Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Rush Limbaugh vs. Senate Democrats
Needless to say, in this sort of battle, the audience is the real loser. Rush Limbaugh, whose popular show is broadcast over Armed Forces Radio (and Clear Channel stations), declaimed "phony soldiers" who come home and oppose the Iraq war. That led Senate Democrats to denounce him. Some snippets (courtesy of a Fox News story).
Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.):
Reid accused Limbaugh of attacking "those fighting and dying for him and for all of us. Rush Limbaugh got himself a deferment from serving when he was a young man. He never served in uniform. He never saw in person the extreme difficulty of maintaining peace in a foreign country engaged in a civil war. He never saw a person in combat. Yet, that he thinks his opinion on the war is worth more than those who have been on the front lines," Reid said.
Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa):
Harkin followed Reid, saying: "Maybe he was just high on his drugs. I don't know." In 2003, Limbaugh admitted a dependency on pain medication, but three years later reached a plea deal that cleared him of prescription shopping for Oxycontin.
And Limbaugh:
In an attack that began with the first words of the show and continued throughout his daily three-hour broadcast Tuesday, Limbaugh compared Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, claimed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is using a liberal media watchdog to suppress her opposition and said he feels sorry for Sen. Tom Harkin's family for having to be associated with the Iowa Democrat's statements on the Senate floor a day earlier...
"It's about them and they are desperately trying to salvage themselves with their own lunatic fringe base who they are not only disappointing but they are deceiving because the dirty, little secret, as I also predicted, was that if the Democrats win the White House in '08 they are not pulling out of Iraq. All the top tier Democrats have said so," Limbaugh told his audience.
"Time to distract those peasants with pitchforks out there who are fit to be tied over being betrayed by Harry Reid, (House Speaker) Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the Democrats," he said.
|10.3.07 @ 7:58AM|#
"More here"? Who wants more of this? The real phony soldier here is Rush, who, along with George, Newt, and Dick, passed on his once in lifetime chance to shoot a real commie.
stuartl|10.3.07 @ 8:19AM|#
...the audience is the real loser.
Isn't this the kind of entertainment we pay them for? All three are
surely thrilled about the attention.
|10.3.07 @ 8:19AM|#
The vast left wing conspiracy created by the Clintons attempts
to neutralize Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Hannity, and other opponents
before the upcoming elections.
End of story.
Stranger|10.3.07 @ 8:23AM|#
Limbaugh shot his mouth off, got caught dead to rights, and has
been backpedaling furiously for a few days now.
Members of the military have been calling him out to call them
'phony soldiers' to their faces. And where's Rush?
Despite the bluster, he's cowering under his desk. Big Radio Tough
Guy.
|10.3.07 @ 8:25AM|#
Rush Limbaugh vs. The House Democrats, tonight on WWE
Raw!!!!
Watch as the Chickenhawk fights the angry horde of
stoolpigeons.
No matter who loses, we all win.
|10.3.07 @ 8:44AM|#
I find the fact that Rush Limbaugh still has an audience big enough to keep him on the air almost suicidally depressing.
|10.3.07 @ 8:45AM|#
The offense came up when a caller named Mike, who said he is currently serving in the Army, described his anger about talk of a pull-out from Iraq. Limbaugh readily agrees, according to the recorded exchange:
CALLER 2 (Mike): ...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.
So Rush paraphrased a caller's views when he shouldn't have. He
made a thoughtless mistake that he should appologies for. Even so,
passing a house resolution against either his comment or the
moveon.org add would be a chilling strike against free speech.
Stranger|10.3.07 @ 8:50AM|#
Even so, passing a house resolution against either his
comment or the moveon.org add would be a chilling strike against
free speech.
Well, MoveOn has already been ripped apart for their NYT ad - but I
agree with you on the free speech thing. Rush should be able to say
whatever he wants on his show, within broadcast guidelines.
But when he says something as idiotic as he did in this instance,
he should man up and apologize. Instead, he continues to
attack.
Oxy really does smother brain cells, I guess.
|10.3.07 @ 8:50AM|#
No Senate Republicans chastised Rush? Who were the blowhards that got on Kerry's case when he said people who don't do well get sent to Iraq? Seems pretty clear that they are phony politicians...if that's not already an oxymoron.
|10.3.07 @ 8:55AM|#
It's always quite entertaining whenever Rush gets his
comeuppance.
Still Harkin was more than a bit out of line. Issue's already nasty
enough without going for the obvious personal attack. Not exactly
maintaining the dignity of the office there.
|10.3.07 @ 9:00AM|#
".......if the Democrats win the White House in '08 they are not
pulling out of Iraq."
Sadly, he may very well be right about that.
For him to call soldiers that served "phony" because they oppose
the Iraq war is absurd. I've met a couple of people from
Jacksonville, NC (home of Camp Lejeune) recently, and one of them
was a Marine that serves there. It seems that there is a lot of
support for Ron Paul among active Marines. I'm just guessing here,
but I would have to say that this support probably has something to
do with his views on foreign policy.
|10.3.07 @ 9:10AM|#
I love seeing the ugly hatred come out around here when something happens with Rush. Not only does he still have an audience, his audience is the biggest on talk radio. Not only is it the biggest, but I'll bet per capita it is the most successful and wealthy of all radio listeners. How fucking dare these military-hating senators call out Rush on my tapayer funded time. Rush supports the troops a million times more than they ever will. I'd think the people at this sight would be more concerned about the dispicable attack on free speech, than piling on Rush.
|10.3.07 @ 9:15AM|#
Regardless of what an ass he can be, Limbaugh is funny as hell
as a character - his whole attitude, mode of speech, etc. are
hilarious. However, he is an ass much of the time. And jtuf, he
didn't just paraphrase, he went on to say that "most" of the people
who call in and are anti-war like to pretend to be soldiers. So
maybe that's what he was talking about.
In other news, none of the WABC hosts accept calls from anyone who
says anything about Ron Paul. I've tried.
