of a meeting he had with Mannerheim during WWII.  There was none of the screaming Sturm and Drang we (are taught to) associate with him.  It was all calm and businesslike.  We are taught to associate "screaming lunatic" as the only warning of "fascism approaching", so as to not recognize it being imposed in a very calm, businesslike, step-by-step way.  

    MoveOn stripped the facade, and the Betrayus ad did a great service.

    (2) Democrats needed something to cut through the Ambien-haze of spinelessness and conservative autopilot imposed by Steny Hoyer, Rahmbo and Hillary's campaign.  There's nothing like picking a good fight, to get your troops energized.

    (3)  Corollary of (2) - if you are going to pick a fight, pick one with someone "bigger" than yourself.  Which, BTW, is why Olbermann is moving on to Limbaugh from O'Reilly.  You don't get bigger by beating up on the same guy you've already taken down to size.  Bill-o is about 6 months out from total implosion and KO is moving up in the ratings food chain.

    In picking on Betrayus, MoveOn took on all the Rethugs.  And they left a nasty mark.

    Oh, and if every argument comes back to "The only solution is defunding the war and rquiring withdrawal by a date certain" you run the risk of divesting that objective of any meaning by turning it into a mantra.  While I support the objective you speak of, make sure the logic of what you argue supports the conclusion you desire to reach.
    -
    * I stand by my assertion that "Betrayus" was Petraeus' plebe nickname or one his brother officers hung on him some time ago.  By way of example, the other day another blog (maybe FDL, TPM or Kos, I'm not sure) had a list of foreign policy types advising the various campaigns.  One of them had a retired USAF general with politico-military experience, named Campbell, on their list.  His nickname (also on the list)?  "Soup."  

    Heh (1.00 / 1) (#143)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 08, 2007 at 08:22:57 AM EST
    Would you buy a used war from this raving lunatic?  

    Your problem is that the public saw the ad as a single event, and didn't realize how clever MoveOn had been. So they just accepted it for what it was. A dumb, in bad taste, attack add on the US Military.

    Parent

    And what evidence (1.00 / 1) (#151)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 08, 2007 at 02:03:34 PM EST
    do you have?

    Have another glass of kool-aid.

    BTW - You think the Senate condemns ads very often??

    tehehe

    Parent

    tehe (1.00 / 0) (#175)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 08, 2007 at 08:02:18 PM EST
    if you want to tell me that the kabuki show in the Senate reflected the mood of this nation,

    Ah yes, Senators are just so unconnected with what is in the political wind.

    hehe

    Parent

    I note that you provided (1.00 / 0) (#184)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Oct 09, 2007 at 08:47:16 AM EST
    no proof for your claim.

    I did.

    tehehe

    BTW - I hope you enjoyed the ad. You'll get to see it again...

    Parent

    Rule?? (none / 0) (#201)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 01:51:28 PM EST
    I noted the Senate's actions. You noted the polls showing disapproval of the ad...

    You still wanna argue??

    Hehe

    Parent

    Since I am not a conservative and certainly (none / 0) (#174)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 08, 2007 at 08:00:12 PM EST
    not a Libertarian, the answer is: No.

    Parent
    There are probably thousands (none / 0) (#199)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 01:46:24 PM EST
    of articles I have seen..

    And your point is that I am supposed to have read them?

    Heh

    Parent

    I haven't read the article (none / 0) (#200)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 01:48:12 PM EST
    Why do you think I am obliged to??

    Are you paying me to read what you want me to??

    No.

    End of story.

    Parent

    Oh well (none / 0) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 03:55:00 PM EST
    I think you are utterly wrong and we have had this discussion before.

    Parent
    Idiot (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Oct 08, 2007 at 08:35:38 PM EST


    Parent
    Geez (none / 0) (#198)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 07:38:22 AM EST
    It seems clear you do not know a darn thing about what I have written.

    Or about what Move On has done on Iraq.

    Parent

    What??? (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by Edger on Mon Oct 08, 2007 at 09:16:01 PM EST
    Unbelievable...

    Parent
    So, (none / 0) (#25)
    by scribe on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 04:11:40 PM EST
    Would you buy a used war from this raving lunatic?  

    Seems like the American people decided "no".


    Parent

    Walter.... (none / 0) (#182)
    by Edger on Tue Oct 09, 2007 at 01:53:28 AM EST
    Tell me that was tongue in cheek, or troll baiting, or something will you?

    You've read BTD slamming Democrats for their intransigence on Iraq enough times to know....

    Parent

    It's an excellent piece ... (none / 0) (#85)
    by robrecht on Sun Oct 07, 2007 at 07:11:43 AM EST
    ... but it ultimately argues for escalation IIRC.  Interesting point about BTD.  I haven't been able to figure out all the irony yet, but ultimately I agree (with BTD I think) that the MoveOn ad allowed the Republicans to reduce focus on a more rigorous scrutiny of Petraeus' message.

    Parent
    Different readings (none / 0) (#89)
    by robrecht on Sun Oct 07, 2007 at 08:15:35 AM EST
    Your reading is probably right in your assumption that Bacevich implicitly answers his own question to imply that Petraeus doesn't in fact believe the surge is working.

    I didn't recall Bacevich actually answering this question explicitly, however, and I think Petraeus actually does believe his surge is working.  For those who, like Petraeus, believe the surge is working, the case can be made for escalation.

    What then should he have recommended to the Congress and the president? That is, if the commitment of a modest increment of additional forces --the 30,000 troops comprising the surge, now employed in accordance with sound counterinsurgency doctrine --has begun to turn things around, then what should the senior field commander be asking for next?

    A single word suffices to answer that question: more. More time. More money. And above all, more troops.

    It is one of the oldest principles of generalship: when you find an opportunity, exploit it. Where you gain success, reinforce it. When you have your opponent at a disadvantage, pile on. In a letter to the soldiers serving under his command, released just prior to the congressional hearings, Petraeus asserted that coalition forces had "achieved tactical momentum and wrestled the initiative from our enemies." Does that reflect his actual view of the situation? If so, then surely the imperative of the moment is to redouble the current level of effort so as to preserve that initiative and to deny the enemy the slightest chance to adjust, adapt, or reconstitute. ...

    If Petraeus actually believes that he can salvage something akin to success in Iraq and if he agrees with President Bush about the consequences of failure --genocidal violence, Iraq becoming a launching pad for terrorist attacks directed against the United States, the Middle East descending into chaos that consumes Israel, the oil-dependent global economy shattered beyond repair, all of this culminating in the emergence of a new Caliphate bent on destroying the West--then surely this moment of (supposed) promise is not a time for scrimping. Rather, now is the time to go all out--to insist upon a maximum effort.

    What I should have said is that many will use the piece to argue for escalation.


    Parent

    Thanks (none / 0) (#147)
    by robrecht on Mon Oct 08, 2007 at 01:03:16 PM EST
    for your interpretation; it helped me to read Bacevich's article more closely and to better understand it.  Do you think that Bacevich leaves it up to the reader to make up his or her own mind as to what Petraeus actually believes?

    Parent
    You seem not to (5.00 / 0) (#165)
    by tnthorpe on Mon Oct 08, 2007 at 05:15:30 PM EST
    have read or be referring to the actual ad. Go find your facts there. You don't generally deal with facts, most war mongerers don't.

    The quote is from a cycle of plays, the Henriad or the Great Tetralogy, about the danger of usurpation and the lies people tell when they rationalize war. Why is HV king and how did he get there? Read the brief first act and ask why was Henry in France? What does the Salic law have to do with it, or what does the need to legitimate his tenuous hold on the English Crown have to do with it? Why were Canterbury and Ely so interested in getting the King out of England? Shakespeare is way ahead of you here. He wrote a play about the use of nationalist ideology to cover over domestic corruption, but I know you'll never ever make that connection.

    What Rush apologist could?

    I see you don't have the foggiest (1.00 / 0) (#187)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Oct 09, 2007 at 09:25:40 AM EST
    notion about what the snippet of poetry says...

    And since you don't, you start referring to things that have no meaning when you read the "poem."

    It is like someone noting that the "Mona Lisa" was a painting in a body of works by Leonardo Da Vinci. You have knowledge but show no heart.

    And "heart" isn't learned in a class room.

    But, seeing that you never served, that is understandable.

    Parent

    Big Tent (1.00 / 3) (#1)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 12:28:52 PM EST
    You are a big time Flordia Gator fan, let me ask you  
    a question.

    Your team is playing a tough opponent. You are nursing a slim lead and have the ball. Your old quarterback has been replaced with a new one. Your coach agrees with him that you need a new strategy, and using that you work the ball down to the 35 yard line. Too close to punt, but almost too far for a field goal.... It's 4th and 2.. Your coach calls a time out.. Just then a bunch of Florida students start demonstrating while screaming, "Football is immoral!.

    And just then the AD comes on over the PA system and says:

    The game is lost!! We shouldn't have played at all! This drive has been useless. The coach must figure out a way to peacefully leave the field!

    Do you think that might dishearten the team?  Would you agree with it??

    Well, that is what Harry Reid said:

    Now I believe, myself, that the secretary of state, the secretary of defense and you have to make your own decision as to what the president knows: that this war is lost, that the surge is not accomplishing anything.

    And he has been joined, both before and after, by a long list of Left wing Democrats.

    You may call these comments "progressive."

    Progressive what? Progressing towards losing a war?

    I call these attacks on the troops, and attacks on the war, because if you don't support the war, then you are supporting the troops.

    Senators, waiters, old men, bloggers... everyone has an opinion, and a right to express it.

