home

Attacking The Troops: IOKIYAR

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 12:18:40 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Via John Cole, the Weekly Standard leads the Right predictably defending Limbaugh's outrageous and offensive attack on the troops.

IOKIYAR. For the record, I condemned the Move On ad as I condemn Limbaugh's comments:

What I must condemn is the use of the phrase "General Betrayus" by Move On in its ad today in the New York Times. This inexcusable use of the detestable Republican tactic of labelling those who disagree with you as "traitors" is something I have long objected to and I must, in good conscience, strongly condemn Move On's use of this deplorable tactic

Update [2007-9-28 14:2:12 by Big Tent Democrat]: White House Condemns Limbaugh's Remarks

< Bruce Goes Political on Today Show | Strange Retraction of Truth By MSNBC >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Attacking The Troops: IOKIYAR | 90 comments (90 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Can you hear it getting closer? ;-) (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Edger on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 12:31:11 PM EST
    There should be a wingnut troll here almost any minute, attacking troops that don't click their heels and unquestioningly support the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Wind up robot-like.

    I see now that I should have use the plural (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Edger on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 08:25:19 PM EST
    trolls attacking troops that don't click their heels and unquestioningly support the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

    Wind up robot-like.

    Parent

    Tide Of Resistance Could Sweep Military Again (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by Edger on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 12:34:05 PM EST
    Video:
    Iraq Veterans Against The War member Geoffrey Millard reports for Truthout:
    "A major factor in the end of the Vietnam war was the resistance within the armed forces that all but halted the ground war. While at the Veterans For Peace conference this year I spoke with the next generation of GI resisters, who are being compared with the soldiers successful at shutting down the military in Vietnam."
    There were some posters (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 12:41:27 PM EST
    in that thread who now have the chance to remove the mote from their eyes, having already worried about the the splinter in the Democratic party's eyes (assuming one can ascribe Move-On's ad to the Democratic party).

    "Posters"? (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Edger on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 12:50:23 PM EST
    Or "rubber stampers"?

    Parent
    I didn`t hear the President condemn Limbaugh (5.00 / 0) (#8)
    by Ellie on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 01:20:20 PM EST
    The official White House statement was to defend all Americans` right to free speech. Uh, yeah; the sky`s also still blue, last I looked, and most people continue to be in favor of puppies and kittens and pie.

    That`s a far cry from the President himself making it a point, at a media availability, to single out Limbaugh and call his statements "disgusting".

    Nor did he revise his previous position, still standing, that Limbaugh is a Nastional Treasure and why his show is broadcast to troops abroad due to its Morale Boosting (pro-Bush) qualities while liberal programming is blocked.

    (Word to Our Side: accepting this weaseling only shores up the double standard.)

    the White House (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 01:35:46 PM EST
    is my title.

    Parent
    Yes, and their comment deflected the question (none / 0) (#26)
    by Ellie on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 03:16:35 PM EST
    Perino didn`t address the issue, and the Dem "leadership" continues to be a day late and a dollar short when they get their asses handed to them.

    Not only did a substantial number of them rush to condemn (needlessly) MoveOn on the @(&$# House and Senate floor, now they're displaying their usual weak strategy by intending to finish off a knife fight by wielding pre-moistened q-tips.

    They're sending a strongly-worded letter to Clear Channel demanding an apology. That, too, is a far cry from an official denunciation from the floor(s). From ThinkProgress

    Yesterday, ThinkProgress asked whether lawmakers who voted to attack a MoveOn newspaper ad would now condemn Limbaugh. The Senate leadership is challenging all their colleagues to demonstrate whether they can show principled condemnation by signing onto the letter. It specifically calls on Clear Channel to issue an apology and demands Limbaugh do the same.

    [snippet of letter omitted]

    Read the full letter here. Call your Senators and ask them to signon.


    (At this point, my last, frail hope is that the letter`s not on stationary that has a smiling bumblebee telling some daffodils, "Here's the latest buzz!")

    Parent
    I think my characterization fair (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 03:46:09 PM EST


    Parent
    Where Is The Congressional Resolution? (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by john horse on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 05:47:40 PM EST
    Where is the congressional resolutional condemning Limbaugh's attack on our troops?
    The Democrats can and should play the game too.

    Talkingpointsmemo also highlights another quote from Limbaugh.

    "What is the imperative in pulling out? What's in it for the United States to pull out? I don't think they have an answer for that, other than, `It's gonna bring our troops home. Save the troops. Keep the troops safe. Or whatever. It's not possible intellectually to follow these people."

    "Keep the troops safe. Or whatever."  Sounds like someone who really cares about the welfare of our soldiers.  

    The Democrats should propose a resolution condemning Limbaugh's remarks.  Lets put the Republicans on record on where they stand, for Limbaugh or for our troops.

    The unanswered question: (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by oculus on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 06:04:39 PM EST
    assuming, arguendo, it was a foolish move for the Senate to pass a sense of the Senate condemning the MoveOn ad, should the Senate pass a similar resolution condemning Limbaugh's statements?