My favorite talk radio moment was when I called Mark Levine and
pushed the letters of marque and reprisal solution to finding Bin
Laden - he wasn't able to rebut, and said I was actually a
communist or lefty. Haha.
niblet|10.3.07 @ 9:18AM|#
Why should it be off-limits to talk about some junkie's drug use? Live by the drug war, die by the drug war.
|10.3.07 @ 9:19AM|#
...they are phony politicians...if that's not already an
oxymoron.
More like a redundancy. Like 'dishonest lawyer'.
Rush supports the troops a million times more than [Reid,
Harkin] ever will.
Apparently, he only supports them if they agree with him.
|10.3.07 @ 9:23AM|#
"How fucking dare these military-hating senators call out Rush
on my tapayer funded time."
How dare Rush call out the people that volunteer to fight for our
country on my taxpayer-funded Armed Services Radio?
|10.3.07 @ 9:26AM|#
The cited Democrat responses were ridiculous. They acted no
better than their Republican counterparts acted wrt the moveon.org
ad, and it wasn't even the right criticism in this instance. In
this case, instead of attacking him, they should have held him up
as an example. An example of this confused and
perpetuated-by-FOXNEWS idea that being pro-military service members
must therefore mean being pro-war, and vice versa.
But no, they acted like the no-brain children they are and attacked
his attacking of service members. How stupid can you get?
|10.3.07 @ 9:28AM|#
See, THIS is an appropriate opportunity to call someone a
chickenhawk. Rush meets all three criteria:
He, personally, demonstrated cowardly behavior when the military
wanted him to fight;
He's making claims of his own toughness and bravery, based on his
political beliefs, while running down the toughness and
bravery;
Of people who have actually demonstrated toughness and bravery
while in military service.
It really only takes the first two to qualify someone as a Common
Chickenhawk; when you add the third in there - the sneering at
actual soldiers - Rush becomes that most impressive of specimens,
the Greater Chickenhawk.
Keep it up, Rush. There's still the slightest murmer of a heatbeat
left in the corpse of the Republican advantage on military and
security issues.
|10.3.07 @ 9:30AM|#
joe,
Everyone plays a role in this great struggle- some go to fight in
the desert, some campaign for their dad, and some make fun of
soldiers.
Exploitation - it's the new sacrifice!
ed|10.3.07 @ 9:30AM|#
Congress has no business commenting on the free speech of free citizens. It always goes something like this: "We all believe in the free speech guarantees in the constitution, but..." followed by grabs at power followed by tedious hearings where shockingly stupid legislators issue veiled threats to their "invited" victims. Commenting on anything Limbaugh says is a waste of time. He doesn't matter and his little army of parrots matters even less.
|10.3.07 @ 9:31AM|#
I don't much support the troops that return home and undermine the mission for political gain either. I support their free speech rights, but if these soldiers are the future John Kerrys of America, who needs them.
|10.3.07 @ 9:32AM|#
It's an attack on free speech for Senators to...speak?
You know, to express their opinions on matters of politics, war,
and government? And to disagree with other people when they express
contrary opinions?
Whatever.
|10.3.07 @ 9:33AM|#
See, James, that's the difference between Republicans like you
and real Americans.
Real Americans support soldiers, whatever their political
opinions.
|10.3.07 @ 9:40AM|#
Real Americans want America to win wars, not try everything in their power to assure defeat, for nothing more than political brownie points.
|10.3.07 @ 9:40AM|#
Your story grows tiresome. Now is the time at Hit & Run when
we dance!
This discussion is pointless. Limbaugh said something annoying but
not as annoying as it's being spun out to be by his political
opponents. Who shouldn't be bothering to comment on some loose
remark made on air, anyway. Aren't they supposed to be ending the
war or bringing me the head of Osama bin Laden or something like
that? How does this help the children?
And "chickenhawk"? That's even more tiresome. I've never served,
but I have 100% of the right that any American citizen has
to comment on war, foreign policy, and whether AC/DC's "For Those
About to Rock" should be our national anthem.
Dance!
|10.3.07 @ 9:42AM|#
The repubs may have lost their advantage on military/security issues, but they are much better than the dems at feigning outrage.
|10.3.07 @ 9:43AM|#
In ten years, when the President, Senate, and House are all run by Democrats and the U.S. military is still fighting rebels, terrorists, Iranians, Al Queda, et al in Iraq I am sure the Democratic party voters who voted for the Democrats in hopes of ending the U.S. involvement in Iraq will be placated when reminded of how bravely Harkin and Reid stood up to "that radio guy."
|10.3.07 @ 9:43AM|#
Real Americans want America to win wars
...yes, which is why we tried so hard to keep you twits from
getting into a quagmire, and to stay focused on Afghanistan.
|10.3.07 @ 9:43AM|#
I got the sense that the resolutions against Limbaugh weren't
serious (in terms of the fact that they didn't put them forward so
they'd actually pass) -- they were just to make the point that it's
as asinine to do this as it was to pass that ridiculous resolution
against MoveOn.
Of course, I could be mistaken.
aaron|10.3.07 @ 9:45AM|#
Yes Joe, when Congress is introducing resolutions condemning what someone said on the radio or in a newspaper, that is an attack on free speech.
|10.3.07 @ 9:45AM|#
I heard the show in question, it boils down to this...
Everyone is stopping at the point where he blasts "phony soldiers"
who decry the Iraq war. He went on to explain who the phony
soldiers are. They are the people on the left who have been exposed
as making stuff up about their time in Iraq. The ones who claimed
that they had committed atrocities but never left the US.
|10.3.07 @ 9:49AM|#
Pro Libertate,
This mindset needs to be denounced and discreditted, because it is
the reason we are stuck in Iraq right now. It's the reason the
presidents bullshit claims before the war went unquestioned; it's
the reason we didn't take the opportunity to change course in 2004;
and it's the reason the Republicans continue to keep feeding blood
and treasure into Iraq. You know the old saying "Free your mind and
your ass will follow?" Killing of the phoney-baloney link between
objectively-pro-disaster military policy and patriotism is
essential if we want to get out of this hole, and avoid falling
into the next one.