    They also have something called responsibility.

    Yes, well.... (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by Edger on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 12:56:54 PM EST
    Recognition of reality has never been your strong suit. And the continual pathetic attempts at blame shifting in your desperate seeking salvation don't work either.  

    You don't really believe anyone is stupid enough to think you make sense?

    Do you?

    Parent

    So... ppj. (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by Edger on Tue Oct 09, 2007 at 10:12:57 AM EST
    For four days you've been running up and down this thread like a stray dog pissing all over every post you come across.

    And still you haven't found anyone stupid enough to think you make sense.

    What does that tell you?

    Hint: It doesn't mean they're stupid.

    Parent

    This has got to be the dumbest analogy (5.00 / 4) (#4)
    by Molly Bloom on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 01:03:03 PM EST
    I have ever seen.

    We  know who started the war, we know who lied about the cause for war, we know who cheerleadered it. we know who didn't have a plan for an occupation. It wasn't Harry Reid. It was George Bush and his allies.

    It wasn't the little boy's fault he observed the emperor had no clothes. He just spoke out loud what everybody saw. Its not Harry Reid's fault that Bush had no plan for the occupation and as a consequence there is now a quagmire. Reid just voiced what everyone can see.

    I know who blindly says rah rah we're number 1! everything would be just find if you would stop pointing out the problems - That would be you, Jim.

    It would be comic, if people weren't dying.

    Now you are looking to shift the blame. You can't. You are going to have to live with it. Take a long look in the mirror. It was you Jim and people like you who who demand absolute fealty to Bush and his war. Its my opinion that YOU are as responsible for the quagmire in Iraq as any politican who voted for it or votes to fund it. Worse yet you are trying to scam everyone with your tired and trite "stabbed in the back" nonsense. You have no plan, except more of the same and blame someone else if more of the same fails. Its reprehensible.

    Parent

    It's the perfect analogy (5.00 / 4) (#11)
    by jondee on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 02:29:30 PM EST
    for someone whose never been closer to an actual war than his DVD collection of Patton and The Longest Day.

    War as (symbolically) the most wholesome, All American activity. Safe as milk. And apple pie.
    Now go out there and win one for the Gipper.


    Parent

    Fact remains. (1.00 / 1) (#90)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Oct 07, 2007 at 08:26:42 AM EST
    I served 10 years, you served none.

    Whatever I did it was 100% more than you.

    Parent

    And You're Still Serving (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by squeaky on Sun Oct 07, 2007 at 11:35:03 AM EST
    Steaming piles of horse pucky on a daily basis.

    Parent
    MB (1.00 / 2) (#39)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 07:07:48 PM EST
    There is a time for critical analysis, and a time for support.

    Staring at your navel and pronouncing the war lost in the middle of it is not the right time.

    I sure am glad you folks weren't around on D Day.

    You would have had us surrender by 8/1/44.

    And I have never said anyone of you has stabbed us in the back.

    It is more like a direct frontal attack while telling us you know more than anyone else.

    You don't.

    Parent

    Stay Alert (5.00 / 5) (#44)
    by glanton on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 07:37:13 PM EST
    Staring at your navel and pronouncing the war lost in the middle of it is not the right time.

    One of their favorite games, it's never the right time to hold them accountable.  

    When they were pimping it, it wasn't the right time, because a crisis was upon us.  But then we're not supposed to talk about how we got here because it's in the past.  But then don't speak out against where we are now, either, because we're "in the middle of it."

    Stay with Fox.

    Parent

    Also stay alert for (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by glanton on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 09:53:22 PM EST
    It is more like a direct frontal attack while telling us you know more than anyone else.

    You don't

    He got his talking points down, give him that.  This refgrain's been getting more traction lately, and we'll be hearing it a lot more in the months to come.  As those who have been so lethally, immorally wrong for so long get more and more petulant.

    "Hey, nobody knew any better! Keep taking us seriously!  Keep funding our fantasies!  We're experts!"

    Stay with Fox.

    Parent

    I love it when you get so excited (1.00 / 1) (#91)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Oct 07, 2007 at 08:30:22 AM EST
    that you forget where you going and do two comments in a row.....

    Now. Dispute my claim that negative comments hurt the troops and help the terrorists.

    Go on. Let's hear it, oh "alert" one.

    Parent

    Two comments in a row (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by glanton on Sun Oct 07, 2007 at 10:27:04 AM EST
    means I forgot where I was going?

    That kind of logic makes sense, as much sense anyway as your foreign policy talking points.

    Here on Earth, hurting the American troops are the subhuman ideologues who put them in Iraq, and the lemmings contining to vote for them.

    So, Cheerlead to your heart's content. Are you ready for some football quoth the redneck.  Blood all over your damned hands.  Mine are clean.      

    Parent

    This is even more foolish than the previous one. (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by Molly Bloom on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 09:04:24 PM EST


    Parent
    I'll make you the same offer (1.00 / 2) (#92)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Oct 07, 2007 at 08:47:33 AM EST
    that I gave "stay alert" glanton.

    Provide some proof that negative comments do not hurt the troops and help the terrorists?

    Do you think the Stanford football coach told his team:

    "The game is lost. We can't beat USC."


    Parent

    Time for support? (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by tnthorpe on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 11:11:15 PM EST
    the way the go-with-the-army-you-got bu!! that Rummy thought good enough, because that's not nearly good enough.

    would that be the scr^w the troops when they get home and need medical care, education, or psychological treatment? Because that's what your Repubs have given us.

    would that be armoring Humvees, providing sufficient body armor, or giving adequate time between deployments? Would support mean actual plans for occupation, for the transfer of power to the Iraqis, or for managing the obvious sectarian tensions likely to be released after Saddam's fall? Because that's not what your Repubs have given us.

    would that mean paying private contractors several times what an enlisted woman or man gets to do the same job? Because that's what your Repubs have given us.

    Pointing out the manifest failings of the ruinous cabal you cheerlead for isn't attacking the troops. It's attacking the idiocy of those who refuse to accept responsibility for their own failures. It is the Bush Administration that has failed, repeatedly and whined about being called on it. So typical of the empty suit in the Oval Office.

    Critical analysis? Attacking the troops with unwarranted criticism?  What do you put in your koolaid?  

    Parent

    Your lack of historical context (1.00 / 1) (#94)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Oct 07, 2007 at 09:19:33 AM EST
    when you make your claims produce some amusing thoughts...

    FDR to Japan:

    "You guys just wait until we get the atomic bomb and we will clean your clock!"

    Short comings of weapons is not good, but it happens. The trick is to make the improvements as quickly as possible. And "quickly as possible" is never fast enough for those using the systems.

    But face it. You hate Bush and have hated him since he won the election. There is nothing he could have done to avert that. Your complaints have nothing to do with "problems." They are all about "politics."

    Parent

    lack of context? (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by tnthorpe on Sun Oct 07, 2007 at 11:01:17 AM EST
    Bush hater?

    See, you can't respond to the facts, which are what I posted. Those are what the world has seen happen on the Bush Administration's watch. Your buddies, your fellow social liberals Bush, Cheney, Rummy, Wolfie, lost Iraq, and all your phony posturing, dissimulation doesn't change that basic TRUTH!!

    So you post nonsense about FDR and try to shift the conversation to Bush hating, etc. in typical blog troll fashion.

    Pathetic

    Parent

    question (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by womanwarrior on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 11:42:07 PM EST
    Are we going to get the same support the war from you when Bush bombs Iran.

    We remember people who supported the Fatherland when it invaded Poland.  And then when it invaded Czechoslovakia. and then when it invaded ....

    This war is wrong and always has been.  It must be stopped.  We are not fixing what we broke.  We are building huge permanent military bases.  We are building the most gigantic embassy complex in the world.  Our government does not give a darn about the Iraqi people and what they want, and never did.  

    Wake up and smell the coffee and the dead bodies. I don't hate soldiers.  I don't want this government which sends them to die for no good reason.  

    Parent

    We??? We??? (1.00 / 1) (#93)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Oct 07, 2007 at 09:06:29 AM EST
    Who do you speak for? Is there an organization you are the boss of that I don't know about?

    You expose who you are when you bring in Nazi Germany and allege that we are the same.

    You say you don't hate soldiers but you say things that hurt the war effort. Do you really believe that the terrorists weren't encouraged when the Democratic Majority leader said:

    Now I believe, myself, that the secretary of state, the secretary of defense and you have to make your own decision as to what the president knows: that this war is lost, that the surge is not accomplishing anything.

    And if the war must be stopped, aren't you saying that it must be stopped by any means?? Losing would certainly be one of those means.

    Tell me this.

    Are you against all wars? Would you protest if we went into Darfur?

    My guess is that you would.

    My guess is that you are only against wars that Bush is involved with.

    Parent

    It's 4 and 2 in Iraq is it? (5.00 / 4) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 01:11:37 PM EST


    Parent
    Recc'd for judiciousness. (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by oculus on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 01:58:48 PM EST


    Parent
    Yes, it is, but only if we're playing baseball! (none / 0) (#14)
    by robrecht on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 02:48:11 PM EST


    Parent
    "Are you ready for some football?" (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by glanton on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 03:36:37 PM EST
    What a crass analogy.  Makes Hank Jr. look like Aristotle.

    Anyway, from the post:

    It becomes particularly thorny when nearly the entire current leadership of the conservative movement -- not only media figures like Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly, but also political figures including President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Karl Rove, Newt Gingrich, Tom DeLay, Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, and many others -- were of draft age during the Vietnam war but managed to stay out of harm's way.