    Parent
    Time to Fight Back (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by john horse on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 06:55:50 PM EST
    Are you kidding?  You don't ignore an attack from a bully.  You fight back.  In this case it is not just the political thing to do but also, more importantly, the right thing to do.

    Parent
    Did you bother to read the transcript? (1.00 / 2) (#40)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 07:39:02 PM EST
    And if you did, what is your response to his specific and factual charges re Macbeth re phony soldiers...????

    Parent
    Since You Asked (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by john horse on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 08:43:04 PM EST
    Sgt Mora and Sgt Gray were two of the soldiers that wrote the highly critical op-ed that appeared in the New York Times on August 19.

    They were both killed in Iraq recently.  In my opinion they were not "phony soldiers".  However, if you or Rush Limbaugh have any "facts" that prove otherwise please provide it because as far as I'm concerned they were true patriots and their sacrifice should be honored, not defamed.

       

    Parent

    heh (1.00 / 3) (#55)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 09:24:41 PM EST
    I don't think Limbaugh was referring to to the two you note. Do you have proof that the caller, or Limbaugh considers them "phony?"

    Parent
    Hard to condemn statements based (1.00 / 2) (#39)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 07:37:43 PM EST
    on facts.

    Parent
    Resolution Denouncing "Phony Soldiers" (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by john horse on Sat Sep 29, 2007 at 08:45:41 AM EST
    In a previous post I asked why there wasn't a congressional resolution denouncing Limbaugh's "phony soldiers" remark.

    It looks like it may happen.  Per talkingpointsmemo, Rep Mark Udall may introduce such a resolution.  Here is his "dear colleague" letter.

    Dear Colleague:

    On September 26, 2007 the broadcaster Rush Limbaugh told a nationwide radio audience that members of the Armed Forces who have expressed disagreement with current policies of the United States regarding military activities in Iraq are "phony soldiers."

    On Monday I will introduce a resolution honoring all Americans serving in the Armed Forces and condemning this unwarranted attack on the integrity and professionalism of those in the Armed Forces who choose to exercise their constitutional right to express their opinions regarding U.S. military action in Iraq.
    BTD (1.00 / 5) (#5)
    by Slado on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 01:04:03 PM EST
    Are you going to actually make a point or have you assumed you know what Rush said and can't be bothered to see what he really said?

    He has long stated on his show disdain for soldiers with known agendas against this and other wars...IE the guy at the New Republic and John Kerry.   He consideres them "phony soldiers" and that is his opinion and the opinion of may real soldiers currently or previously in the military.

    Is Rush not allowed to have the same opinion as soldiers because he never was one?

    Trying to compare the two shows dems don't even understand how offensive the Move On adds are and can't understand the context of their previous actions in similar light.

    Typical.

    You are the the archtype (5.00 / 5) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 01:09:40 PM EST
    of IOKIYAR.

    Try to understand what? That soldiers who oppose the war are "phony soldiers" is somehow ok with you?

    I do not care to understand it.

    Frankly, you diisgust me.

    Parent

    Didn't take 'em long.... (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by Edger on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 01:11:17 PM EST


    Parent
    If what you are (1.00 / 3) (#14)
    by Slado on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 01:54:55 PM EST
    claming is what he actually said it would be disgusting but you are framing it through your partisan thoughts.

    We can disagree but do I really disgust you?

    I think not.

    Read the transcript

    Parent

    You read the transcript. (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by Edger on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 02:00:14 PM EST
    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.



    Parent
    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 02:01:01 PM EST


    Parent
    No one expects him to get it, though. ;-) (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Edger on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 02:02:14 PM EST


    Parent
    Pretty disgusting of Rush, huh Slado? (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Edger on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 02:07:09 PM EST


    Parent
    This makes it plain who he is talking about. (1.00 / 2) (#36)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 07:26:51 PM EST
    And it is a phony soldier by the name of Jesse Macbeth. See Slado's link.

    You be caught edger.

    Heh heh

    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.

    wiki  link

    I'd still like that to hear that conversation.

    Parent

    For a complaint about context... (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by roy on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 07:53:18 PM EST
    ... you sure leave a lot out:

    RUSH:  The phony soldiers.

    CALLER:  Phony soldiers...

    RUSH:  [other stuff]

    CALLER:  [other stuff]

    RUSH:  [other stuff]

    CALLER:  [other stuff]

    RUSH:  [other stuff]

    CALLER:  [other stuff]

    RUSH:  [other stuff]

    Here is a Morning Update that we did recently...



    Parent
    His ::specialty:: (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Edger on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 07:58:22 PM EST
    is extra-context.

    Parent
    Well, if you insist (1.00 / 1) (#52)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 09:05:33 PM EST
    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.

    The caller has made the point, Limbaugh ID's..

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

    RUSH:  They joined to be in Iraq.

    CALLER:  A lot of people.

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

    CALLER:  Exactly, sir.  My other comment, my original comment....