As for chickenhawk, I haven't seen you running down the bravery and
patriotism of anyone, nor have I seen any evidence of you urging
other people be sent off to war while working to exempt yourself.
So don't worry about it.
|10.3.07 @ 9:49AM|#
House Reps and Senators are free to criticize Rush all they want on their spare time. They have the same rights as private citizens. Criticizing an American's speech during congressional debates and passing official resolutions to condem an American's speech is another matter. When they are on the clock, legislators can pass laws to put teeth in their criticism. So responding to an American's speech within a legislative session has a chilling affect of free speech.
ed|10.3.07 @ 9:51AM|#
resolutions against [insert celebrity du jour here]
weren't serious
They never are.
They're inspired by partisans wasting the time of the people for
political gain.
|10.3.07 @ 9:51AM|#
Yes Joe, when Congress is introducing resolutions condemning
what someone said on the radio or in a newspaper, that is an attack
on free speech.
No, aaron, it's not. It's the expression of an opinion.
If the Senate voting that they don't like something someone said is
the worst "attack on free speech" this country sees this month, it
will be the greatest month for free speech in our country's
history.
|10.3.07 @ 9:51AM|#
Boom! MSNBC even says its blown out of proportion
http://newsbusters.org/static/2007/09/2007-10-02MSNBCMJ.wmv
|10.3.07 @ 9:52AM|#
Or, rather, the Senate voting not to take up a proposal to express an opinion about something someone said.
|10.3.07 @ 9:54AM|#
Actually, debating the ideas underlying political positions is
pretty much the definition of what members of a deliberative body
are supposed to do.
The Senate isn't supposed to talk about politics? What kind of
bullshit is that?
|10.3.07 @ 9:54AM|#
Is this really the most important thing that our elected
officials can come up with to keep themselves busy with in DC?
General Betray Us? Flag burning and "Definition of Common Law
Marriage" amendments? For crying out loud!
Dear Elected Officials: Solve some freaking problems! If you've got
so much time on your hands after taking care of real
business - the evidence of which is not clearly on display, at the
very least - then *surprise* the federal government might be a
little bloated!
Nearly 3/4 of the people - citizens (which means that they work
for us) - want to see American soldiers come home. They want
our government to stop throwing kabillions of $$ into propping up
ungrateful regimes that eventually end up supporting another flavor
of terrorist. And, in theory, that was how the the Dems managed
their takeover. Then... nothing.
And then there's Health Care. And Immigration. Not to mention the
fact that we're on the verge of a recession and something like half
of all our debt is held by a handful of countries in Southeast
Asia. No Child Left Behind sucks hairy donkey
balls. We're on a path to be the only wealthy,
industrialized nation in the world to strictly prohibit stem cell
research, a fact likely not unrelated to the assumption
that our nation was founded on Christian principles. And I'm barely
scratching the surface here. But, I digress...
To sum up, Dear Elected Officials: I think that there might be some
other, you know, more important stuff to spend so much C-Span face
time on.
[/rant]
|10.3.07 @ 10:02AM|#
Well, I agree that the whole must-agree-with-us--WE'RE AT WAR
philosophy is nonsense and anathema to a free society, but we've
always had people with limited or no military experience calling at
least some of the shots. Or influencing them. If I were president
and decided to take action against, say, Canada, should I temper my
decision solely by the fact that I've never seen combat?
Anyway, my only real objection here is that the Senate is making
political hay out of something fairly unimportant. Just like the
MoveOn.org ad nonsense. Heck, Limbaugh might've been commenting on
fake callers, meaning people who call in and say they're
one thing, then, when they speak, reveal that they're probably the
other thing. Of course, it's patently false that there aren't
soldiers who oppose the war.
|10.3.07 @ 10:03AM|#
"""So responding to an American's speech within a legislative
session has a chilling affect of free speech."""
Not really. They did nothing that could actually curb speech. No
one cares about the opinion of Congress.
The left and right are cut from the same cloth, not too sleezy or
too stupid in their attempt to make a point. I point to the darling
of the right-wing's recent idea to keep the Republicans in office.
End women's right to vote. Why anyone takes these people serious is
beyond me.
ed|10.3.07 @ 10:04AM|#
The "bullshit" is in your head, joe. The role of Congress is to protect the rights of the citizenry, not to get their tits in a wringer over what a radio personality may have said. I want legislators, not busybodies. If you don't view their comments on Rush as a waste of valuable time and an attack on freedom of expression, then your understanding of what Congress is elected to do is twisted, to be charitable. That's not to say it's inconsistent with your worldview.
|10.3.07 @ 10:08AM|#
I've read the transcript of the "phony soldiers" comment, and saying that Rush called soldiers who disagree with him phony is questionable. (His caller seems to be more in that mindset, but it's not clear if Rush is.)
|10.3.07 @ 10:13AM|#
Real Americans want America to win wars, not try everything
in their power to assure defeat, for nothing more than political
brownie points.
No, real Americans want America to fight wars that
are:
1) Winnable
2) Just
3) Beneficial beyond their costs conditional on success.
Fighting other wars leaves America worse off, and I would say by
definition that real Americans want America to be as healthy as
possible.
Phony Patriots want America to keep fighting any war it gets into
regardless of any criteria.
|10.3.07 @ 10:13AM|#
"How ... dare these military-hating senators call out Rush
on my taxpayer-funded time."
The unfortunate precedent was set by Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX).
|10.3.07 @ 10:14AM|#
"It's about them and they are desperately trying to salvage
themselves with their own lunatic fringe
base..."
My emphasis. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. If you
take Blowhard Limbaugh seriously, you've got problems.
|10.3.07 @ 10:14AM|#
Acctually, the Senate's job is to make and repeal laws, set the federal budget, ratify foriegn policy, and confirm appointments.
|10.3.07 @ 10:17AM|#
*yawn* Another storm in a teacup.
I admit I was a Rush fan, in high school, during the early
Nineties. I grew out of it. I'm amazed he's still on the air--he
hasn't even been funny in years.
Rush Limbaugh is not on my list of things I miss about the United
States of America.
Guy Montag|10.3.07 @ 10:17AM|#
Senator Harkin? The one who lied about shooting down a Mig in
Vietnam? Then he said he was flying over Cuba instead?
No wonder he is defending the likes of Jesse MacBeth and PV1 Scott
Thomas Beauchamp!
BTW, Limbaugh was not speaking of soldiers who speak out against
the war, he was speaking out against FAKE SOLDIERS embraced by the
Left, especially the two I just mentioned.
Oh, for a fresh adventure in Fairbanksing, Eve at The Plank has
(inadvertantly?) dredged up the Beauchamp issue that Franklin
Foer has been hiding from for the past 2 months. You know, the one
where TNR had a reporter/soldier fabricating stories when the truth
would have worked just fine?
Perhaps she was not dredging it up on purpose, since she is
launching another fact-free attack on Limbaugh and anybody who paid
the slightest bit of attention would know that the TNR Beauchamp
story was central to this.
|10.3.07 @ 10:29AM|#
The only question is how many people support both Moveon.org and
Rush's right to say what they want?
I you defend Rush now, did you defend Moveon yesterday?
If not why not?
And why do so many americans, not to mention libertarians, not
understand why free speech is so important?
|10.3.07 @ 10:32AM|#
A friend of mine and I used to tell people that we'd served in the 'nada. That's why we had that 1,000 nutmeg stare. Damned 'nada flashbacks! Amazing how gullible folks can be. No kidding, another friend and I convinced his girlfriend that dogs and cats were the males and females of the same species. That's why dogs chase cats! She was a Mass Communications major, with a 3.5 or so average. Egad.
Guy Montag|10.3.07 @ 10:33AM|#
The only question is how many people support both Moveon.org
and Rush's right to say what they want?
I you defend Rush now, did you defend Moveon yesterday?
If not why not?
I support both their rights to say it, however I disagree with
MoveOn.org and I agree with
Rush, in these cases. Agreeing with a right to say something wrong
does not beg the rights defenders to agree with the statements.
dhex|10.3.07 @ 10:35AM|#
I'd think the people at this sight would be more concerned
about the dispicable attack on free speech, than piling on
Rush.
speech criticizing speech is the essence of free speech.
i mean c'mon guys. i know the partisan hamster dance eats a lot of
brain cells and all.
CALLER 2 (Mike): ...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.
hey guy it seems like basically a "real soldier" is one who agrees
with their views and a "fake soldier" is one who does not.
i.e. more partisan hamster dance bullshit.
|10.3.07 @ 10:36AM|#
I defend move-on's ad 100%. However, I do have a problem with one of the biggest advocates of CFR discounting the ad rate, a clear political expenditure in my book.
stuartl|10.3.07 @ 10:37AM|#
Is this really the most important thing that our elected
officials can come up with to keep themselves busy with in
DC?
I'd rather they entertain us than pass some useless expensive law,
and I really heard a senator say this about SCHIP, "for the
children."
|10.3.07 @ 10:38AM|#
The more I think of it... nobody here should really have a
problem with this. After all, when the Senate is talking about
silly stuff like this, they're not passing any other laws, which is
generally a good thing.
In fact, I want to see more of this. Lets have the Senate debating
on whoever spoke out for/against the war every single day. Our
lives would probably improve dramatically.
|10.3.07 @ 10:40AM|#
Absolutely Guy!
It's like the Folsom ad and the muslim cartons.
My liberal friends don't understand why I defended the Muslim
cartoon publishing a while back. (they just believe I'm being a
republican)
My conservative friends cannot not understand why I also support
the Folsom Street Fair ad from the other day. (they just believe
I'm being a dirty libural)
Now in that case, I was personally amused by both, but that's not
required, I could have hated either message...
It's just that so many folks don't seem to understand why it's so
important to have the right to say both popular and unpopular
messages.
I think Rush is something my dog regurgitated, and I think Moveon
is little more than a reaction to folks like Rush, I find both
lacking, but I still think both have the right to be wrong, or as
they believe...right.
x,y|10.3.07 @ 10:45AM|#
Until the state actually does something to restrict speech, it's not a free speech issue.
|10.3.07 @ 11:03AM|#
Guy Montag: We live in a society were both sides quote out of
context. Some of us sitting on the sidelines apply the same rules
to both sides. If I'm going to give John Kerry the benefit of the
doubt, I'm going to do with same for Rush. Since we can't do that,
I'm going to hold them both to their actual words. Rush Limbaugh,
in the entire clip never once said, "there are legitimate soldiers
who oppose the war." The failure to make that concession undercuts
his case entirely.
As far as GIs who oppose the war, I suspect there is a difference
between career grunts like yourself and people who joined for free
college.
|10.3.07 @ 11:06AM|#
You'd think that Rush would be more supportive of gays in the military, given that he believes that returning soldiers are obligated to suck the president's dick when they get home.
|10.3.07 @ 11:07AM|#
It should be noted that Media Matters isn't much more credible than Limbaugh: The headline of their hatchetjob is "Limbaugh selectively edited 'phony soldiers' clip, claimed it was "the entire transcript" but if you hear the clip and read the transcript, the edited part is really meaningless.
|10.3.07 @ 11:07AM|#
Andrew,
Of course, while they're blathering away about this or Britney's
children, they're also not reading the bills they're voting to
pass. I'd agree with the let-them-talk-all-they-want theory if they
actually only babbled on and on and on. Unfortunately, they pass
unread and unconsidered legislation as if there were a bonus paid
on it while standing around saying stupid things.
Guy Montag|10.3.07 @ 11:11AM|#
hey guy it seems like basically a "real soldier" is one who
agrees with their views and a "fake soldier" is one who does
not.
Perhaps you should have listened to the whole thing rather than
just picking out the bits you "like"? It is a rare occasion when I
get to hear that show these days, but this was one portion I did
get to hear.
|10.3.07 @ 11:19AM|#
I don't get who Rush's audience is - the unemployed,
long-distance truckers, and housewives? Who else is home between
noon and 3 every day?
I listen for like 15 mins a day, while driving home and back from
lunch, but man anyone who could take 3 hours of that stuff daily
should win a medal.
|10.3.07 @ 11:21AM|#
The media matters link has the entire clip and transcript. Plus, you can see the lefties embarrass themselves trying to chop down Rush. Ultimately, Rush said something wrong, then instead of saying that there are honorable soldiers against the war, he tried at the last second to make it about MacBeth. Unfortunately, he never said that. He just wants us to assume that. It really pains that fat f*cker to admit that there are plenty of servicemen against the war.
|10.3.07 @ 11:24AM|#
I don't get who Rush's audience is - the unemployed,
long-distance truckers, and housewives? Who else is home between
noon and 3 every day?
Retirees with lots of complaints. Limbaugh gives them a scapegoat
for their gripes with young people in "Liberals".
|10.3.07 @ 11:41AM|#
Real Americans want to win wars
Real Americans shouldn't let the mere existence of a war be the
only reason for fighting it.
SIV|10.3.07 @ 11:45AM|#
I don't get who Rush's audience is - the unemployed,
long-distance truckers, and housewives? Who else is home between
noon and 3 every day?
Randolph,
You answer your own question.....
You are the audience as well as:
The self-employed,sales people, small businessmen, people whose job
involves driving between 12-3 eastern time. Most people don't
listen to the whole 3 hours or everyday. Anyone driving during the
broadcast.
|10.3.07 @ 11:46AM|#
I wouldn't say the mere existance of this war is the reason I wan't to win it. Oil security and Iran are two reasons defeat is not an option. Especially considering we're finally starting to succeed, which Democrats fear more than anything.
|10.3.07 @ 11:46AM|#
aah ok I was thinking more who are the people who listen to the whole show every day. I suppose that in the end, I am what I fear. Or at least, I am what I laugh at.
|10.3.07 @ 11:48AM|#
As far as Rush's audience, SIV nails it. Boca Java coffee, Allen Brothers Steaks and Sleep Number beds aren't cheap and I assume those advertisers know who they are reaching during Rush's show.
|10.3.07 @ 11:51AM|#
I wouldn't say the mere existance of this war is the reason
I wan't to win it.
Funny, I always hear conservatives say that "once you're there, you
have to win" or some such nonsense when discussing the war. No, you
don't have to win. Sometimes its in the interest of the people
(though never the leviathan state) to lose. Losing can be
good.
I think
Guy Montag|10.3.07 @ 11:51AM|#
As far as Rush's audience, SIV nails it. Boca Java coffee,
Allen Brothers Steaks and Sleep Number beds aren't cheap and I
assume those advertisers know who they are reaching during Rush's
show.
That is what I was about to mention, so I second the notion!
|10.3.07 @ 11:51AM|#
Now, let me finish.
I forget who said it, it was a Russian philosopher IIRC, "The state
always needs victory, but sometimes the people need defeat".
|10.3.07 @ 11:54AM|#
With regards to Iran, it cracks me up when I hear war supporters
say the real way to "Win" is to expand the war to Iran.
Just like how drug warriors say if we just give them more money the
United States will be drug free. Or how if we pour more money into
public schools, our children will become geniuses.
James, your team is basically asking us to expand a failed
government program. Think about that for a second.
|10.3.07 @ 12:02PM|#
I never said go into Iran. I am saying losing in Iraq will assure Iran dominance in the region. A mideast controlled by hezbollah funding, atomic bomb designing religious shitheads is a bad thing.
|10.3.07 @ 12:04PM|#
I never said go into Iran. I am saying losing in Iraq will
assure Iran dominance in the region. A mideast controlled by
hezbollah funding, atomic bomb designing religious shitheads is a
bad thing.
Gee, James, why didn't y'all think of that before you went over
there and toppled one of their biggest rivals (Saddam)?
|10.3.07 @ 12:06PM|#
Real Americans want America to win wars, not try everything
in their power to assure defeat, for nothing more than political
brownie points.
I'm a real American with a birth certificate to prove it. I think
Iraq is the worst foreign policy blunder ever made by the United
States and that people like James Ard comprise about 25% of the
population. And I believe they are fools.
|10.3.07 @ 12:06PM|#
And don't think for one second the Saudis, Israel, or Turkey would allow Iran to dominate the region.
SIV|10.3.07 @ 12:06PM|#
I wouldn't say the mere existance of this war is the reason
I wan't to win it.
Funny, I always hear conservatives say that "once you're there, you
have to win" or some such nonsense when discussing the war. No, you
don't have to win. Sometimes its in the interest of the people
(though never the leviathan state) to lose. Losing can be
good.
I think
Stephen Decatur:
"Our Country! In her intercourse with foreign nations may she
always be in the right; but right or wrong, our
country!"
Vince Lombardi:
Winning isn't everything; it's the only thing
|10.3.07 @ 12:07PM|#
SIV, as for the former quote that kind of attitude scares the
shit out of me.
As for the latter, war isn't a game of football.
|10.3.07 @ 12:11PM|#
Pug, Funny how the 25% you call fools are the 25% that are most informed, and most capable of earning our own livings.
|10.3.07 @ 12:14PM|#
If the Saudi's have to battle Iran, what do you think will happen to the price of a gallon of oil?
|10.3.07 @ 12:16PM|#
If the Saudi's have to battle Iran, what do you think will
happen to the price of a gallon of oil?
What happened to the price of oil in the 1980s when the oil rich
country of Iraq fought the oil rich country of Iran?
Oh yeah! It went down! The mid to late 1980s, when that war was at
its height, had low oil prices.
BTW, the military sucking up so much oil to fight the Iraq War has
done much to raise the price in the past few years, anyway.
|10.3.07 @ 12:16PM|#
I appreciate your honesty, though. That is, you will admit this war is pretty much a mercantilist attempt to control world oil supplies. Like all mercantilism, its prone to failure.
|10.3.07 @ 12:18PM|#
I support the right of the following people to say what they
want, and the benefits their arguments over policy and values bring
to our political system:
Moveon.org
Rush Limbaugh
John Cornyn
Tom Harkin
Every other citizen, officeholder, and media personality in
America. Debating the ideas that underly our political actions -
for example, the idea that military personnel who disagree with the
President about the wisdom of a military decision are not real
soldiers - is good for our Republic.
|10.3.07 @ 12:18PM|#
Rush Limbaugh, unlike Harry Reid, is an obnoxious
braying jackass.
Ho hum. My capacity for outraged astonishment is not unlimited.
|10.3.07 @ 12:18PM|#
"I am saying losing in Iraq will assure Iran dominance in
the region."
Wow. This isn't even a plausible possibility. First, you have the
Sunni states that would never let that happen, then there is Israel
of course, and also you have the goddam Nimitz, Stennis and
Enterprise off the coast.
Like I said, drink enough kool-aid and even asinine statements
sound plausible.
|10.3.07 @ 12:21PM|#
Lamar you forgot to add that Iran itself is weak and internally divided with its economy in shambles and a complete joke of a conventional army.
|10.3.07 @ 12:24PM|#
I say that continuing the president's policy in Iraq is the best
way to lose there, and assure both Iranian dominance and al Qaeda
freedom of operation.
James Ard has spent three years telling us that if we leave Iraq,
al Qaeda will take over. Now, he has been proven completely wrong
by events in Anbar, and those of us (like all 16 of our
intelligence agencies) who said that the American presence in Iraq
is what has allowed al Qaeda to be there have been proven
correct.
So now he has to talk about oil.
|10.3.07 @ 12:26PM|#
James Ard is just as certain that Arab Shiites in Iraq will let Iranians take over, as he is that Arab Sunnis in Iraq will let al Qaeda take over.
|10.3.07 @ 12:31PM|#
James Ard has spent three years telling us that if we leave
Iraq, al Qaeda will take over. Now, he has been proven completely
wrong by events in Anbar, and those of us (like all 16 of our
intelligence agencies) who said that the American presence in Iraq
is what has allowed al Qaeda to be there have been proven
correct.
Joe - Are you saying that Anbar province is no longer an insurgent
stronghold because the Americans pulled out?
|10.3.07 @ 12:36PM|#
joe, I've always talked about oil, and if you can find an archive where I predicted an al-Qaida takeover if we leave, I'd like to see it. It has always been about oil with me, especially acquiring a stable supply so that we could chastize the wahabis in Saudi Arabia. I still dream of the day we can tell the house of Saad to go fuck themselves. That's also why I support nucleur power. How about you?
|10.3.07 @ 12:41PM|#
joe, I've always talked about oil, and if you can find an
archive where I predicted an al-Qaida takeover if we leave, I'd
like to see it. It has always been about oil with me, especially
acquiring a stable supply so that we could chastize the wahabis in
Saudi Arabia. I still dream of the day we can tell the house of
Saad to go fuck themselves. That's also why I support nucleur
power. How about you?
So, we would be held hostage by Shias in Iraq instead? That makes a
lot of sense.
I can't speak for joe but I support nuclear power. I support
drilling in Alaska. I support offshore drilling. I support research
into liquifying coal into oil.
I also support wind, solar, hydro, whatever it takes so we can
leave that bloody sandbox once and for all.
|10.3.07 @ 12:44PM|#
The fear of a sunni slaughter has been a bigger fear for me than jihadists running baghdad. That's why I was for killing Sadr from day one.
|10.3.07 @ 12:46PM|#
stubby,
Yes. I am saying that Anbar ceased to be an insurgent stronghold,
and the local population and militas turned against them and drove
them from power, because our military pulled out. Once we left, we
ceased to be the foreign occupiers killing their sons and stopping
their grannies and checkpoints, and the foreign jihadists - with
whom the locals had previously had an alliance - became the target
of the locals hatred. And rhetoric. And bullets.
Just as I predicted would happen if we pulled out of Iraq, and
exactly the opposite of what the war's supporters predicted would
happen.
|10.3.07 @ 12:47PM|#
James,
If I had misstated your position, and you have been arguing at odds
with the mainstream hawks, I apologize.
|10.3.07 @ 12:47PM|#
James-
If Iran is the Big Scary Next Hitler Threat of the week, why
weren't you concerned in 2003 that toppling Saddam would empower
Iran by taking out one of their biggest rivals?
|10.3.07 @ 12:49PM|#
When we have fusion reactors in ten years, will we invade
countries to protect our water interests?
Man, that would just rule if the "ten years from now" promise of
fusion ever became now. I wonder how much oil is needed to make
plastics and other petroleum-based products? Enough to sustain an
export economy for the Middle East. Probably not. Wonder what the
media will talk about when we leave the Middle East for good?
|10.3.07 @ 12:58PM|#
joe, I think the mainstream hawks feel the same way but are too
smart to explain it like that.
Cesar, I hope Iraq will continue to be their rival, while we've rid
ourselves of one of ours.
Pro, dad spent a lifetime researching fusion power. He says it
won't happen in our lifetimes.
|10.3.07 @ 1:03PM|#
James-
Iraq can only be a rival if a Sunni is in power there. A democracy
in Iraq means a shia government, one that is friendly with Iran
(whitness al-Malaki, who was once the great hope of the week for
war supporters, cozying up to A-mad).
So don't you think the goals of a 'democracy' and an anti-Iranian
government are completely incompatible? Would you admit that a
Sunni dictator (a friendly one) would be better for our
interests?
|10.3.07 @ 1:04PM|#
While we're feelin' the love...I think expanding nuclear power
is probably going to have to be a big part of getting us off oil -
and even more importantly, of getting China and India off
coal.
Between thousands killed in oil wars and global warming, and the
superior, safer technologies that not exist for reactor designs
(and are being developed for waste storage/conversion), the
cost-benefit analysis has quite simply changed since 1979.
|10.3.07 @ 1:06PM|#
BTW, where does Israel get its oil from? I don't think any oil rich Middle Eastern countries have trade relations with them, so how do they keep a modern economy humming?
|10.3.07 @ 1:09PM|#
Maybe I was wrong about Sadr. Interesting article by Bartle Ball in today's WSJ.
|10.3.07 @ 1:11PM|#
well, Cesar, all their Jew-machines run on the blood of Christian babies. Didn't you get that Jack Chick pamphlet?
|10.3.07 @ 1:39PM|#
"""Funny, I always hear conservatives say that "once you're
there, you have to win" or some such nonsense when discussing the
war."""
And which one of them has ever won a war? Lincoln?
I would give Bush Sr. some credit for kicking the Iraqis out of
Kuwait but many right-wingers believe he left without Iraq without
finishing the job.
|10.3.07 @ 1:43PM|#
"I would give Bush Sr. some credit for kicking the Iraqis
out of Kuwait but many right-wingers believe he left without Iraq
without finishing the job."
Kinda neat how history vindicated Bush I's prudence in the
matter.
|10.3.07 @ 1:47PM|#
James, if it's so important to "win" in Iraq, why has Bush been
making a half-ass effort over the last 4 1/2 years?
Bush's rhetoric about the importance does not match the level of
resources he is applying.
|10.3.07 @ 1:52PM|#
Not to derail the topic, but am I the only one who notes the irony of using sexuality (i.e. hot babes in bikni bottoms) to sell t-shirts with Christo-fascist sentiments printed on them?
|10.3.07 @ 1:53PM|#
""Kinda neat how history vindicated Bush I's prudence in the
matter."""
Indeed.
Bush Jr's tenure has given me more much respect toward his
predecessors.
|10.3.07 @ 2:13PM|#
Akira,
I see no irony. Christians are among those who brought us the Be
Fruitful and Multiply ad campaign. These young women serve to
advance that cause, one would think.
VM|10.3.07 @ 2:15PM|#
Pro Libertate | October 3, 2007, 12:49pm | #
When we have fusion reactors in ten years, will we invade countries to protect our water interests?
there you go again. shilling for Big Water.
|10.3.07 @ 2:19PM|#
VM,
When I and my compatriots have cornered the market in water and all
moisture products, we'll see who has the last laugh!
VM|10.3.07 @ 2:27PM|#
not so fast, ProGLib. I happen to work for BRAWNDO. It has
electrolytes. It's what you crave. Why would we want water -like
out of the toilet.
BRAWNDO has electrolytes. It's what power companies crave.
and it's an 88 magnum. it shoots through schools.
|10.3.07 @ 2:29PM|#
Pro Libertate: You live in Florida, you know that Pinellas is actually bone dry. Your existence is merely tolerated by your Pasco overlords.
|10.3.07 @ 2:46PM|#
Yes, watching Idiocracy has helped me to understand
your ravings, young VM. In any event, since we are co-bloggers,
I'll be sure to get you a stillsuit for the dry times ahead.
Lamar,
Gotcha covered--my brother lives in Pasco. Besides, Hillsborough
has some of its own water, too, and that's where I live.
|10.3.07 @ 3:08PM|#
ProLibs: You think I'm stupid? It was ME who bugged Tampa's desal plant.....ME I TELL YOU! Muaha-ha-ha-ha....
|10.3.07 @ 3:15PM|#
Lamar,
To reveal to you the true power of Hillsborough County, I
note for the record that when one is driving south of Pinellas on
the Sunshine Skyway--far, far from Tampa--one will see a sign on
the bridge. One that says "Hillsborough County." The very Bay
itself is ours! To drain and desalinate as we will! To pave over,
just like we did to Pinellas County!
[Maniacal laughter.]
|10.3.07 @ 3:27PM|#
Yeah, if you're not in Pinellas, I got no argument. If Florida
is the dick of the country, Pinellas county is certainly the dick
of Florida, both metaphorically and in political geographical
appearance. Of course, feel free to make the argument that Pinellas
is the undiscarded afterbirth of Tampa.......
How did that sign get all the way out there? Did some
county worker go fishin' on the Skyway and accidentally get some
work done?
|10.3.07 @ 3:33PM|#
Lamar,
Agreed.
As for Hillsborough's control of the channel, I think it has
something to do with the port. It could very well date back to when
the whole Bay Area was all a giant
county called Hillsborough. Pinellas wasn't spun off until the
19-teens, I think.
|10.3.07 @ 3:57PM|#
Libs and Demos have hated and attempted to undermine the military for decades. What a farce that they now call out one of the media's staunchest supporters of the military. He donates millions to families, loads his show with morale boosting comments, praises parents and individual troops. Good news, it is obvious to all who wish to see that it is trumped up charge. How can any sane person compare the obvious "Betray Us" with what Rush had to say?
|10.3.07 @ 4:05PM|#
How does opposing the Iraq war make a soldier a phony soldier? Military personnel have a right to their own opinions.
|10.3.07 @ 4:18PM|#
"Bush's rhetoric about the importance(of winning in Iraq) does
not match the level of resources he is applying."
Iraq has a population of 25 million. Some military experts believe
that there needs to be 20 troops per each 1000 inhabitants working
for 5 to 8 years to bring stability. This would require a force of
500,000.
|10.3.07 @ 4:45PM|#
Limbaugh shot his mouth off, got caught dead to rights, and
has been backpedaling furiously for a few days now.
Limbaugh is talk show host....the US senate is in midst of a War
and has an unbalanced budget 8 years running....lets get our
fucking priorities straight here.
Using the the senate floor for this crap is like assigning General
Eisenhower hall duty at an elementary school during the Battle of
the Bulge.
|10.3.07 @ 4:56PM|#
I agree with you Corning, and I assume you would include John Cornyn's moveon.org complaint.
|10.3.07 @ 5:04PM|#
...I assume you would include John Cornyn's moveon.org
complaint
You mean the one where there was an actual resolution, debate, and
a vote and everything? You mean the one that passed 72-25?
|10.3.07 @ 7:52PM|#
Yep, de stijl, that's the one. Either Congress passing judgment on political speech is OK or it isn't. It's kind of neat how people can say it's a disgrace unless it's their pony being pummelled by the media.
Gilbert Martin|10.4.07 @ 1:11AM|#
"Limbaugh shot his mouth off, got caught dead to rights, and has
been backpedaling furiously for a few days now."
Bullshit.
The whole thing was ginned up by Media Matters which is a front
group for Hillary Clinton.
Limbaugh was talking about the fake soldiers that had been the
subject of an ABC news piece. He had mentioned it on his show the
day before the call took place that the left wing blowhards are
squawking about and he referenced it again just after he finished
talking to that caller.
|10.4.07 @ 10:07AM|#
Gilbert Martin: Perhaps I'd give the fatass some leeway if he
did the same for others. He was talking about the phony soldiers
the left loves to embrace. Given that the vast majority of anti-war
soldiers embraced by the left are actual soldiers with clean
records, Limbaugh has to be taken at his word. He didn't bother to
make the distinction. He referenced a phony soldier afterwards, and
implied that all anti-war soldiers are like that MacBeth douche,
which is even worse.
You can't really expect anybody to give Limbaugh the benefit of the
doubt when he has made a career on NOT giving the benefit of the
doubt to anybody on the left. I don't recall Limbaugh giving John
Kerry the benefit of the doubt when he said stupid people get sent
to Iraq.
I already pointed out Media Matters' worthless reporting. Their
idiocy does not make Limbaugh righteous, not even by
comparison.
|10.4.07 @ 10:55AM|#
I'm certainly no admirer of Rush or O'Reily, but these attacks by Media Matters has Hillary's fingerprints all over them (she claims to have been involved in the creation of the organization). I believe she's trying to bring down Rush and O'Reily the same way she did Imus. She may have bit off more than she can chew. Rush and O'Reily have a lot of fanatically devoted fans. She claims she can pick up votes from the Republicans. Not this way! Republicans will be all the more determined to come to the polls enmasse to keep the hyena out of the White House.
|10.4.07 @ 11:29AM|#
Hillary being slimy doesn't make me like Limbaugh....and let's be fair, Media Matters did not tell Limbaugh to call soldiers phony. They just picked it up and tried to make it sound worse than it was.
|10.4.07 @ 11:43AM|#
"Hillary being slimy doesn't make me like Limbaugh"
I don't like either of the bastards, but Limbaugh and MoveOn.com
both have a right to free speech even if you don't like what they
have to say. I'm sure you agree, Lamar.
Gilbert Martin|10.4.07 @ 4:55PM|#
" Limbaugh has to be taken at his word. He didn't bother to make
the distinction."
That wasn't "his word" - it was other people's characterization of
his words taken out of context. He referenced the phony soldier
story almost immediately after he finished talking to that caller -
so that is the context of his remarks.
|10.4.07 @ 5:09PM|#
"He referenced the phony soldier story almost immediately
after he finished talking to that caller - so that is the context
of his remarks."
By your own admission: he didn't reference the phony soldier bit
immediately after NOR during his talk with the caller. You're
saying that we're supposed to put Rush's comments in some sort of
context from what he said later in his show.
If nobody cared that John Kerry really didn't mean that stupid
people get sent to Iraq (Rush was first to jump on him), why am I
going to care that Rush tried to reference something later in his
show to exculpate himself?
Do you see how phony you are? If context matters, it matters for
both Rush Limbaugh and John Kerry.
We all know that Rush Limbaugh thinks anti-war soldiers are
traitors, so why bother to bring in this MacBeth character as a
shield?
Gilbert Martin|10.4.07 @ 10:29PM|#
Lamar, I really don't care whether YOU happen to believe in the
context of it or not.
That was the context of it - perioed.
He mentioned the phony soldiers story - that was literally called
that by ABC news - on his show the day BEFORE the call that you are
talking about. Then after the call he said mentioned it again in
reference to his remarks to the caller.
The funniest thing about this is that it ins't going to hurt
Limbaugh at all. He won't lose any audience share or sponsers or
radio stations.
All it will do is throw the spotlight on phony Media Matters and
the fact that a Democrat front group is masquerading as a "media
watchdog group" - and has a tax-exempt status to boot.
|10.5.07 @ 9:26AM|#
You can dress the context up all you want. The vast majority of
anti-war soldiers embraced by the left are real soldiers. Rush
called the soldiers embraced by the left phony. Just because he
later gave an example doesn't mean that he wasn't calling them all
phony.
I've already figured this out. You're the kind of person that
believes only right wing, shit spewing assholes deserve the benefit
of context. You never once addressed the John Kerry thing, because
you jumped on Kerry calling him anti-soldier and all that. Now the
same thing happens to one of your fat f*ckers and its all about
context this, and no-Rush-really-meant that. Boo hoo.
Rush called anti-war soldiers embraced by the left phony. One
scrawny MacBeth doesn't change what Rush said. He could have been
crystal clear, but he wanted to make the implication that they were
all phony, then hide behind his supposed clarification. Rush could
have simply said that there are many fine anti-war soldiers, but he
didn't, so f*ck him. He deserves to have his words taken at face
value.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245