    No problem with them avoiding throwing away their lives.  Big problem with them avoiding it even as they exhort others to do same.

    Parent

    Cheerleading (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by tnthorpe on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 09:37:52 PM EST
    for death and destruction from the sidelines, how pathetic.

    As for losing the war, the war was immoral from the get-go and the Bush Administration that perpetrated it ought to be prosecuted as war criminals.

    As for losing the war, the complete failure in the immediate aftermath of the capture of Bagdad to protect any of the OHRA designated targets, the munitions dumps, anything but the OIL MINISTRY is an actual cause.

    As for losing the war, the disbanding of the Iraqi military without consultation of American officers in the field, the relentless and stupid de-Ba'athification policy, the complete failure to provide enough troops to secure the peace is an actual cause.

    As for losing the war, the lies presented to Congress as facts based on the word of convicted frauds, and self-aggrandizing opportunists, the fantasy of a war paid for by another country's oil reserves is an actual cause.

    Opposing this colossal waste, this monstrous imbroglio that is nothing but an ongoing detraction from the actual struggles the country faces is NOT A CAUSE!!!! It is the SANE thing to do.

    I could go on further about how this dismal event was brought to its current catastrophic condition by the Bush Administration alone, acting on its own sole authority, disregarding expert advice from its own government, in defiance of law, reason, morality, and justice,

    but I'm sure, ppj, that your head is so full of the garbage from JiahdWatch and paranoiac ravings of the culture clash crowd that actual facts can't penetrate that ideological wool you've got between the ears.

    Parent

    So you want to lose... (1.00 / 0) (#171)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 08, 2007 at 07:08:48 PM EST
    As for losing the war, the disbanding of the Iraqi military without consultation of American officers in the field, the relentless and stupid de-Ba'athification policy, the complete failure to provide enough troops to secure the peace is an actual cause.

    I understand that you want the war to be lost, but it isn't. What you refer to were, arguably mistakes, but mistakes happen in war. Generals get fired, etc.

    The real question is, so what? Want to talk about military bobos? Why did Ike stop Patton's advance into Germany in the Fall of '44 to let Monty try his ill fated attempt to flank the Germans from the north? Many think that Patton could have been in Berlin by Christmas and the war over.

    Many also say it was politics. London was getting hit by rockets and the British were unhappy that Churchill couldn't stop it.

    So the real question becomes. Do I or do I not support the US in the WOT and the current battles in Iraq and Afghanistan. You answer the question:

    Opposing this colossal waste, this monstrous imbroglio...

    So it is not like you are not understood. You are understood quite well.

    The question is, do you have any idea as to the consequences of losing?

    Parent

    Your arguments are so (5.00 / 1) (#195)
    by tnthorpe on Tue Oct 09, 2007 at 04:00:00 PM EST
    feeble, based as they are on the typical conservative ideological gibberish.
    Really have you no shame?
    Your war-thrilled posts reflect a total failure to apprehend what's happening. Comparing the disaster of Iraq to WWII repeatedly documents only your failure to understand the present conflict in its own terms.

    "Mistakes happen," really, have you no shame?
    Those mistakes were based on your Bush cabal's profound dereliction of duty, by ignoring the best advice... Millions displaced, hundreds of thousands dead or wounded. "Mistakes happen" is just morally bankrupt. Pathetic.

    You need to get over yourself and develop a conscience and stop prattling about losing the GWOT.

    You don't understand any of this, the ideological wool between your ears is petrified.

    Parent

    wow Proof read and still screw up. (1.00 / 1) (#2)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 12:31:01 PM EST
    As you know, it should have read:

    ...because if you don't support the war, then you aren't supporting the troops.
    fertilizer (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Molly Bloom on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 01:05:02 PM EST


    Parent
    Your Freudian slip is showing! (5.00 / 0) (#7)
    by robrecht on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 01:26:54 PM EST
    ... LOL, haven't heard that since high school!

    Parent
    Merde (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by desertswine on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 02:55:51 PM EST


    Parent
    Eugene McCarthy vs Joe McCarthy (none / 0) (#12)
    by robrecht on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 02:45:40 PM EST
    "But Democrats and their allies like Move On do not win this battle by aping this strategy, as Move On wrongly did; ...

    This is why pushing back on Limbaugh is important, but not as important as not funding the Iraq Debacle."

    Believe me, I'm all for pushing back on Limbaugh, but what does this phony soldier controversy really have to do with defunding?

    In fact, from what I've been able to gather, Media Matters also aped Limbaugh's own McCarthy style tactics in taking his remarks out of context.  Limbaugh's initial "the phony soldiers" remark was apparently merely referring back to his previous day's broadcast, which is supported by the poor dittohead caller knowing immediatedly what Limbaugh was referring to and repeating, "the phoney soldiers."  When Limbaugh returned to the topic later, he only calls Jesse MacBeth, one of the fake soldiers apparently discussed the previous day.

    I submit, we'd be a lot more successful in pressing the cause of responsible defunding if we avoided the snarky political sniping with clowns like Limbaugh.

    At least Media Matters chose a more ridiculous target than MoveOn, but actually that's not a good strategy.  We risk being defined by our opponents and our tactics.  It's necessary to point out that Limbaugh is a clown, but we ought to be able to do that without turning congress into a three ring circus.

    It has everything to do with it (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 02:47:41 PM EST
    What makes a phony soldier? Opposing the Iraq
    Debacle.

    Frankly, I think it is obvious.

    Parent

    Obvious if you only read Media Matters (1.00 / 1) (#16)
    by robrecht on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 02:52:04 PM EST
    I will not be put in the position of defending clown Limbaugh, but that's not really what he said.

    Parent
    Oh please (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 03:20:16 PM EST
    Give me a break.

    Parent
    I know it's damn difficult to accept (1.00 / 1) (#20)
    by robrecht on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 03:24:04 PM EST


    Parent
    Because (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 03:55:25 PM EST
    it is patently false.

    Parent
    Well, I'd love to be proven wrong on this (1.00 / 1) (#27)
    by robrecht on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 04:27:01 PM EST
    Can you prove that it's patently false?  Have you seen a transcript of this Tues 9/25 morning update, in which Limbaugh supposedly discussed this issue the day prior to he and his dittohead caller refering back to "the phony soldiers"?

    Here's Limbaugh's Wed 9/26 later reference back to it, shortly after he and his caller made their initial references to "the phony soldiers":

    "... 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 ..."

    Parent

    I do not care (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 04:29:28 PM EST
    what you think needs to be proved on this.

    Frankly, I suggest you go bother someone else with this.

    There is nothing to discuss as far as I am concerned.

    You make any argument you wish.

    Parent

    BTD's shorter (1.00 / 1) (#37)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 06:49:55 PM EST
    Don't you dare print the truth!!!!

    Parent
    I kind of figured that (none / 0) (#31)
    by robrecht on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 04:35:02 PM EST
    But if it's patently false, it should be pretty easy to prove.  Perhaps someone else will do it for you.

    Parent
    Or perhaps not (5.00 / 0) (#36)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 06:40:48 PM EST
    That is has not been proven TO YOU does not mean it has not been proven.

    Parent
    Not necessary to point out the obvious (none / 0) (#40)
    by robrecht on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 07:08:34 PM EST


    Parent
    This is what they left off.... (1.00 / 1) (#41)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 07:11:07 PM EST
    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.
    END TRANSCRIPT


    Parent

    Meia Matters provides complete transcripts (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by Repack Rider on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 04:23:50 PM EST
    What part of the complete transcript do you take exception with?

    Parent
    Heh (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 04:28:28 PM EST


    Parent
    The initial Media Matters transcript (1.00 / 1) (#30)
    by robrecht on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 04:33:28 PM EST
    transcript does not appear to be complete.  It stops with these words: "CALLER 2: Exactly, sir."  Maybe they've provided a fuller transcript elsewhere?  From the later text that I've seen, if correct (quoted above), it seems that the crucial context is also the previous morning's update that supposedly first discussed this issue.

    Parent
    I see that you like to (1.00 / 1) (#95)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Oct 07, 2007 at 09:41:38 AM EST
    misquote.

    Let me help you.

    I have pointed out that Limbaugh used the term "phony soldiers." I have shown, based on the transcript, that he was most likely to be talking about Caller 1 and Jason Macbeth. That's two. As in plural.

    Caller 2, again from the transcript, id'd Caller 1 as phony, and used the "phony soldiers" description for soldiers who attack the war.

    Limbaugh agreed. That's more than two.

    Later, Limbaugh added Murtha and Kerry (?) to his list. (Not sure about Kerry.)

    I agreed and commented as to why that was true. I also added TNR's favorite correspondent.

    Now, go make up some more stuff and I will name you Squeaky Walter66.

    Parent

    You still haven't noticed (5.00 / 0) (#96)
    by Edger on Sun Oct 07, 2007 at 09:53:38 AM EST
    that no one is buying?

    Some salesman. I hope you don't put what you do here on your resume. Most sales organizations want results.

    Although... you could become a mortician, I suppose.

    Parent

    Yes PPJ (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by squeaky on Sun Oct 07, 2007 at 11:56:16 AM EST
    Is a self smearing WATB. All you have to do is quote him and he feels smeared. Not suprising given the nonsense he pumps out here.

    Parent
    Ask and you shall receive... (1.00 / 0) (#43)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 07:31:12 PM EST
    Unless there was a transcript on 9/27 on MediaMatters besides the one Robrecht linked to, they left off about 1/3 of it.

    See comment #41.