    Note Caller makes goes to original reason for calling ...Limbaugh responds

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

    ALLER:  Right.

    RUSH:  The weapons of mass destruction.  We gotta get beyond that.  We're there.....

    Note that it was the caller who changed the subject, back to his original point. Limbaugh responds and then Limbaugh returns to:

    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.  

    That's very plain... it's all associated with one call and the caller initiated the subject.

    Limbaugh said "phony soldiers" and then gave an example.

    BTW - Macbeth hs been known about for quite awhile. Wonder why his name is not familar??

    Parent

    So Rush is not alone. (5.00 / 0) (#56)
    by Edger on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 09:43:50 PM EST
    Neither he, nor you, can tell when you're burying yourselves.

    Too funny, in a pathetic sort of way...

    Parent

    You just fell off the planet. (5.00 / 0) (#57)
    by Edger on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 09:45:38 PM EST
    You've become an extra-contextual alien.

    Heh. Maybe we should build a wall around the planet.

    Parent

    I'm laughing out loud (1.00 / 1) (#64)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Sep 29, 2007 at 08:08:30 AM EST
    Really edger you have become a caricature of a rabid  Bush hater suffering from BDS. There are many things that you could spear Limbaugh with, yet you chose to  pick one that has easily available evidence that proving you wrong.

    Even the touted... for a second there I thought the WH might have said something... condemnation, as Ellie noted was a graceful sidestep into a generic approval of free speech.

    Take a few minutes and read the transcript of the call which I have thoughtfully provided for you. It is beyond obvious that the caller brought the subject up, Limbaugh agreed and with 30 seconds or so gave an example.

    But you know, it was immediately clear that the Left was golly whoppering when no transcript was provided, although one was available.

    So if you want to waste your time, please do so. I understand your frustration. The battle in Iraq is improving, we have many al-Qaida leaders trapped in Tora Bora, the Demo congress is around a 20% approval level and the Left cannot make them do their bidding because they have seen reality.

    The Left peaked last fall, used by the Demos. How does it feel?

    Parent

    Really! this could be interesting (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Molly Bloom on Sat Sep 29, 2007 at 08:45:17 AM EST
    There are many things that you could spear Limbaugh with

    Please give us a list of things you would spear Limbaugh with!

    Parent

    He can't help it Molly. (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Edger on Sat Sep 29, 2007 at 09:09:16 AM EST
    He's even partly right - but everyone has to get lucky in spite of themselves sometimes - even him. He used to be one of the 26 percenters.  ;-)

    But now he's just one of the 3 percenters. Some luck. He's shot himself in both feet so many times it's a wonder he can still walk.

    The "left" has pretty nearly peaked. There aren't many more people we can turn against the Iraq occupation:

    3% of Americans approve of how Congress is handling the war in Iraq
    And all he and Rush can think of now is to attack the troops....

    Pathetic.

    Parent

    And all he and Rush can think of now (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Edger on Sat Sep 29, 2007 at 09:48:47 AM EST
    is to attack the troops....

    Do we offer him, and the other trolls, and Rush, any respect? Absolutely not. We do our best to marginalize and get rid of them.

    Parent

    You get funnier and funnuer (1.00 / 1) (#84)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Sep 29, 2007 at 12:39:20 PM EST
    Zogby should explain to the people polled that Congress has almost nothing to say about how the war is handled....

    Which is something that the Left is rapidly finding out.... Some though are slow learners...take edger for example..

    BTW - 24% is bad, 3% is unbelievable Gosh awful terrible... ;-)

    Peaked.... Yes you did and are now going straight down.... Just think if a Demo is elected next year, it will be Hillary... and she's not polling well against Rudy..

    tehehe

    Parent

    It is your right (1.00 / 1) (#73)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Sep 29, 2007 at 09:08:41 AM EST
    ... show some responsibility and go do it...

    Aint my job man...

    Parent

    Its your claim. The Burden of Proof is on you (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Molly Bloom on Sat Sep 29, 2007 at 09:13:48 AM EST
    Why am I not surprised you won't back up your own claim?

    Parent
    I don't care if you nail him or not. (1.00 / 1) (#85)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Sep 29, 2007 at 12:40:44 PM EST
    Some people I would help.

    You are not one of them.

    Parent

    Or resemble (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by Edger on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 08:13:23 AM EST
    this guy.

    Parent
    While condemning Move-On, also consider... (1.00 / 0) (#9)
    by jerry on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 01:24:52 PM EST
    Cathy Young's analysis of O'Reilly and Media Matters.

    I think Media Matters is 99% a force for good and O'Reilly is 99% a force for bad.

    But I think Cathy Young raises some good points.

    I haven't been particularly gentle to Bill O'Reilly before. While his "common man talking common sense" persona was once refreshing at times, and his refusal to toe any party line was a welcome contrast to his ideologically sturdier Fox News colleagues like Sean Hannity, his grandiosity, paranoia, and growing tendency to demonize opponents and disparage secular values have turned the culture warrior extraordinaire into self-parody. That said, I think his latest roasting by his longtime nemesis Media Matters over allegedly racist remarks about a black-owned restaurant in New York, and the ensuing brouahaha which has turned into a fairly big news story (it was on the front page of the Washington Post entertainment section yesterday), is seriously unfair.
    ...
    O'Reilly's choice of words -- "I couldn't get over the fact that there was no difference between Sylvia's restaurant and any other restaurant in New York City" -- was somewhat infelicitous. But in the context of the entire segment, it was not an expression of shock on O'Reilly's part so much as an expression of being struck by the contrast between this normality and the image of African-Americans in the media. The "M-Fer, I want more iced tea" remark was a reference to the image of blacks and black behavior perpetuated in the hip-hop culture.

    And she goes on and mentions that Juan Williams agreed with most of this, reinforced this, and has gone on to defend O'Reilly's speech here.

    Since I like Media Matters and think of them very highly, this is upsetting to me.

    You gotta be kidding me (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 01:35:23 PM EST
    Cathy Young mustbe kidding me too.

    Nonsense.

    Parent

    Sad to say, I doubt either of us was kidding.... (1.00 / 0) (#24)
    by jerry on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 02:57:48 PM EST
    But fair enough, and thanks for responding.

    Parent
    Assuming that was the context (5.00 / 0) (#29)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 04:22:57 PM EST
    1. Why won't Billo  (as noted by KO) play the entire statement showing the context on his show?
    2. How does that context mitigate Billo's  statements.

    As for Juan Willims, Juan knows who signs his  paycheck.

    Parent
    You might like to listen to what both have to (1.00 / 1) (#83)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Sep 29, 2007 at 12:32:55 PM EST
    say....

    Link

    BTW - I would guess Juan would find your slur of him despicable...

    BTW - Hey Edger!!

    About 65% of the way through Juan makes the point that the Left wants to marginalize and shut up people who they disagree with.

    Wow. You be famous. Send him an email demanding he attribute the comment to you.

    Parent

    Poor Juan-The truth sometimes hurts (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by Molly Bloom on Sun Sep 30, 2007 at 12:01:24 PM EST


    Parent
    Did he say the left? (none / 0) (#89)
    by jerry on Sat Sep 29, 2007 at 01:00:06 PM EST
    Thanks for that link.  I find it frustrating to be forced to defend BillO.

    I thought Williams said "They", where they could be the left, but in the context of his book, Enough: The Phony Leaders, Dead-End Movements, and Culture of Failure That Are Undermining Black America--and What We Can Do About It, I think what "They" are are the Phony Leaders, Dead-End Movements and the various players in Big Media.

    Parent

    Jesse MacBeth (1.00 / 3) (#19)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 02:08:12 PM EST

    Calling Jesse MacBeth a phoney soldier is calling as spade a spade.  Is there a reason that you only choose to repeat a characterization of Rush's words than what he actually said in context?

    Help Slado. (5.00 / 0) (#20)
    by Edger on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 02:10:04 PM EST
    Read the transcript to him. Teaching is the fastest way to learn.

    Parent
    You can even follow the lines (none / 0) (#21)
    by Edger on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 02:11:54 PM EST
    with your finger and move your lips while your read it to him. It it will help.

    Parent
    Who the heck is Jesse Macbeth? (4.50 / 2) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 02:29:28 PM EST


    Parent
    Since the hubub arose (1.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 02:50:58 PM EST
    I took the unusual step of listening to Rush on the way to lunch today.  He said his remarks were in the context of discussing the case of Jesse MacBeth.  

    Link to Jesse's Wikipedia entry

    Does anyone have a link to the transcript of the entire show?

    Parent

    Full transcript undercut's Rush's claim (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by roy on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 03:11:53 PM EST
    A more full transcript can be found here, on Rush's site.

    Yes, he discusses MacBeth, but he does so (as I read it) as a tangent to the "phony soldiers" line of reasoning.  MacBeth came up because phony soldiers came up, not the other way around.

    Even in context, it seems pretty clear that he called the previous caller a "phony soldier" based only on the fact that the previous caller opposed the war.

    At best, the MacBeth comments might clarify whether "phony soldiers" means A) soldiers who don't deserve respect or B) people who lie about being soldiers.  I was confused about that, maybe nobody else was, but neither is appropriate.


    Parent

    Count (1.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 07:59:52 PM EST

    In your link I found 8 instances of "MacBeth" and one instance of "phony" used by Rush.  Seems fairly clear that MacBeth is an example of what he meant.

    He could have added Scott Thomas Beauchamp IMO.

    Parent

    Counting words does not address the issue (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by roy on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 08:19:00 PM EST
    But if we're going to count them, how's about this number: 331.  That's how many words there are between Rush's "phony soldiers" and the first word of the paragraph mentioning MacBeth.  

    Also: 39.  That's how many between his discussion of people who call in to advocate withdrawal and his use of "phony soldiers".

    (numbers are hand wavey)

    He wants to claim that "phony soldiers" was some sort of retroactive mention of a subject he was will have would had'll bring a while later.  He waited over 90 seconds (according to a different MM writeup which I can't verify) before mentioning MacBeth.  Yes, he really did talk about MacBeth.  Yes, MacBeth really was a phony soldier.  But he came up well after "phony soldiers".  Not a little bit, not just long enough to end the subject at hand with the caller, but long enough to address several other subjects.


    Parent

    More (5.00 / 0) (#45)
    by Edger on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 08:19:11 PM EST
    extra-contextualizing...
    extra-
    Function:    prefix
    Etymology:    Latin, from extra, adverb & preposition, outside, except, beyond, from exter being on the outside  -- more at EXTERIOR
    : outside  : beyond   <extrajudicial>


    Parent
    Plus, your point actually reinforces mine (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by roy on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 08:23:06 PM EST
    Since "MacBeth is an example of what he meant", that means "what he meant" was brought to mind by something other than MacBeth.  Not the other way around.

    Parent
    You're deconstructing (1.00 / 0) (#65)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Sep 29, 2007 at 08:22:52 AM EST
    like a good QA guy should... ;-) but...

    1. The caller brought the subject up.

    2. Limbaugh responded.

    3. The caller expanded his comment and Limbaigh agreed.

    4. The caller went back to his original point.

    5. Limbaugh responded.

    6. Limbaugh gave the Macbeth example.

    All of this happened in less than two minutes (?) and in the same call.

    Note 4 and 5. Is it your contention that Limbaugh should not have allowed the caller to make his point, shutting him down and go directly to Macbeth?

    BTW - Did you try any of those restaurants I mentioned???

    Parent

    Ah the excuse making (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 03:45:30 PM EST
    after the fact.

    got it.

    Parent

    Here you are Bog Tent. (1.00 / 2) (#37)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 07:32:06 PM EST
    See Limbaugh's words from the transcript, and then follow my link to wiki.

    The fact that you don't know who he is says a lot about the MSM coverage of this war, and the politics of the media, and the Left wing blogs..

    Parent

    You couldn't be more wrong. (1.00 / 0) (#71)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Sep 29, 2007 at 09:03:23 AM EST
    First, as I just explained, I don't see Murtha as a phony. I honor his previous service but condemn his later acts. You won't find any comment by me saying he/they should be censored.

    I haven't said that Limbaugh was taken out of context. I have provided the full call and gone through it step by step. It is correct to say that the caller brought the subject up, Limbaugh called them "phony soldiers" and after the caller brought up another point, Limbaugh gave Macbeth as a specific example. All within about 2 minutes..

    As for "rights," along with "rights" come "responsibilities." Macbeth seriously violated those rights. His punishment is 5 months in jail and scorn from all concerned. Surely the Left will repudiate him. Surely they will not as they did with the TNR fisaco and the fake Bush memos, claim they are fake but accurate.

    I find Murtha's comments worse because his words come from a member of Congress. Thus he will be paid more attention to through out the world. I feel even more so about Reid's, 'War is lost' statement.

    Betrayal of trust and being a traitor... (none / 0) (#10)
    by Dadler on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 01:28:20 PM EST
    ...are two different things.  Equating the MoveOn ad with Limbaugh's comments, while nice for making easy points in the tit for tat political environ we live in, is not logically accurate.  Limbaugh was leveling a charge based on NOTHING but the fact that soldiers were dissenting, he made no attempt to address the content of that dissent as somehow based on factual error or a wild misinterpretation by these soldiers of the situation on the ground.  Petraeus, on the other hand, offered us EASILY refutable "facts" that we all know were ONLY designed to support a pre-fabricated conclusion.

    While I'm not giving dough to MoveOn like I used to, and feel they have dropped the ball on several occasions, I cannot countenance this reactionary notion that saying, based on fact, Petraeus betrayed the truth is the same as Limbaugh attacking soldiers based on their act of dissent alone and not on the CONTENT of that dissent.

    Of course it is accurate (5.00 / 0) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 01:34:40 PM EST
    The contortions done by the Left to defend Move On are quite similar to what the Right is doing now on Limbaugh.

    Parent
    Wrong (1.00 / 1) (#38)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 07:36:50 PM EST
    I took the time to read Slado's link to the transcript, followed up with a google to wiki and you are wrong.

    He specifically names Jesse Macbeth.

    Now, will you acknowledge your mistake or will you try to act like no one is in the room but you.

    Time to find out who you are.

    Parent

    Ok Macbeth is one solider (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 08:49:22 PM EST
    Rush said phony soliders - plural. Also the Macbeth reference was not close in time to the statement about phony soliders. Who are the other soliders? Today Rush added Jack Murtha. That's pretty insulting all things consider.

    BTW here is your chance to remove the beam from your eye, since you were so good to talk about the mote in the eyes of the Democratic leaders so recently.

    Parent

    Wrong as usual (1.00 / 1) (#53)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 09:15:53 PM EST
    Murtha to Testify in Defamation Case

    A Marine Corps sergeant accuses the 16-term congressman of falsely accusing him of "cold-blooded murder and war crimes" in connection with the deaths of Iraqi civilians.

    Perhaps the Demis un-indicted co-conspirator can explain why he hasn't apologized...

    Link

    And the Macbeth comment was in the same telephone call.... see my response to roy.. I would guess the whole call and comments took less than two minutes...

    Got any real attacks???

    Parent

    Have you removed the beam from your eye? (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 10:04:50 PM EST



    Parent
    When you start to lose... (1.00 / 1) (#66)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Sep 29, 2007 at 08:25:19 AM EST
    you run to the bible...

    Try going to it before.

    Parent

    I've been asking (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Molly Bloom on Sat Sep 29, 2007 at 08:53:33 AM EST
    for you to remove the beam from your eye since your sanctimous condmenation of the Move-on ad.

    What is sad is you can't bring yourself to do it and everyone can see that.

    This sort of "gotcha" game is not one you and your allies want to play, because there is sooo much ammunition from the likes of Rush, Hannity, Coulter etc.

    Like Bush, your mission accomplished victory declaration is premature.

    Parent

    Nope (1.00 / 0) (#67)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Sep 29, 2007 at 08:34:17 AM EST
    I would put them in the same section but in a different category.

    It is possible, you know, to honor someone's previous acts, in this case their military service, but condemn their later acts.

    i.e. Kerry's despicable comments to Congress in '71 and Murtha's over the top comments.

    Parent

    BTW if Jesse is the gold standard (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Molly Bloom on Sat Sep 29, 2007 at 09:10:20 AM EST
    of phony soliders, does Reagan's stories of his combat service in WWII  qualify him for this category?

    Parent
    At best you are equating hip hop culture (none / 0) (#34)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 06:53:05 PM EST
    with all African Americans. Which is a fundamental mistake. Its a hasty gerneralization.

    Juan and Cosby remind me of my father and my late uncle decrying the youth of today. There may be a kernal of truth in their observations, but its still an over generalization.

    Suppose Juan and Cosby after having dinner at a white restuarant in Mississippi, said they were shocked that the other patrons didn't assume that Juan and Cosby were part of the wait staff and demand service? What's the underlying assumption?

    Do you not see how offensive such assumptions are?

    Wow (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by squeaky on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 09:16:37 PM EST
    This is related to asking if men can adequately discuss or make critiques of feminism.
    Critque away, it is irrelevant and usually offensive in both cases.

    Can Non-muslims critique Islam?

    Christians have been criticizing Muslim for centuries and the US is a  Christian country.

    Parent
    Why? (1.00 / 0) (#59)
    by jerry on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 11:13:08 PM EST
    "This is related to asking if men can adequately discuss or make critiques of feminism."

    Critque away, it is irrelevant and usually offensive in both cases.

    Why is that?

    Parent

    It Is Abstract (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by squeaky on Sat Sep 29, 2007 at 01:13:09 AM EST
    And most often a tool of oppression. Irrelevant because has more relevance to the outsiders discussing it than the people discussed.

    Parent
    Men are unlikely to comprehend (5.00 / 0) (#61)
    by Edger on Sat Sep 29, 2007 at 03:53:19 AM EST
    how women experience because they are men? Men can't put themselves in women's shoes, iow?

    Parent
    LOL - What's that about (1.00 / 1) (#76)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Sep 29, 2007 at 09:10:39 AM EST
    refusing to accept criticism is a state of denial??

    Parent
    Your response seems odd (none / 0) (#80)
    by jerry on Sat Sep 29, 2007 at 10:59:49 AM EST
    Many economists in the 80s, 90s, and now, are avid free trade proponents.  Free Trade is the best!  It will raise the country's GDP, and productivity, and efficiency!  Some people will lose jobs, and some jobs will be destroyed, but those people can be retrained or can get other jobs.

    Now take feminism for example, your response that a man's critique is a tool of oppression, or somehow is not relevant to feminists would be the same as the economists saying that the people whose jobs have been lost have nothing of relevance to say to about free trade.

    I am not certain why you see feminism as a zero-sum game which pits women against men.  I believe feminism can be a positive sum game which if played correctly will lead to a more positive outcome for all of us, but if played incorrectly, can result in zero sum outcomes.

    Your response is also sexist, and ignores the many men that have positively contributed to feminism through activism and through critique.

    Your response is also arrogant, making the assumption that feminism can do no wrong.

    And your response is also just a poorly thought out strategy for advancing feminism, without feedback people, institutions, and movements often find themselves moving awry.

    Feedback from all sorts of sources is critical to make sure we are making progress.

    I believe what I said about accepting the necessity of Feminism to accept critiques from men is also applicable to why it cannot be offensive or a tool of oppression for non-african americans to discuss what they see as problems endemic to aspects of issues seen within african american or youth cultures.

    You say that men critiquing feminism is a tool for oppression.  Is it okay for feminists to critique "men's behavior?"  Why is that?  Because someone has decided that men are oppressing women?

    You would say that non african americans discussing african american culture is a tool of oppression.  Is it okay for African American's to critique American Culture in general?

    Where does that lead?  Does this lead to a more just society?  Does this lead to a unified group of Americans or to a series of "stans?"

    Why do you raise skin color, gender to this sort of societal demarcation?

    Isn't there a name for the behavior of grouping others, or restrict others, or judge others, based on skin color or gender?  Why are you not subject to a charge of sexism or bigotry?

    You may wish to consider the words of Wendy Kaminer, feminist, free speech activist, a leader in the ACLU and FIRE.

    "My notions of justice require that we treat people as individuals and that we don't use sex as a predictor of character or behavior any more than we use race."

    (Note to Dark Avenger, feel free to keep on rating my responses as 1, but I would prefer a speech based response so that we can all understand what you find so inadequate.)

    Parent

    Obviously (5.00 / 0) (#81)
    by squeaky on Sat Sep 29, 2007 at 11:25:10 AM EST
    You are a white guy. You can defend your intellectual abstractions all you want but they amount to your deciding when someone else is hungry or needs to relieve themselves.

    Mildy relevant when you have power over someone else like a prison guard or 2nd grade schoolteacher. More relevant when you are on the ground working with the people that have a problem. Least relevant when you are sitting in your armchair believing that your superior mind, status and education allow you to infantailze others because they cannot solve their own problems.

    Parent

    Squeaky -That's ducking and hiding. (1.00 / 1) (#86)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Sep 29, 2007 at 12:47:06 PM EST
    In the real world if a problem is to be solved, everyone has to take ownership and agree on a solution.

    Telling someone they can not comment on the problem and/or the suggested solution is an absolutely 100% lose/lose situation.

    Of course the operative words are "real world."

    Parent

    Obviously I am a white guy? (none / 0) (#87)
    by jerry on Sat Sep 29, 2007 at 12:47:44 PM EST
    Where am I infantilizing others?

    What do you know about me, that you could presume I know nothing, personally, of being on the receiving end of oppression?

    What would you say to white and possibly male authors, artists, activists, lawyers, doctors, engineers, etc., that joined, fought in, founded various civil rights movements?

    The NAACP was founded on February 12, 1909 by a diverse group composed of W.E.B. Du Bois (African American), Ida Wells-Barnett (African American), Henry Moskowitz (Jewish), Mary White Ovington (White), Oswald Garrison Villard (German-born White), and William English Walling (White, and son of a former slave owning family)[2][3], to work on behalf of the rights of African Americans.

    The NAACP was founded by two African Americans, one Slave Owner, four whites.

    Why do you seek to dismiss the contributions and experiences of these heroes as being irrelevant?

    "If you just learn a single trick, Scout, you'll get along a lot better with all kinds of folks. You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view . . . until you climb inside of his skin and walk around in it." --  Atticus Finch

    We are human because we can empathize.  We are progressives because we believe in others and refuse to dismiss others based on sex, race, gender orientation, religion, age, ...

    Parent

    OK (5.00 / 0) (#88)
    by squeaky on Sat Sep 29, 2007 at 12:54:44 PM EST
    Why do you seek to dismiss the contributions and experiences of these heroes as being irrelevant?
    Never did. Reread my comment.

    Parent
    You have clearly set forth that (none / 0) (#90)
    by jerry on Sat Sep 29, 2007 at 01:13:28 PM EST
    white guys can't speak to race issues or sexual issues.

    Perhaps to refine that, what you have said is that white guys have not been oppressed and cannot relevantly critique feminism or race issues.  Non-muslims cannot critique islam.

    You have granted them relevancy if and only if they are somehow working on the ground with the people that you judge have the problem.  Is this still true if you swap genders or race?

    Are women's views or African American views on race or sex/gender issues irrelevant unless they are activists?

    Has their upbringing, culture, education done nothing for them?

    You said that I, "a white guy" cannot understand oppression and that I infantilize others.  By extension than how is it that I cannot understand oppression as white guy, but that the founders of the NAACP could?

    You still have not pointed out where I am infantilizing others.  I actually think that by granting to all people an assumption of relevancy and agency that I am not infantilizing them, but that you, who claim that various peoples are irrelevant unless they have certain genes or have experiences that you judge, you are the person infantilizing and disenfranchising others.

    Parent

    The Ruling Class (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by squeaky on Sat Sep 29, 2007 at 01:56:31 PM EST
    In America, AKA White Males, has a long history of telling others who have less power how to rise up. Most of the time the advice, even if well meaning, has the effect of keeping power in the hands of the advisors.

    Most of the advise is irrelevant and tiresome. That is not to say that there are not many examples of white men, WASPs on down the line, having useful input in others struggles. Rare as it is. Usually it amounts to colonialism, read Iraq, Algeria.

    A smart boss will have his son start out sweeping the floor and working his way up so that when he takes over his decisions will be based on experience and less abstract. A stupid boss will put his son in as supervisor right away. His decisions will be mostly abstract leading to poor working conditions.

    The analogy falls short when men decide what is right for women. Or when entitled whites think that they know how to "help" those less fortunate due to their lower status. In both cases there is no way for those entitled to get it, even though they are always sure that they know what is best.

    The success of the women's movement was due to the struggles of women talking to women. Men criticized their efforts all along. If those women listened to men who were certain that they knew how to "help" they would still be unpaid domestic servants.

    And with all due respect to your NAACP analogy, whites have been extremely ineffective in sharing their power with blacks and 'helping' them. African Americans are by and large more 'American' than everyone else if you go by when their ancestors got here.

    Let them eat cake.

    Parent

    Nice strawman... (none / 0) (#92)
    by jerry on Sat Sep 29, 2007 at 02:12:22 PM EST
    You have constructed for yourself a nice strawman that allows you to dismiss men's concerns regarding feminism, and non-african american's concerns about media representations of african american culture.

    But no one here is arguing for those strawmen.

    BillO was not arguing along those lines.

    I was not arguing along those lines.

    But you apparently are willing to dismiss all such concerns or conversations as imperialistic, self-serving, corrupt, and you construct your strawmen accordingly.

    Once again, you have not pointed out any infantilizing I have done.  Are you planning on retracting your claim?

    Parent

    IOKIYAR (5.00 / 0) (#93)
    by squeaky on Sat Sep 29, 2007 at 02:43:08 PM EST
    You can be concerned and discuss others oppression all you want, but we were talking about critiques that are relevant to a particular struggle.  At this point you are only talking about abstractions. My guess is that when you come up with your crit of feminism, black power et al, it will not be helpful to those struggling.

    Parent
    I may be a white man, but I am not a republican (none / 0) (#94)
    by jerry on Sat Sep 29, 2007 at 03:07:08 PM EST
    IOKIYAR?

    So now all white guys are republicans?

    And once more, you said I was infantilizing others.

    Are you going to demonstrate that or retract that?

    And I would ask how dare you assume anything I said was not helpful to others, but that's your entire point isn't it?  That you assume with no evidence that men can have nothing to say about feminism, that non-muslims can have anything to say about Islam, that non-african Americans can have anything to say about African American culture in real life or as represented by the media.

    Instead you just move to demean people and smear them.

    You can be concerned and discuss others oppression all you want, but we were talking about critiques that are relevant to a particular struggle.  At this point you are only talking about abstractions. My guess is that when you come up with your crit of feminism, black power et al, it will not be helpful to those struggling.

    How different is what you are saying from what others once said about women's suffrage?  You don't understand little lady, you can talk about this all you want at the coffee klatsch with your friends, but you should just sit tight and let the men that understand how the real world works do the voting.

    Sorry but that's not progressive, it's not liberal, and once upon a time, it wasn't even feminist.  It's sexist, it's racist, and it is based on your opinion and not on objective, measurable, reality.

    Parent

    Froth Away (none / 0) (#95)
    by squeaky on Sat Sep 29, 2007 at 03:48:13 PM EST
    Let's cut to the chase and hear what your crits are of the current feminist, black power, Islam, and any other groups that you have something to say about. I am not sure that your white male perspective will be helpful for those who do not have the big stick.

    That is not to say that you have nothing to contribute to progressive politics.

    And once more, you said I was infantilizing others.

    No I did not. It is your choice. Although it seems as if it is the example that bothers you the most.  

    Parent

    I'm not making these statements, just pointing out (none / 0) (#47)
    by jerry on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 08:23:17 PM EST
    Bill Cosby, Juan Williams, D'Mite, Chris Rock, John McWhorter, Shelby Steele, Tavis Smiley, Cornell West, Spike Lee, ....

    Chris Rock, D'Mite, and Spike Lee are not your father and grandparents.  African Americans are having this conversation whether you think it is racist or not.  And they don't think it's racist to have this discussion.  I think that even TV Shows from the Jeffersons to the Cosby Show to The Fresh Prince, movies like House Play and Bamboozled discussed these issues.

    Is there anyway for BillO to discuss this on his show?  

    Are there requirements that non-African Americans have to fulfill before being able to discuss these subjects, and if so, why?

    This is related to asking if men can adequately discuss or make critiques of feminism.  Can Non-muslims critique Islam?  This is a free speech issue.  This is a question of forced political correctness.

    On a related note, I think you are fundamentally mistaken and making some assumptions of your own by saying this is an equating of "hip hop culture."  I no less than beans about hip hop, but if anything you are not talking about "hip hop" but about "gangsta rap".

    Parent

    Short answer (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 08:43:18 PM EST
    Billo could talk about such things, if he were careful not to make offensive hasty generalizations.

    As for my confusing hip hop with gangsta rap, don't complain to me about your quote from your original post (below), complain to the person you were quoting.

    The "M-Fer, I want more iced tea" remark was a reference to the image of blacks and black behavior perpetuated in the hip-hop culture.(emphasis added)


    Parent
    Attacking The Troops: IOKIYAR | 90 comments (90 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment