Rush Limbaugh is being accused by the left for being unsupportive of our troops in the Middle East.

This is the most absurd thing I have ever heard. Even if you don't like Rush (and I know many people don't), you have to admit that it is very unlikely that he would not support the troops.

The only explanations I can think of are:

1. The liberals in Congress have sold their souls to mediamatters.org, moveon.org and the other far left organizations.

2. This is an attempt to change the subject from the General Petraeus add that was a setback to the left because of the harshness of the attack on him.

3. This is a preliminary attempt to show the need for the "Fairness Doctrine" to be reinstated.

Either way, it is dangerous when members of Congress and the media take talking points from a smear organization like mediamatters.org and treat it as fact.

What will ahppen next year when the elections are in full swing? What will be reported then? How will we know what the truth is if we can't trust the media?

What really stinks is that these 'smear' campaigns have been happening since the 1800's, it's just that television and the internet make it easier to spread the lies. I just hate that our elected (or soon-to-be elected) officials and their campaign managers are more worried about making the other fellow (or lady) look bad, as opposed to just stating what they actually want to do with the position they are campaigning for.

Politician 1: "Politician 2 is a horrible person."

Politician 2: "Politician 1 is a liar and a scoundrel."

Reporter: "Yes, but what are your plans for healthcare?"

Politician 1: "Politician 2 would have you believe that he cares about your health, but he doesn't, as represented by this photo of him smoking in front of a hospital. Disgraceful!"

Politician 2: "Yes well, as you can hear in this audio tape, Politician 1 clearly doesn't find healthcare is the number 1 priority in our nation. That clearly shows that he wishes the poor people of America would die of their ailments."

Reporter: "You've heard it here, Politician 2 is a smoking liar, and Politician 1 hates impoverished people."

-and that is how our campaign & election process works...wow!

I wish that the scenario that you describe was the serious issue.

What worries me is...

Politician 1: "Politician 2 is a horrible person."

Politician 2: "President Bush lied."

Reporter: "Yes, but what are your plans for healthcare?"

Politician 1: "Politician 2 would have you believe that he cares about your health, but he doesn't, as represented by this photo of him smoking in front of a hospital. Disgraceful!"

Politician 2: "President Bush is a liar."

Reporter: "You've heard it here, President Bush is planning to reinstate the draft, oppress free speech, tap your phone calls, and torture innocent people. Did I mention that we are losing the war in Iraq and our soldiers are taking every opportunity to senselessly bomb, rape, and kill the innocent Iraqi people? Oh, I almost forgot that he is responsible for the .000008% increase to the average temperature of the earth which will cause the death and destruction of the American people and potentially the entire world"

First of all...if you actually thought that you could trust the media before, Canto, then nothing I say can help you. Accusing Rush of not supporting certain troops is not some huge bomb that is unheard of in the media these days. And like Vis said, dirty politics have been around for a long time.

Now on to the Rush topic....this is one I've had fun talking about for the past couple of days, but it's getting old. It's not that Rush isn't 'supporting the troops'...it's that he's calling out soldiers who don't support the administration or the occupation of Iraq and calling them "phonies."

I don't view this as an attempt by the left to smear Rush unfairly. But many pundits on the right seem to be blindly defending Rush, so it's turning it into a right vs. left controversy. To simply say that you think it's unlikely that Rush would say something like this isn't doing anyone any good. So, as I like to do, let's go to the transcripts.

Here are excerpts from the transcripts available on Rush's very own web site:
..........................
CALLER: No, it's not. And what's really funny is they never talk to real soldiers. They pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and spout to the media.

RUSH: The phony soldiers.

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

RUSH: They joined to be in Iraq.

CALLER: A lot of people.
..............................................
RUSH: 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.
.............................................

Granted, the caller instigated the topic, but it was Rush who said that the soldiers talking to the media "that come up out of the blue and spout to the media" are "phony soldiers." How Rush and his friends are denying he said this is beyond me. It's right there in black and white on his own web site.

Rush has also labeled others as phony soldiers:
"I was talking about a genuine phony soldier — and, by the way, Jesse MacBeth is not the only one. How about this guy Scott Thomas who was writing fraudulent, phony things in the New Republic about atrocities he saw that never happened? How about Jack Murtha blanketly accepting the notion that Marines in Haditha engaged in wanton murder of innocent children and civilians?"

Not to mention people who have come out to support Rush's comments, like radio host Melanie Morgan, saying things like:
"A number of, of, soldiers who are fake, or who are embellishers, or who are posers. Who go out there, or soldiers like Jon Soltz from VoteVet.org who go out there and use their far left, anti-America agenda. Political agenda to undermine the real mission of our troops, our heros who are out there."

Also of note is the fact that Rush compared a Purple Heart vet, who in a recent ad condemned Rush's comments, to a suicide bomber. The vet received his Purple Heart after injuries resulting in an actual suicide bomb. Rush said that this vet was embarrassed and betrayed by whoever pumped him full of the lies. It sounds like this should be a soldier respected for his service, but instead is attacked by Rush because he doesn't agree with Rush (and is capable of reading the transcript that so plainly shows Rush's comments against soldiers who are against the war). This link has the soldier's response:
Think Progress » Limbaugh Compares Purple Heart Recipient In Vote Vets Ad To A Suicide Bomber

Rush's "phony soldier" label was not only being applied to someone who said he was a soldier but didn't make it through boot camp, but it's being applied to members of our military in Iraq that disagree with the administration and its policies. It is entirely possible for a member of the military to serve proudly yet disagree with how things are being done, yet people like Rush are going to talk down to them and say that their sacrifice doesn't count like others? That coming from a guy who didn't serve.

People (on the right) talk about those who don't support the troops...those who want to "cut and run" because they're anti-American. Well this is what some of the troops are saying, so now they're anti-military and probably soon to be labeled anti-American. Is the military merely a tool for the Republicans? Only they can claim to have the support of our Armed Forces? I can understand why...they want to keep the monopoly on patriotism because no one would dare say they didn't support the troops.

__________________
http://www.myspace.com/onecubicleover

The accusations and finger pointing are still going on with respect to Rush Limbaugh and the "phony soldiers" comment that he made.

Yesterday, John Edwards' wife commented on the whole matter saying something to the effect that since Rush didn't serve in the military that he didn't have the right to make any comments.

That struck me as particularly odd, since neither she nor her husband served in the military.

What bugs me the most is that this is a news story at all. The fact that the news media is still talking about this several days later should be a cause for concern.

On the one hand you have a case where an individual made some comments that if taken out of context could be seen as a slam to our soldiers. At the very least there is a doubt as to the fundamental meaning of the comments. On the other hand you have a full page add paid for (at a considerable discount I might say) by moveon.org specifically and without a doubt slamming our troops and it received the same amount of coverage.

What does that say? To me, that says that there is a concerted effort by the media and groups like moveon.org and mediamatters.org to keep this story going in an attempt to marginalize Rush. If you repeat a story enough times, eventually it will become fact. History is written every day, what I can't believe is how history is rewritten every day. How the media can make Rush into a person that doesn't support the troops is a laughable misrepresentation of the truth. I don't care what your opinion of Rush is, you must know that he is an avid supporter of the troops.

You guys have to get over it. The bottom line is that there isn't a liberal media conspiracy to take anyone down.

Rush Limbaugh sewed his own seeds. He's a hater and it has been exposed.

Funny you should say that, because it actually might be a 'conspiracy' as you put it. I wouldn't use the word conspiracy, because it seems too strong a word. But you have to realize the truth that the "media" is not some free floating truth seeking authority. The "media" is corporations, and corporations like to make money. CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, newspapers, magazines....they are forms of entertainment for the sake of making money. Although their form of entertainment tends to be about reporting actual events, they also like to skew things, or even keep quiet about the parts that don't make their stories as 'entertaining'.

The news isn't required to report every aspect of a story, or even report entire stories at all. They report what they think will get them 1 (or more) of 3 things.
1. Advertisement dollars
2. Higher Ratings (which gives them more ad dollars)
3. Private contributions by wealthy people who pay to make sure the version of the news that gets reported is the version they want to see.

Who are those people? People like George Soros. He alone is one of the largest financial contributors to many liberal and left-wing organizations. He also funds a lot of liberal politicians' campaigns, and also contributes to liberal news organizations. He donates $15 - $35 million per year (that we know about) to organizations like moveon.org.

Yes there are media conspiracies...they just come in the form of selective reporting. How do they select what gets reported and how much coverage it gets? Money talks.

I bet there are a lot of people who would like us to "get over it" on a lot of issues. The left would love the right to just 'give up' and let them have control of the country and policies with no one to stand in their way. "get over it" doesn't sound like a good 'freedom of speech' sort of comment.

This forum is here for the purpose of debating issues and events, or whatever may be on our mind. "get over it" isn't how you solve a debate. You find the truth and the facts and then you debate your opinions on those facts.

Is there a reason why you couldn't post this in your other thread, Canto?

It kinda defeats the purpose of this forum if you make a thread, I respond to why I think you're wrong, and then you just create a new thread on the exact same topic and pretend like I didn't say it.

I'd like the moderator to move this to the old thread and hopefully Canto will respond to the quotes of what Rush said and attempt to explain how that doesn't come off as unsupportive of *certain* troops (AKA people that disagree with him and/or the administration). Of course there's an argument that can be made that Rush supports the troops in general. But he's picking out troops that have a different opinion (and yes it's more than one as you'll see in the transcript), and I'd like to make the case that saying you 'support the troops' without supporting all of the troops and all of their sacrifices isn't really 'supporting the troops.'

__________________
http://www.myspace.com/onecubicleover

tROCO is correct. Lets try to keep the Limbaugh "phony soldier" comments on this thread. Thanks !!!!

__________________
mailto:admin@politicalinformer.com

http://www.politicalinformer.com

I’m new to this forum thing, so sorry for not responding in the correct place. I think this is a great venue for having these discussions though. tROCO, I agree that this is getting old, but for the sake of defending myself and responding to you since you took the time to respond to my post, here I go.

I believe that Rush made a blanket statement that was taken out of context. Going by the transcripts that you posted alone, that is very evident. He made a direct reference to Macbeth, insinuating that that was the kind of “out of the blue” person he was referring to. If you Google “Jesse Macbeth”, you will notice that this was a guy who only made it through six weeks of basic training and then went on to tell the media (and they ran with the story) that he killed over two hundred innocent people in Iraq as an Army Ranger. You also mentioned Scott Thomas. He too was discredited and he eventually recanted his reports, despite what The New Republic posted. There is also some merit to the Jack Murtha reference. Senator Murtha, should have given the Marines and Soldiers the benefit of the doubt before proclaiming with certainty that they were guilty of war crimes. These are the “phony soldiers” Rush is referring to.

I think Melanie Morgan (I don’t even know who that is to tell you the truth) got it wrong when she grouped someone like Jon Soltz in what Rush said. I can’t say it with 100% certainty, but I bet Rush hasn’t said anything bad about his service.

I also don’t think he was saying that Mr. McGough was a “phony soldier”. His comparison to suicide bombers was misunderstood. The comparison is a little difficult to get if you don’t understand how the suicide bomber organizations obtain their suicide bombers. Many times they convince innocent people to load themselves up with a suicide vest and run into a crowd. The comparison was of the innocent person being used and sacrificed by the terrorists, not of the terrorist act itself. He was not accusing Mr. McGough of being a terrorist. He was accusing others of feeding him information (or lies as he put it) and letting him go in to a crowd. That is why Rush said “this vet was embarrassed and betrayed by whoever pumped him full of the lies”. I am not familiar with the story, but I wouldn’t doubt that some of what Mr. McGough was saying was not accurate and probably a bunch of anti-war talking points.

It is entirely possible for a member of the military to serve proudly yet disagree with how things are being done. Believe me, I know several of those people. Going out and making false accusations and claiming that the US is evil and that the soldiers are cold blooded killers and making up fake stories to prove this point is completely different. This is what Rush’s comments were about. War is ugly, and there have always been and always will be some people in a war that do bad things, but using “phony soldiers” to make a point that the US is bad does no one any good, regardless on which side you are on. Until the left stops propping these liars up and taking out full page adds questioning the integrity of our soldiers, I think the military will be a tool for the republicans. The left and its tactics are what is keeping the monopoly on the other side.

Thanks for your time.