    I take no exception to the COMPLETE transcript.

    It clearly shows that Limbaugh considered Caller 1, Mike from Chicago, as a phony....

    CALLER:  I used to be military, okay, and I am a Republican.
    RUSH:  Yeah.

    CALLER:  And I do listen to you, but --

    RUSH:  Right, I know.  And I, by the way, used to walk on the moon.

    It also shows that Caller 2 was the one who broached the phony soldiers bit...

    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.

    He also defines what he thinks of Caller 1.

    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.

    So they both agree their are phony soldiers, and Caller 2 agrees with Limbaugh that Caller 1 is phony....

    Now we come to the part that MediaMatters didn't include... Wonder why?? Probably because Limbaugh provides a concrete example of a phony soldier.

    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.....

    No charge for the service.

    Parent

    The COMPLETE transcript (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 09:20:00 PM EST


    Parent
    If Limbaugh was only referring to Jesse (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Molly Bloom on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 04:39:39 PM EST
    How do you explain his use of the plural- phony soliders?

    Your charge that media matters took it out of context doesn't bare scrutiny.

    The context of what Limbaugh said was a discussion about "Mike from Chicago" (Mike C)- who called in, stated he proudly  served 14 years in the military and and that he was a Republican AND he opposed the war. Limbaugh said that Mike C couldn't be a Republican or a vet. Then "Mike from Olympia" (Mike O) called. Mike O talked about Iraq collapsing if we pull out. Mike O then said the media never talks to real soliders. Limbaugh then made his now infamous statement about the phony soliders.

    Lets stop the tape and review. Who are they talking about at this point? Mike C. Not Jesse. Already the Limbaugh cover scam, "I was only talking about Jesse falls apart".

    Accordingly the point made by BTD. Olberman, me and many others is correct. Limbaugh was talking about any solider, including Mike C. who opposed the war.

    Parent

    I don't think he was only referring to Jesse (none / 0) (#33)
    by robrecht on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 04:49:25 PM EST
    Macbeth.  The best explanation of his remarks I've seen seems to indicate that the topic of phoney soldiers was discussed the previous day.  I certainly don't like or defend the way Limbaugh treated Mike from Chicago.  I can't stand Rush Limbaugh period.

    Parent
    He was swinging wildly (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by jondee on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 05:01:08 PM EST
    when hasnt he? Demagoguery, sound-bites, bumperstickers, Revelations and brand name recognition have always been their bread 'n butter.

    Go Gators. If you aint with 'em, yer agin' 'em.

    Parent

    Then it seems to me you are arguing about nothing (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Molly Bloom on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 05:07:22 PM EST
    Limbaugh was calling Mike C a phony solider, regardless of who he called a phony soldier -with or without cause- the day before.  Remarks from the day before don't help Limbaugh here. We are back to where we before: any solider who does not support the war, according to Limbaugh is a phony solider.

    Parent
    Molly writes (1.00 / 1) (#45)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 07:37:38 PM EST
    Limbaugh was calling Mike C a phony solider, regardless of who he called a phony soldier -with or without cause- the day before

    No. Mike C was Caller 1, as shown in the transcript.

    He clearly is considered phony by Limbaugh...and so is Jacson Macbeth who he includes at the bottom of the transcript, noting that Macbeth was also the subject of a recent morning update.

    Here, read the transcript. Or are you afraid of facts?

    BTW - I'm still available as your truth detector, but the great economy we're having has caused me to raise my rates 25%.

    ;-)

    Supply and demand you know.

    Parent

    I can't use a truth dectector who flunks reading (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by Molly Bloom on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 08:24:50 PM EST
    comprehension. Give me a call when you can pass reading comprehension and we can discuss your qualifications, such as they are.

    Parent
    Oh? (1.00 / 0) (#97)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Oct 07, 2007 at 09:57:33 AM EST
    I am offering my services as a "truth detector."

    I have no ability as a truth "dectector."

    Can you tell me what courses I should take to add that ability to my resume???

    ;-)

    But upon further review... I see that you are claiming that Limbaugh's comment the day before in his morning update, doesn't apply.

    IF you had read the complete transcript, which your fav MediaMatters didn't supply, you would have seen that Limbaugh brought Jason Macbeth back in the conversation he was having with Caller 2. In fact, in great detail. So whatever he did, or didn't say the day before is meaningless.

    BTW - You commented:

    -with or without cause- the day before.

    Jason Macbeth received 5 months prison time and 3 years probation... so someone thought there was "cause."

    BTW - If you change your mind and make a decent offer I must reveal that I too require a good spell checker...

    ;-)

    Parent

    Jim, if you're a real dittohead ... (none / 0) (#46)
    by robrecht on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 07:49:02 PM EST
    ... can you get a transcript of the Tues 9/25 Morning Update?

    Parent
    Not touching that one! (5.00 / 0) (#54)
    by Molly Bloom on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 09:01:14 PM EST


    Parent
    Hate to burst your bubble ;-) (1.00 / 2) (#47)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 08:20:12 PM EST
    But I don't listen to Limbaugh to any amount, nor Hanity, etc... seeing as how I am a Social Liberal, and consider them an ally on war issues only....

    But I really don't see why that is important.. Limbaugh's words were a "recent Morning Update."

    In any event, he brought Jason Macbeth up in the same conversation.. all within about 3 minutes.

    roy provided the original link to the transcript, perhaps he can help.

    Parent

    OK (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by squeaky on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 08:44:56 PM EST
    .....seeing as how I am a Social Liberal.....

    So who are your allies? Names?

    Parent

    Why should I have allies? (1.00 / 1) (#103)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Oct 07, 2007 at 10:23:56 AM EST
    I don't need to hang out with my buds on the corner to feel secure.

    That's one of the basic differences between us.

    Remember. Eagles don't flock.

    ;-)


    Parent

    Eagles? (5.00 / 0) (#108)
    by Edger on Sun Oct 07, 2007 at 10:34:49 AM EST
    So you understand why no one wants you around?

    Maybe there's hope for you after all. I won't count on it though.

    Parent

    My, my ..... you are a slow learner (1.00 / 1) (#119)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Oct 07, 2007 at 11:09:46 AM EST
    How many times must you be told I don't care what you, or 99.9% of others, think.

    Mature people with self confidence don't need constant reassurance from their "friends."

    Parent

    Mmmmm.... (5.00 / 0) (#120)
    by Edger on Sun Oct 07, 2007 at 11:12:59 AM EST
    Then why respond? Must be that "flocking" thing, huh? Can't help yourself, as usual.

    Parent
    Because as a mature confident adult (1.00 / 1) (#131)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Oct 07, 2007 at 02:33:00 PM EST
    I feel it is my responsibility to point out the errors of your ways..... and yes, I meant errors.

    Parent
    FOS (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by squeaky on Sun Oct 07, 2007 at 11:52:56 AM EST
    So much for your social liberal credentials. Eagles are not social they are predators. That explains your fixation with shooting looters and other murderous fantasies.

    Parent
    squaky (1.00 / 0) (#130)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Oct 07, 2007 at 02:31:23 PM EST
    Now, you have earned another smearer designation.

    Could you please get it straight.

    I approve of shooting ONLY looters when they they don't follow a lawful command to cease looting.

    As for your slur on our national symbol, I guess your's would have been the humming bird??

    Parent

    Eagles Don't Flock (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by glanton on Sun Oct 07, 2007 at 02:41:59 PM EST
    Thanks Squeaky for properly mocking the idiotic use of that saying.  BTW it's been my experience that the saying is almost exclusively the province of those whose behavior otherwise lines up very much with the stereotype known as Redneck.

    Also, thanks for pointing out that the saying is true.  Funny how Jim calls it a slur against something to point out what it really is.  He's pretty consistent in this regard too.

    Poor silly Jim.  Thinks he's standing on behalf of a legitimate war effort.  Thinks the United States is fighting for its very existence in Iraq.  Can't quite face what it means that no matter what happens in the killing fields over there, no matter when the American forces finally withdraw, and no mater the terms under which they withdraw, life for him won't be affected one way or the other.      

    Parent

    hshahahah (5.00 / 0) (#135)
    by squeaky on Sun Oct 07, 2007 at 03:44:40 PM EST
    Lawful command? By blackwater? Like they did at NOLA.

    Nice way to get rid of poor hungry and thirsty black democrats. No oversight, no jury, no nothing but your "lawful" command.

    That is the way they used to do it in the south, all lawful, more like laughful. A good chuckle at the barbecue after cleaning up.

    And it is ok to shoot radical muslims too, I bet,  because the last I heard (from you) they are out breeding your white redneck friends and will soon turn your town into sharia law. And as you claim they are a lesser breed like the NA, and deserve to get wiped out too because, well they are inferior to you and your redneck friends.

    As for your social liberal friends, who you of course never flock with to due to your eagle persona, but seem to coincidentially repeat their talking points, we have Daniel Pipes, David Horowitz, Rudy Guiliani, Karl Rove, GWB, Dick Cheney, Michael Leeden, Doug Feith, Richard Perle, Elliott Abrams... your flock that you soar above.

    hahahahahah

    Parent

    Oh, And (5.00 / 0) (#136)
    by squeaky on Sun Oct 07, 2007 at 03:47:39 PM EST
    Not to forget another social liberal in your non-flock, the topical Joseph McCarthy.

    Parent
    You deserve this (none / 0) (#137)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Oct 07, 2007 at 07:26:11 PM EST
    Posted by Squeaky at September 19, 2005 11:19 PM

    Rove never needed proof for his smear machine, why should I.



    Parent
    hahahahah (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by squeaky on Sun Oct 07, 2007 at 07:42:06 PM EST
    Rove is your friend not mine. He is part of your chichenhawk flock. You are a phony, as everyone here has noted.

    As far as smears go you are the smear king. But then again it is easier to cut and paste non-sequiturs and out of context quotes than to change the fact that you are a reactionary neocon that parades around as some kind of liberal. Everything and every name I mentioned is from your comments, which of course you cannot deny. hahahahaha

    I do not know how you can live with your utter dishonesty. Maybe you think it is all a poker game, a 101st Keyboard Kommando. Nor do I understand why you love to be slammed every day by commenters who prove how dim witted and dishonest you are. Different strokes for different strokes.

    Parent

    You finally get something right. (1.00 / 1) (#138)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Oct 07, 2007 at 07:29:01 PM EST
    As for your social liberal friends, who you of course never flock with to due to your eagle persona

    Try it sometime. You don't have to suck up to the big boys.. they'll be nicer if you stand your ground.

    Parent

    Larry Craig perhaps? (none / 0) (#105)
    by robrecht on Sun Oct 07, 2007 at 10:29:27 AM EST
    I think he meant if Hannity and Limbaugh are your allies in the War in Iraq, who are your allies among the social liberals?  Larry Craig perhaps?

    Parent
    He's been making the "social liberal" (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by jondee on Sun Oct 07, 2007 at 02:24:26 PM EST
    claim for 5 years and hasnt in that time voiced supprt for a single public fellow-social-liberal.

    It's a b.s ruse to APPEAR to have better-than-troll credibility in order to be able to continue to troll.

    Parent

    That's funny (1.00 / 2) (#133)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Oct 07, 2007 at 02:42:44 PM EST
    You can't be for a position unless you endorse some yahoo like Kennedy.... Who, as we know, fought against Medicare Drug Rx Insurance???

    I'm LOL, but why did he do that??? Why does Kennedy hate old people on Medicare.

    Can you spell Leiberman??? You know. He's the Independent that you guys created that keeps Reid biting his fingernails...

    Let me be explain, again.

    If we lose the war, the resulting chaos will make all other issues meaningless.

    Show us some education and knowledge and just agree that the radical Moslems kill Gays, hang women because they cause rape, kill their female family members who have...gasp!...been in the company of non-family members men..

    Defeating these killers is more important than electing Hillary, who isn't a liberal anyway, and whose "healthcare plan" is  not passable anyway.

    Parent

    Why are you sorry? (1.00 / 1) (#116)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Oct 07, 2007 at 10:57:26 AM EST
    If you assume that Craig is a Social Liberal (hehe)
    then the fact that he is apparently bi-sexual should be of no concern.

    Don't wanna be nasty... but that's quite an attitude you displayed...

    :-)

    Of course, I'm sure you misspoke.

    Parent

    It's not what you think (none / 0) (#140)
    by robrecht on Sun Oct 07, 2007 at 08:49:27 PM EST
    It was unfair only because I had no reason (others might) to question your claim to be a social liberal.  Linking you to Larry Craig was merely an allusion to a segment of the Republican party that is in denial about sexual preference.

    Parent
    Sorry, that was unfair (none / 0) (#107)
    by robrecht on Sun Oct 07, 2007 at 10:31:30 AM EST
    I couldn't help myself.  I imagine Giuliani would be one of your allies?

    Parent
    Yes, Rudy is my favorite (1.00 / 0) (#118)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Oct 07, 2007 at 11:06:41 AM EST
    Thompson has also, more or less, told the religious Right to kiss off.

    I think either Rudy or Thompson can beat Hillary.

    I don't think Romney can beat anyone.

    But I still wouldn't call either Thompson or Rudy  "allies."

    McCain might surprise you. Remember it was Bush who has given us Medicare Rx Insurance. The largest increase in the "safety net" that we have had in years. Also Nixon opened China, etc.

    Parent

    And chickenhawks only flock (none / 0) (#127)
    by jondee on Sun Oct 07, 2007 at 01:41:41 PM EST
    in America.

    Parent
    jondee (1.00 / 0) (#129)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Oct 07, 2007 at 02:28:20 PM EST
    Well since I served my ten and you served nothing, I guess we know who is "chicken."

    Do you have nightmares whenever you think of KFC??

    Parent

    Muravchik (none / 0) (#98)
    by Edger on Sun Oct 07, 2007 at 09:59:17 AM EST
    for one....

    TO: My Fellow Neoconservatives
    FROM: Joshua Muravchik
    RE: How to Save the Neocons

    ...proven losers at Washington's power game: The left had driven us from the Democratic Party, stolen the "liberal" label, and successfully affixed to us the name "neoconservative."



    Parent
    Oh, so you're a phony dittohead? (none / 0) (#62)
    by robrecht on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 09:30:21 PM EST
    It's only important if you want to better understand Limbaugh's (aka the baboon) actual explanations of his words, which I don't any more, it's just not that important.  He's already won this battle and captured the phony dittoheads.  Good luck, though.

    Parent
    Phony? Heh (1.00 / 1) (#100)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Oct 07, 2007 at 10:15:52 AM EST
    I have been commenting here for over four years. I have constantly identified myself as a Social Liberal who is an ex-Democrat and now Independent.
    I have strongly supported rationalization of our drug laws, tax reform, gay, minority and women's rights and National Health Care.

    All of these are well documented in the archives.

    Where I split with the Left is that I believe that Bush is correct when he uses the term War on Terror.

    I see Iraq as just one long battle in what is going to be a long war.

    I also think that we are engaged in a war between cultures and that we have been attacked by radical Moslems who believe that they can take over the world.

    And if that happens, all of the things I support and believe in will be destroyed.

    I am disturbed when I see state schools in Minneapolis planning to build foot washing basins for Molems and segregation by sex and scheduled prayer times for Moslem females in San Diego.

    That is so obvious a violation of the separation clause it is almost unbelievable.

    My "support," if you want to call it that, for Limbaugh, Hannity, Bush, etc... is purely based on what was Saddam's support for al-Qaida.

    "An enemy of my enemy is my friend."

    Politics does make strange bedfellows.

    Parent

    BTW, Iraq did not attack us (5.00 / 0) (#102)
    by robrecht on Sun Oct 07, 2007 at 10:21:44 AM EST
    I didn't call you a phony social liberal, but a phony dittohead, which might actually be a badge of courage if it were not merely intended to be humorous.  BTW, Iraq did not attack us.

    Parent
    You obviously did not (1.00 / 0) (#106)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Oct 07, 2007 at 10:30:24 AM EST
    pay attention to:

    is purely based on what was Saddam's support for al-Qaida.

    "An enemy of my enemy is my friend."

    Politics does make strange bedfellows.

    Our invasion of Iraq was purely a preemptive strike.

    Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.


    Parent
    You're right, I completely ignored that.! (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by robrecht on Sun Oct 07, 2007 at 10:36:17 AM EST
    I wish more people would have ignored that argument when it mattered.

    Parent
    His timing was off (1.00 / 1) (#121)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Oct 07, 2007 at 11:14:57 AM EST
    but his strategy was correct.

    We could not wait for Saddam to get back in the WMD business.

    With 20-20 hindsight, the target should haven Iran.

    Parent

    Another Pretty One (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by glanton on Sun Oct 07, 2007 at 01:11:20 PM EST
    With 20-20 hindsight, the target should haven Iran.

    This one's going to be the hottest thing going in the next couple of months.  It's irresponsible, they will spew, to judge our case for war with Iran according to what we wrought in Iraq.  This time, after all, we are right.  There can be no Iran exception.

    To which, every time, they should be laughed at, their arguments played back to them.  Ridiculed in every imaginable way.

    Let's put Charles Krauthammer, Dick Cheney, and Jim in the middle of Tehran armed with nickleplated pistols and no body armor, and wish them godspeed.  With such expertise, and such patriotism to guide them, how could they fail to capture the flag?

    Stay alert.

    Parent

    Priceless! (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by robrecht on Sun Oct 07, 2007 at 08:52:44 PM EST
    His strategy was correct except for invading the wrong country at the wrong time--just a couple of minor details.

    Parent
    Why would you think I'm arguing about nothing? (none / 0) (#42)
    by robrecht on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 07:16:04 PM EST
    If he thinks Mike C is a phony soldier (reading very closely this is implied), it's because he won't accept that he's a Republican or a soldier, in other words, a phony soldier in the sense of not really a soldier not an actual soldier who does not support the war.  You said so yourself: "Limbaugh said that Mike C couldn't be a Republican or a vet."

    And, as you also pointed out, he uses the plural so I agree he cannot only be talking about Mike C:

    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 --

    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.

    robrecht: This is not conclusive either way in my opinion.  What I would like to know is where is the idea of "the phony solders" defined?  Here?  Perhaps.  If so, the plural is first introduced by Caller 2: "they never talk to real soldiers."

    But the definite article (anaphorical?) and the repetition by Caller 2, the dittohead, does seem to indicate that "the phony soldiers" may be a previously understood idea.

    If I undestand the later context correctly, it seems as if this idea was discussed previously:

    LIMBAUGH: It's just, it's frustrating and maddening, and it is why they must be kept in the minority.

    Look, I want to thank you, Mike, for calling. I appreciate it very much. I gotta -- let me see -- got something -- 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. And they have their celebrities.

    One of them was Jesse MacBeth. Now, he was a "corporal," I say in quotes -- 23 years old.

    [reading from "Morning Update" (subscription required)] Link

    robrecht: It seems to me this earlier context is indeed important.  Limbaugh's explanation is that the Morning Update was from the previous day (Tues 9/25) and that it was (or was not [his versions seem to conflict]) influenced by the ABC World News report on Mon 9/24, entitled "Phony War Vets," about Jesse Macbeth and two other "phony heroes" who falsely claim to be vets:

    Authorities say the most disturbing case involves this man, 23 year-old Jesse Macbeth ... In a YouTube video seen around the world, Macbeth became a rallying point for anti-war groups, as he talked of the Purple Heart he received in Iraq and described how he and other U.S. Army Rangers killed innocent civilians at a Baghdad mosque.... "Women and men, you know -- while in their prayer, we started slaughtering them." ...

    Last week in federal court in Seattle, Macbeth offered an apology for defaming the real American heroes as he admitted to lying about his service record and his supposed atrocities.

    robrecht: Limbaugh's later account seems to be that his staff was already researching this story and the Tues morning update was actually recorded Mon afternoon before the ABC World News report, but still prior to the Wednesday call.  He cites an earlier report from May on FOX News on Macbeth entitled "Phony Soldier" and a 9/21 US Attorney press release about eight "fake soldiers" prosecuted for fraud.

    Molly Bloom: How do you explain his use of the plural- phony soliders?

    robrecht: It seems to me the plural is best understood as exculpatory rather than incriminating.  He cannot not only be talking about Mike C.

    Molly Bloom: the Limbaugh cover scam, "I was only talking about Jesse falls apart".

    robrecht: like any strawman.

    Molly Bloom: Accordingly the point made by BTD. Olberman, me and many others is correct. Limbaugh was talking about any solider, including Mike C. who opposed the war.

    robrecht: It seems you've advanced two contradictory arguments:

    1. "Limbaugh said that Mike C couldn't be a Republican or a vet."

    2. "Limbaugh was talking about any solider, including Mike C. who opposed the war."

    Both are possible, heck maybe everything Limbaugh says is a lie, but neither follow deductively from your argumentation.  Personally, I do think the previous discussion by Limbaugh is relevant, hence my question.

    My sources here are first CSM but mostly Byron York.  Sorry if the use of conservative sources offends.

    Parent

    For someone who doesn't want to defend... (5.00 / 0) (#52)
    by Molly Bloom on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 09:00:29 PM EST
    Your latest comment seems to belie your previous ones.

    Again whether of not Limbaugh was "researching" Jesse is immaterial to the point at hand. At the time of the conversation in question he was referring to Mike C. Limbaugh later says he was only referring to Jesse. Clearly that can't be true.

    My statement is not contradictory. Perhaps it would be more clear if worded this way: Limbaugh USES the term phony solider to describe  any solider, including Mike C. who opposed the war."

    You seem to be throwing up a lot of smoke to avoid this point.

    Parent

    No, you're misinterpreting me if you think ... (none / 0) (#57)
    by robrecht on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 09:04:58 PM EST
    ... I'm trying to defend Limbaugh.  He's a jerk, a turd, a baboon, an idiot (much worse but I don't curse well), but he's effectively beating up on the Democrats who are reduced to arguing about the meaning of his words.  That's not what we elected the Democrats for.

    Parent
    From what I can see he's not effectively (5.00 / 0) (#58)
    by Molly Bloom on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 09:08:25 PM EST
    beating up on anyone.

    Parent
    Who won? (none / 0) (#59)
    by robrecht on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 09:09:50 PM EST
    How many Democrats voted against funding last week?  How many Democrats wanted to condemn Limbaugh?  Who won?

    Parent
    The long campaign is not won or lost on a single (none / 0) (#65)
    by Molly Bloom on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 09:39:33 PM EST
    battle.  

    Parent
    Of course not, but it's better to win a battle (none / 0) (#66)
    by robrecht on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 09:42:11 PM EST
    than to lose, especially to a baboon.

    Parent
    I don't think Rush won. (none / 0) (#68)
    by Molly Bloom on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 09:47:37 PM EST
    A few more such victories and he is done.

    Parent
    Do you think Harry Reid won? (none / 0) (#71)
    by robrecht on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 09:57:09 PM EST


    Parent
    I don't think he lost (none / 0) (#75)
    by Molly Bloom on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 10:56:43 PM EST


    Parent
    I agree to disagree on that (none / 0) (#77)
    by robrecht on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 11:10:20 PM EST


    Parent
    Fine (none / 0) (#80)
    by Molly Bloom on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 11:20:10 PM EST
    I will add a point  for your consideration- these things are not always a zero sum game and it is a mistake to assume they are.

    Parent
    Is your zero sum analogy ... (none / 0) (#83)
    by robrecht on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 11:48:26 PM EST
    ... any different than our battle/war discussion?

    Parent
    But if you only want to argue about the baboon ... (none / 0) (#61)
    by robrecht on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 09:22:13 PM EST
    "Limbaugh USES the term phony solider to describe  any solider, including Mike C. who opposed the war."

    You seem to be throwing up a lot of smoke to avoid this point."

    No, I did not avoid that point.  I admitted it's a possible interpretation of the baboon's words, but it is convoluted and it ignores elements of the context that may be more important. And to continue to maintain this point you had to retract your much more plausible reading of the baboon's actual words: "Limbaugh said that Mike C couldn't be a Republican or a vet."


    Parent

    We seem to be talking past each other (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Molly Bloom on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 09:36:55 PM EST
    I have not retracted anything. Nor were my statements contradictory.

    Parent
    So are you still saying this: (none / 0) (#69)
    by robrecht on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 09:49:37 PM EST
    "Limbaugh said that Mike C couldn't be a Republican or a vet."

    Don't you see how that's a contradictory meaning?  

    It's just a stupid argument about what the baboon means by the word "phony."  Does he mean not really soldiers ("couldn't be a Republican or a vet") or does he mean not real soldiers like Oliver North.

    You can't win an argument about what someone else means by their own words, especially a baboon.  Is this an appropriate argument for the majority leader of the Senate?  Shouldn't he be leading us out of Iraq?

    Parent

    multiple meanings are not contradictory per se (none / 0) (#74)
    by Molly Bloom on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 10:56:18 PM EST


    Parent
    But in this case they certainly are ... (none / 0) (#76)
    by robrecht on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 11:09:09 PM EST
    ... you can't be a soldier who doesn't support the war if you're not even a soldier.

    Parent
    Look It doesn't matter (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Molly Bloom on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 11:18:38 PM EST
    whether Rush
    1. thought he was a solider who didn't support the war or
    2. thought he was masquerading as a solider (who didn't support the war)

    In either case, he is claiming that no real solider (in either sense of the term real) would not support the war- which is insulting to a whole group of soliders who don't support the war, who clearly are soliders and clearly are proud of their service. Is this point so hard to understand?

    Parent
    That's Hooey!!! (1.00 / 0) (#134)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Oct 07, 2007 at 02:51:18 PM EST
    1. When someone joins the military they understand that there may be war while they are in.

    2. They also understand that they don't get to decide if they like the war, or not.

    They should also understand that if you make negative comments about the war, then those who support the war will rightfully point out they are no longer supporting their comrades in arms.

    Responsibility is an old fashioned but very real concept.

    Parent

    Freedom of speech ... (5.00 / 0) (#142)
    by robrecht on Sun Oct 07, 2007 at 09:04:45 PM EST
    and conscience are also old fashioned but very real concepts.  Officers submit to certain restrictions but other soldiers can exercise their freedom of speech more liberally.  In this case, we're talking about a former military guy (Mike C)--is he also supposed to give up his right to speak freely?  It's not a question of support for one's comrades in arm, but rather the freedom to elect and criticize our civilian goverment.

    Parent
    Freedom of speech is fine. (1.00 / 1) (#158)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 08, 2007 at 04:39:16 PM EST
    But it is not absolute.

    If you are an active duty military member and are against the war, then you should refuse to serve and accept the consequences of your actions.

    To do otherwise is to show no conscience and no sense of responsibility and or duty.

    But you owe the other members to NOT do and say things that improve the enemies morale, and hurt your fellow members' morale as long as you are in the military.

    After you are no longer a member then yak away.

    Parent

    Yak away, but not to Rush (5.00 / 0) (#168)
    by robrecht on Mon Oct 08, 2007 at 05:30:58 PM EST
    This issue is about Mike C. who only claimed that he used to be military so you're last statement seems to be the only one that's on topic: "After you are no longer a member then yak away."

    Parent
    Of course it matters (none / 0) (#82)
    by robrecht on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 11:44:27 PM EST
    If the first case, Media Matters and Harry Reid are right.

    In the second case, Rush Limbaugh was merely insulting a Democrat who doesn't want to win and talking about people who falsely claim to be soldiers.  And Media Matters and Harry Reid were wrong.

    But Of course I agree with you that the second case is also insulting, not only to all Democrats but also to all soldiers who do not support the war as well as to all intelligent people.  Your chicken/egg analysis is logically fine (and not hard to understand), but it only proves that Limbaugh is a baboon, not that Media Matters was right.

    Parent

    Minor point of agreement (none / 0) (#86)
    by robrecht on Sun Oct 07, 2007 at 07:16:51 AM EST
    I agree that the researching part is completely immaterial to the argument--I was only pointing out that Limbaugh's story has changed on that point.

    Parent
    Sorry if the use of conservative sources offends. (1.00 / 0) (#109)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Oct 07, 2007 at 10:35:37 AM EST
    Why?

    If the source is accurate, or if the bias is known, why should information from it offend?

    That it does many on the Left/Right is one of the more amusing things I find in politics today.

    Parent

    Only because it was not my intent to offend (none / 0) (#111)
    by robrecht on Sun Oct 07, 2007 at 10:42:17 AM EST
    As far as I know they're accurate (even if biased), but I have no fear of bias on either side.  I agree with your point, it is both amusing and sad.  It is difficult to find a political site whose denizens do not defend their bias aggressively and attack their opponents unfairly.

    Parent
    You're confusing Mike C & Mike O (none / 0) (#87)
    by robrecht on Sun Oct 07, 2007 at 07:41:58 AM EST
    It was Mike O who claimed to be active soldier, proudly serving for 14 years.  Mike O only threw in at the very end that he used to be military.  Limbaugh has already been very insulting to Mike C because he can't believe he's a Republican and he's tarnishing the reputation of republicans because he sounds just like a Democrat, etc.  It's not a crucial confusion because Limbaugh does also derisively reject Mike C's military claim:

    CALLER 1: See, I -- I've used to be military, OK? And I am a Republican.

    LIMBAUGH: Yeah. Yeah.

    CALLER 1: And I do live [inaudible] but --

    LIMBAUGH: Right. Right. Right, I know.

    CALLER 1: -- you know, really -- I want you to be saying how long it's gonna take.

    LIMBAUGH: And I, by the way, used to walk on the moon!

    CALLER 1: How long do we have to stay there?

    LIMBAUGH: You're not listening to what I say. You can't possibly be a Republican. I'm answering every question. That's not what you want to hear, so it's not even penetrating your little wall of armor you've got built up.

    Again, it's not a crucial confusion, but it does reduce the likelyhood that this aside about past military service was the matter and occasion for Limbaugh's and Caller 2's definition of their terms, "The phony soldiers."

    Parent

    The real issue is ... (none / 0) (#53)
    by robrecht on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 09:00:57 PM EST
    ... that Democrats in Congress have reduced themselves to arguing about Rush's attitude about the troops.  Meanwhile, Rush defines the Democrats as not wanting to win.  Why don't the Democrats define themselves by effectively pushing a real Democratic agenda?  If we do not defeat our opponents they define us.  We cannot defeat Rush Limbaugh by arguing about the meaning of his words.  If we try, we've already lost.  Why in hell is the Democratic majority leader talking about a talk radio clown on the floor on the Senate?  It is absolutely absurd if anyone thinks they will accomplish anything in this way.

    To paraphrase freely a great political tactician: This is why it is important not to push back on Limbaugh on his terms, but much more important to exercise leadership in showing why we should not fund Bush's Iraq Debacle.

    Parent

    Ask and ye shall receive... (1.00 / 0) (#112)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Oct 07, 2007 at 10:42:29 AM EST
    The real issue is that Democrats in Congress have reduced themselves to arguing about Rush's attitude about the troops.  Meanwhile, Rush defines the Democrats as not wanting to win.

    And the answer is that the Democrats most apparently don't want to win because that would validate Bush's position and cause them to lose the election.

    Why else would Reid declare the war "lost?"

    That is not working. Remember that the approval rating for Congress is around 20-24%, a historic low... and (gasp) worse than for Bush.

    They truly are a do nothing bunch.

    Parent

    Contract with America (none / 0) (#38)
    by diogenes on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 06:50:01 PM EST
    How about if the Dems run in 2008 on a Contract with America to immediately defund the war on January 21 2009 with the votes of a Democratic Congress and signature of the newly elected Democratic president?
    If the Democrats can't get a clear pledge from their own 2008 candidates to actually pull out on January 21 (no weasel words allowed), then all these posts about standing up to Bush are pure politics, and when Hillary doesn't end the war we'll see the summer of 1968 all over again from the activists.

    That will never ever never happen. (1.00 / 0) (#48)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 08:21:44 PM EST


    Parent
    The MoveOn ad ... (none / 0) (#72)
    by chemoelectric on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 10:09:46 PM EST
    The MoveOn ad succeeded in making the name of Petraeus bring to mind a 'picture' of betrayal. That was all it needed to do and it has been done, with plenty of help from the 'Republicans'. The rest was the factual basis that made this a proper use of words to create a linkage instead of a McCarthyite misuse.

    That MoveOn also achieved denunciation from Democrats and a few liberals is a problem, but not MoveOn's problem, and denouncing other Democrats and liberals is something Democrats and liberals will do frequently anyway, so one might as well ignore it.

    You're whistling past the graveyard.. (1.00 / 1) (#113)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Oct 07, 2007 at 10:44:14 AM EST



    Parent
    Rush Limbaugh is a baboon! (none / 0) (#73)
    by robrecht on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 10:19:59 PM EST
    I just did a Google search on this phrase and amazingly did not come up with any hits so I'm gonna copyright it.  

    Joseph McCarthy was a senator.

    Harry Reid is the Senate majority leader.  It is not his role to debate the words of a baboon on the floor of the Senate.  Even if he wins a debate with a baboon, he loses.

    But to argue about the meaning of a baboon's idiotic ranting nonsense, or to try to show that the baboon doesn't really respect the right of troops to dissent is just plain silly.  At night all cats are gray and in the jungle, the baboons drown out mild mannered Harry Reid.  He didn't win.

    Or if you think he did, please tell me how he made any progress toward bringing our troops home.

    That isn't his objective (1.00 / 0) (#114)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Oct 07, 2007 at 10:49:04 AM EST
    Or if you think he did, please tell me how he made any progress toward bringing our troops home.

    This is about politics.

    And you are right. When the Democratic Majority Leader stoops to attacking private citizen exercising his constitutional rights, he loses.

    Never attack a lessor opponent.

    Parent

    Now you will have to write a book! (1.00 / 0) (#115)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Oct 07, 2007 at 10:49:43 AM EST


    Parent
    BTDthism (none / 0) (#148)
    by Slado on Mon Oct 08, 2007 at 01:13:31 PM EST
    That is what BTD is practicin on the Rush issue.

    It is obvious to anyone who is not a partisan leftist that Rush was misquoted by MM.

    BTD won't argue this fact because he knows he's wrong so he just keeps typing blatant denails with no reasoning.

    The real issue is the surge is working and the Dems are trying to focus their attacks on false controversies becasue a win by America means a political defeat for them in '08.

    As Rush says (and this is a correct quotation)..."Democrats are invested in our defeat".

    dittohead (5.00 / 0) (#149)
    by tnthorpe on Mon Oct 08, 2007 at 01:23:21 PM EST
    nonsense.

    Rush slimed people who wore the uniform and the right wing loves a good smear, especially when their record is so pathetic. That Rush and his right-wing enablers on the  right are self-serving hypocrites is no surprise.

    Millions in Iraq displaced, more fleeing if they can, a complete failure to restore infrastructure, point is that the surge is just more of the same spin from those who sold the war on lies.

    It must feel good to be a true believer, but you must walk into a lot of walls since you can't see what's right in front of your face.

    Parent

    How dare you call speaky a "rightie" (1.00 / 0) (#150)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 08, 2007 at 01:59:51 PM EST

    Posted by Squeaky at September 19, 2005 11:19 PM

    Rove never needed proof for his smear machine, why should I.


    Parent

    hahahahahaha (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by squeaky on Mon Oct 08, 2007 at 02:34:39 PM EST
    Our own wind up wingnut troll doll. Pull the cord and it speaks. Needs work though.  

    ahhahahahaha

    Parent

    Squeaky (1.00 / 0) (#154)
    by Slado on Mon Oct 08, 2007 at 02:45:03 PM EST
    I respectfully disagree.

    If you read the transcript and condier the fact that ABC did a report that Rush refrenced the day before it is obvious what he meant when he uttered those words.

    You choose to believe the words of a biased source over the facts and the person who uttered them.   In this free country that is your right but it doesn't make you right.

    BTD wants it to be true because this enables him to play the moral relitivism game that the left ususally uses when caught in a jam.  Even if Rush had meant what MM is attributing to him it doesn't come close to what MoveOn did.   That fact is lost in all this.  What makes it so silly is he didn't even say what he's accused of so the whole point is moot and thankfully even the MSM has mooved on to the next supposed gotcha moment.

    Only the left wing true believers are left to claim some sort of moral high ground and as lefties do in all moments of despair they whip out the McCarthyism argument.   Nothing says a lefty has lost the round more clearly then the McCarthyism angle.

    Move On.

    Parent

    What moral relativism? (5.00 / 0) (#157)
    by tnthorpe on Mon Oct 08, 2007 at 04:38:56 PM EST
    MoveOn's ad criticizes a general for failing to provide the unbiased assessment that is necessary. That Petraeus is a political hack or worse--just ask Adm. Fallon--ought to be pretty obvious. I think the ad's key line was poorly crafted, but the content of the ad was accurate.

    How is that comparable to Rush making a career out of such ideologically motivated garbage as bad mouthing soldiers whose experience he clearly refuses to comprehend? Rush is both insanely biased, but wildly inaccurate in his rhetorical hyperbole.

    Now Petraeus is banging the drum for the Bush Administration for war against Iran. There's nothing morally relativistic about it, Petraeus and the war enablers are morally defunct.

    Parent

    Facts please. (1.00 / 0) (#162)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 08, 2007 at 04:55:19 PM EST
    MoveOn's ad criticizes a general for failing to provide the unbiased assessment that is necessary.

    1. MoveOn had no knowledge of what the General was going to say. The ad was done in advance. Their bias is obvious in that alone.

    That Petraeus is a political hack or worse--just ask Adm. Fallon--ought to be pretty obvious.

    There has never been any evidence that Fallon said that. What you have is an unnamed source, and a quote that was almost six months old before it hit the internet.

    Plainer. It's a fake.

    Rush gave an accurate description of those who claim to be "soldiers" but attack the mission of their "brothers." If they want to protest they should quit the military and take the consequences. As Shakesphere said:

    We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
    For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
    Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,
    This day shall gentle his condition;
    And gentlemen in England now-a-bed
    Shall think themselves accurs'd they were not here,
    And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
    That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.


    Parent
    Adm Fallon (5.00 / 0) (#167)
    by tnthorpe on Mon Oct 08, 2007 at 05:20:08 PM EST
    has your guy measured. It's the measurement you can't stand, which is your problem. Too bad for you, cry all you want about it.

    Parent
    Prove the Fallon comment. (1.00 / 0) (#173)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 08, 2007 at 07:18:52 PM EST
    You can't.  You are just another "fake it" dude with no facts who gets excited when challened.

    Tehe

    Parent

    awwww (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by tnthorpe on Mon Oct 08, 2007 at 09:41:54 PM EST
    back to petulant, foot stomping PROVE ITs and infantile tehes

    just be caught as the right wing apologist for the apocalypse that you are

    just be caught

    I suggest you call Adm Fallon and get his opinion. But spill your koolaid somewhere else, because I'm not at all interested in cleaning up after you

    Parent

    Again. You made the claim. Now prove it. (none / 0) (#188)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Oct 09, 2007 at 09:36:23 AM EST
    As I have written to you before, it is the person making the claim who is expected to prove the claim.

    You may consider it petulant, but it is one of the bedrocks of our system of justice.

    I repeat. You have a charge from an "unnamed" source. You have a charge that was a remarkable smear, yet it supposedly existed for 6 months before the Left picked it up.

    Again. You made the claim. Now prove it.

    Parent

    stomp stomp stomp (5.00 / 1) (#193)
    by tnthorpe on Tue Oct 09, 2007 at 02:09:33 PM EST
    "You know, this is not a court room (1.00 / 1) (#152)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Aug 19, 2007 at 10:13:57 AM EST
    so I have no idea why you think I should have to defend any link. As I said, the link is the link."

    One standard, "proof," for me, another for you, apparently.

    just be caught, like your man GP, just be caught

    or you can stomp some more, suit yourself

    Parent

    No problem (none / 0) (#202)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 01:54:15 PM EST
    If you can not prove your claim..... that's not my problem. It is your problem. So, repeat after me.

    Your claim is fake. You have zero proof.

    Tehehe

    Parent

    Geez (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by glanton on Mon Oct 08, 2007 at 08:15:22 PM EST
    MoveOn had no knowledge of what the General was going to say. The ad was done in advance.

    Really?  You're really posting that?  

    Amazing.

    Parent

    in case you missed it (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by tnthorpe on Mon Oct 08, 2007 at 09:49:27 PM EST
    You don't seem to have read or be referring to the actual ad. Go find your facts there. You don't generally deal with facts, most war mongerers don't.

    The quote is from a cycle of plays, the Henriad or the Great Tetralogy, about the danger of usurpation and the lies people tell when they rationalize war. Why is HV king and how did he get there? Read the brief first act and ask why was Henry in France? What does the Salic law have to do with it, or what does the need to legitimate his tenuous hold on the English Crown have to do with it? Why were Canterbury and Ely so interested in getting the King out of England? Shakespeare is way ahead of you here. He wrote a play about the use of nationalist ideology to cover over domestic corruption, but I know you'll never ever make that connection.

    What Rush apologist could?


    Parent

    Did you a feeling of (5.00 / 1) (#192)
    by jondee on Tue Oct 09, 2007 at 12:56:18 PM EST
    solidarity when you cut your hand in the mess hall kitchen, Jim?

    That was some St. Crispin's Day.

    Parent

    What ever I did (none / 0) (#203)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 01:58:54 PM EST
    It was done over 10 years in which you did nothing.

    You can't get past that fact, jondee.

    Bedrock.

    Parent

    Close, but no cigar yet, Slado (none / 0) (#183)
    by robrecht on Tue Oct 09, 2007 at 07:05:10 AM EST
    " ... and condier the fact that ABC did a report that Rush refrenced the day before it is obvious what he meant when he uttered those words."

    I think the content of the Morning Update is probably crucial, but Rush has changed his story on the ABC report, which he now admits aired (Monday evening) after he pre-recorded his Tuesday Morning Update on Monday afternoon.

    After this article appeared on NRO, Limbaugh called to say that, in telling me the story, he had gotten the timeline wrong. In fact, he said, his staff had noticed stories about Jesse Macbeth on Friday, September 21, and those stories, along with earlier reports and the U.S. Attorney's statement, were the basis of Limbaugh's radio commentary, which was taped on Monday afternoon, September 24 -- before the ABC World News story aired. Limbaugh's commentary ran on Tuesday morning, after the ABC story was broadcast, and, Limbaugh said, "all day Tuesday, my call screener was telling me about the ABC report on phony soldiers that updates the commentary we did." Nevertheless, Limbaugh told me, "The ABC report had not formed a basis for the writing of that commentary.

    Link

    So in my mind the question is to what extent the issue of phony or fake soldiers was being discussed the previous day.  The caller seems to know exactly what Limbaugh is referring to when he refers to "the phoney soldiers" and that Morning Update does seem to have been about Jesse Macbeth, but I think the transcript is only available to dittoheads.  I also asked Media Matters to look into this but have not heard back yet.  But, at any rate, from what we have been able to see, it seems pretty clear Limbaugh and Mike O were referencing this previous discussion.

    Parent

    Don't you just love that quote?? (1.00 / 0) (#160)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 08, 2007 at 04:43:21 PM EST


    Parent
    go spill (none / 0) (#152)
    by tnthorpe on Mon Oct 08, 2007 at 02:20:30 PM EST
    your kool-aid some where else little guy.

    Parent
    hehe (1.00 / 1) (#159)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 08, 2007 at 04:42:41 PM EST
    Uh, did you miss that was a "quote" from Squeaky?

    ;-)

    I mean I give you an example and you refuse to believe your eyes?

    How cute.

    Parent

    No (5.00 / 0) (#161)
    by squeaky on Mon Oct 08, 2007 at 04:49:30 PM EST
    It was a quote from ppj, wishing he was Rove....  Or from the same arayan gene pool.

    hahahaha

    But don't worry you are self smearing. You don't need anyone's help.

    Parent

    And Back On Topic (5.00 / 0) (#164)
    by squeaky on Mon Oct 08, 2007 at 05:07:02 PM EST
    Re: Argentinians Protest Bush (none / 0) (#21)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:14 PM EST

    You should remember that McCarthy was right.



    Parent
    Here. Let me help you (none / 0) (#185)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Oct 09, 2007 at 09:10:04 AM EST
    Thanks for bringing it up.

    First the link for those who want to visit the past.

    Sailor wrote:

    "Shorter Blutto, ooops, I meant slado (AKA joe McCarthy); commies are at the door!"

    (My comment)"You should remember that McCarthy was right. There were communists agents active in the State Department and other areas. And that includes Hollywood and the media. I direct your attention to, "Vernona," by John Earl Haynes and Harvey Klehr, Yale University Press, and broadcasted on PBS. Based on Top Secret decoded Soviet messages, and NSA and KGB archive information, it spells it all out. Buy and read it, Sailor. It will give you a toothache, but it will open your eyes." ...

    Want another?

    BTW - I never said anything about McCarthy except that I disapproved of his methods, and that his claims of spies and communists in government were correct.

    Link

    Parent

    So, you want some more?? (1.00 / 0) (#172)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 08, 2007 at 07:16:12 PM EST
    Can't get enough? Here you go!

    Posted by Squeaky at September 19, 2005 11:19 PM

    Rove never needed proof for his smear machine, why should I.

    That was on 9/5/05. Now, what does Squeaky have to say 17 months later? Has he changed his mind? Does he believe in facts??

    Nope.

    ppj does as ppj does (none / 0) (#30)
    by squeaky on Sat Mar 03, 2007 at 09:58:35 PM EST

    (I had written) So because Rove is doing wrong, it is okay for you to do wrong?

    (Squeaky replied) I have no problem with alleging that Rove's grandparents were Nazi's. Even if they were not, he uses Goebbels' propaganda techniques as a bible and may as well be a born and bred Nazi.



    Parent
    Yeah, we get it (5.00 / 0) (#163)
    by jondee on Mon Oct 08, 2007 at 04:58:05 PM EST
    She said she can smear like your he-ro. You gonna post that ten time s day. Jim?

    How about another bumpersticker from the eagles nest (of original thought), i.e., support the troops/intelligent design/the culture wars? lol

    Parent

    uh...I believe she is a "he." (1.00 / 0) (#189)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Oct 09, 2007 at 09:41:28 AM EST
    And I see that you endorse the "two wrongs make a right" philosophy? Well so does squeaky.

    Parent
    What do you mean, "working" (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by glanton on Mon Oct 08, 2007 at 05:18:10 PM EST
    the surge is working

    Tell us, keyboarder.  Please won't you tell us?  What is your definition of winning?  How will you know when you have won?

    And what will you win?

    Channel Bob Barker, A New Car!!!!

    Stay alert, and stay with Fox.

    Parent

    Standing Up Against The New McCarthyism And Ending The Iraq War | 183 comments (183 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment