Anti-war veterans target Limbaugh

[stephanie]

Hummm..I wonder where they are getting all their money from?? they've got a real "FAKE" hard on for Rush...:laugh2:

By Klaus Marre
October 02, 2007
An anti-war group consisting of veterans from the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan is launching an ad Tuesday that attacks popular conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh.


The group, VoteVets.org, is spending $60,000 on the ad, which will air on Fox News and CNN. In addition, a radio version of the ad will run during Limbaugh’s show in Washington, D.C., and Palm Beach, Fla., the group said.

At issue is Limbaugh’s controversial “phony soldiers” remark that was made during a broadcast last week in response to a caller who criticized soldiers who spoke out against the war in Iraq. While Limbaugh says his remark is directed at people pretending to have a service record and seeking the limelight, Democrats have taken the statement as an insult to the troops who are serving but do not support the war and called the remark “hateful” and “unpatriotic.”

read the rest at..
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/anti-war-veterans-target-limbaugh-2007-10-02.html

[retiredman]

Hummm..I wonder where they are getting all their money from?? they've got a real "FAKE" hard on for Rush...:laugh2:

I used to wonder that exact same thing about the SBVT crowd.

funny, that.

[Monkeybone]

just stirring up shit for ppl that don't have the full story.

couldn't that money be better spent helping their fellow Vets/fmailies that need it?

[stephanie]

I used to wonder that exact same thing about the SBVT crowd.

funny, that.

The SBVT weren't going after a Radio host..:poke:

[AFbombloader]

Did anyone actually listen to the coment or read it? Taken out of context, 100%.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_092807/content/01125106.guest.html

I am not a Rush Baby, but these attacks are horrible.


AF:salute:

[stephanie]

Media Matters and the Democrats know exactly what their doing..
They are targeting anyone who speaks out against them..

People need to understand this..:salute:

[gabosaurus]

So the veterans who oppose the war are not as worthwhile and Holy as the vets who agree with the war?
And I suppose that no one is entitled to disagree with Limbaugh.
More hot air from the usual suspects.

[stephanie]

So the veterans who oppose the war are not as worthwhile and Holy as the vets who agree with the war?
And I suppose that no one is entitled to disagree with Limbaugh.
More hot air from the usual suspects.

Any vet and person is free to speak against Rush Limbaugh...if it is the TRUTH, and not some made up outrage perpetrated by Media Matters and the Democrats...

:salute:

[gabosaurus]

When was the last time Limbaugh ever told you the truth?
And just because you don't think it is the truth doesn't mean it is not.

[stephanie]

When was the last time Limbaugh ever told you the truth?
And just because you don't think it is the truth doesn't mean it is not.

And just because you say he doesn't tell the truth..doesn't make it so.:poke:

[gabosaurus]

What about the Limbaugh statement is not the truth? He dissed service people and now is trying to back out of it.

[stephanie]

What about the Limbaugh statement is not the truth? He dissed service people and now is trying to back out of it.

Oh never mind...read all the post it about over the last couple of days...Then maybe you'll get the drift of what we're talking about...:cheers2:

[retiredman]

the SBVT were trying to silence a voice.

[jimnyc]

What about the Limbaugh statement is not the truth? He dissed service people and now is trying to back out of it.

Those of us with intelligence knew exactly what he was discussing, "phony soldiers", those who make false claims about their service to our country. I'm sorry it's difficult for you to grasp.

[manu1959]

What about the Limbaugh statement is not the truth? He dissed service people and now is trying to back out of it.

he dissed liars......they were never in the service....

[Trigg]

So the veterans who oppose the war are not as worthwhile and Holy as the vets who agree with the war?
And I suppose that no one is entitled to disagree with Limbaugh.
More hot air from the usual suspects.

I know you won't bother to actually read the post AFbombloader posted. Here is the part regarding the "fake soldier" that Rush was talking about and was taken out of context to mean ALL soldiers against the war.


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

[BoogyMan]

So the veterans who oppose the war are not as worthwhile and Holy as the vets who agree with the war?
And I suppose that no one is entitled to disagree with Limbaugh.
More hot air from the usual suspects.

You haven't even listened to or read the transcript of the comments he made have you gabo? Rush was condemning Jesse MacBeth for his lies and deception and his words have been twisted by the likes of Harry Reid who knows that individuals like yourself who don't do any independent thought will pick up the falsehood and run with it if it is repeated enough.

[manu1959]

You haven't even listened to or read the transcript of the comments he made have you gabo? Rush was condemning Jesse MacBeth for his lies and deception and his words have been twisted by the likes of Harry Reid who knows that individuals like yourself who don't do any independent thought will pick up the falsehood and run with it if it is repeated enough.

now now now don't let facts get in the way of a good tar and feathering.....

[stephanie]

the SBVT were trying to silence a voice.
:slap:
Jon Cary was running for President of the United States..And as we have seen with President Bush...Anything goes when you're running for President...

Rush Limbaugh is just a lowly radio commentator..

[bullypulpit]

Hummm..I wonder where they are getting all their money from?? they've got a real "FAKE" hard on for Rush...:laugh2:

By Klaus Marre
October 02, 2007
An anti-war group consisting of veterans from the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan is launching an ad Tuesday that attacks popular conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh.


The group, VoteVets.org, is spending $60,000 on the ad, which will air on Fox News and CNN. In addition, a radio version of the ad will run during Limbaugh’s show in Washington, D.C., and Palm Beach, Fla., the group said.

At issue is Limbaugh’s controversial “phony soldiers” remark that was made during a broadcast last week in response to a caller who criticized soldiers who spoke out against the war in Iraq. While Limbaugh says his remark is directed at people pretending to have a service record and seeking the limelight, Democrats have taken the statement as an insult to the troops who are serving but do not support the war and called the remark “hateful” and “unpatriotic.”

read the rest at..
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/anti-war-veterans-target-limbaugh-2007-10-02.html

They get their money from contributors like me. As for Limbaugh, like O'Reilly, he can't stand the light of scrutiny when he is caught in, and taken to task for, his petty, mean-spirited, wrong-headed and just plain stupid remarks. It seems they don't like it when they're held to the same standard as they hold those who disagree with them.

[retiredman]

:slap:
Jon Cary was running for President of the United States..And as we have seen with President Bush...Anything goes when you're running for President...

Rush Limbaugh is just a lowly radio commentator..

Rush "OXY-moron" Limbaugh is an influential voice for the right wing of the right wing of the republican party who inflames his listeners. Anything goes when you live in a glass house.

p.s. did you ever wonder why he fought so hard to avoid being sent "up river to the big house" for being a drug abuser? can you spell H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E?

[bullypulpit]

The SBVT weren't going after a Radio host..:poke:

No, they were going after a decorated Vietnam vet who happened to be running for president. As for the truth, none of them actually served with Kerry and their claims have been debunked by Kerry's ship-mates and Navy records

Follow the link:

<center><a href=http://www.factcheck.org/article231.html>Republican-funded Group Attacks Kerry's War Record</a></center>

[Gaffer]

No, they were going after a decorated Vietnam vet who happened to be running for president. As for the truth, none of them actually served with Kerry and their claims have been debunked by Kerry's ship-mates and Navy records

Follow the link:

<center><a href=http://www.factcheck.org/article231.html>Republican-funded Group Attacks Kerry's War Record</a></center>

Don't need to follow the link. Your as full of shit as kerry.

[retiredman]

Don't need to follow the link. Your as full of shit as kerry.

true to form, gaffer never lets facts get in the way of his beliefs! :lol:

[bullypulpit]

Don't need to follow the link. Your as full of shit as kerry.

Have any evidence to support your assertion? Didn't think so. :fu:

Go <a href=http://mediamatters.org/items/200709280010>HERE</a> for a FULL transcript of Limaugh's exchange with a caller.

[jimnyc]

true to form, gaffer never lets facts get in the way of his beliefs! :lol:

Coming from someone who just last night refused to admit he was wrong when proven so? Like I said, integrity, find some, then maybe you won't be just taken as a joke.

[jimnyc]

Have any evidence to support your assertion? Didn't think so. :fu:

Go HERE (http://mediamatters.org/items/200709280010) for a FULL transcript of Limaugh's exchange with a caller.

Read it from that shit site as well as many others. Quite clear he was referring to the soldiers who make "claims" about service they never saw, AKA Jesse MacBeth.

[Sir Evil]

Coming from someone who just last night refused to admit he was wrong when proven so? Like I said, integrity, find some, then maybe you won't be just taken as a joke.

Umm, always seen as a joke.

[retiredman]

Coming from someone who just last night refused to admit he was wrong when proven so? Like I said, integrity, find some, then maybe you won't be just taken as a joke.

I say again...I don't think you proved anything. You proved that flag officers do not airing their dirty laundry in public.

I have no proof that Fallon did not call Petraeus a demeaning name, and his statement that they had an acceptable working relationship is hardly a fervent retraction.

and I ask you again...have you ever been around flag officers?

[jimnyc]

I say again...I don't think you proved anything. You proved that flag officers do not airing their dirty laundry in public.

I have no proof that Fallon did not call Petraeus a demeaning name, and his statement that they had an acceptable working relationship is hardly a fervent retraction.

and I ask you again...have you ever been around flag officers?

I don't need have been around them to be able to comprehend what I read. The bottom line is that HE DID deny it, and yet you still continue your little charade. Like I said, let us know when you find some integrity. You throw jabs at someone who is sharing with the board that he has cancer, then you refuse to admit you were mistaken like you said you would if you were given proof. You have the intellectual honesty and integrity of a hard boiled egg.

[Sir Evil]

I don't need have been around them to be able to comprehend what I read. The bottom line is that HE DID deny it, and yet you still continue your little charade. Like I said, let us know when you find some integrity. You throw jabs at someone who is sharing with the board that he has cancer, then you refuse to admit you were mistaken like you said you would if you were given proof. You have the intellectual honesty and integrity of a hard boiled egg.

Don't count on too much, already working his way out the door because wifey is watching. Oh, and why give a hard boiled egg such a bad name?

[retiredman]

and as I have said before, I do not consider Fallon's half hearted statement as proof that he did not, at one time, have real issues with Petraeus and express those issues. The fact that he admitted that there had been some issues in the past is all the wiggle room he needed.

[jimnyc]

Whatever you say, lying egg boy!

[retiredman]

Whatever you say, lying egg boy!

"lyin' egg boy"

who writes your material?:laugh2:

[Sir Evil]

"lyin' egg boy"

who writes your material?:laugh2:

I'm certain it's his own words, just another thing you really lack, well to the point of debate anyway.

[retiredman]

I'm certain it's his own words, just another thing you really lack, well to the point of debate anyway.

I always write my own stuff.

I have never thought to write "lyin' egg boy"

If you want to give that cute phrase a prize, go for it, brown noser!:laugh2:

[Sir Evil]

I always write my own stuff.

I have never thought to write "lyin' egg boy"

If you want to give that cute phrase a prize, go for it, brown noser!:laugh2:

:laugh2:

very original, I guess you do write your own stuff. :clap:

now can you convert that to honest debate, without using ever other link that was quoted by every other right hating dingbat?...... what a shit brick!

[retiredman]

the last sentence is incomprehensible. try typing with both hands.

[Sir Evil]

the last sentence is incomprehensible. try typing with both hands.

Standby, I need to get the other hand out of your wifes tush... :D

[retiredman]

Standby, I need to get the other hand out of your wifes tush... :D

my wife would break your hand without batting an eye.

I just read her your reply and she is STILL laughing.:laugh2:

[Sir Evil]

my wife would break your hand without batting an eye.

I just read her your reply and she is STILL laughing.:laugh2:

I don't doubt that, someone has to be the man in that family. God knows that I gave you that opportunity to break any part of but you offered to take me to lunch instead.

[retiredman]

I don't doubt that, someone has to be the man in that family. God knows that I gave you that opportunity to break any part of but you offered to take me to lunch instead.

you don't LIKE lunch?

what's the matter with you?

you need to dial back the aggression, big boy.

bad for your heart.

[Sir Evil]

you don't LIKE lunch?

what's the matter with you?

you need to dial back the aggression, big boy.

bad for your heart.

:laugh2:

no agression at all.

[retiredman]

:laugh2:

no agression at all.

what? you turn down lunch and prefer to go man to man fisticuffs and you say that is not aggession?

you need to relax, pal.

[Sir Evil]

what? you turn down lunch and prefer to go man to man fisticuffs and you say that is not aggession?

you need to relax, pal.

:laugh2::laugh2:

thats not agression, it's more like a hobby for me. nothing like a good workout to keep the spirits.

[avatar4321]

So the veterans who oppose the war are not as worthwhile and Holy as the vets who agree with the war?
And I suppose that no one is entitled to disagree with Limbaugh.
More hot air from the usual suspects.

Rush has already said he doesnt have a problem with these guys.

The problem he has is with the people who pretend to be veterans to attack the war effort. Much like he said on his radio show.

But then that doesnt sound as scandalous as what media matters is trying to portray so the left ignores it.

Youd think if Limbaugh was as bad as the left claims, they would find something far more credible to attack him on.

[avatar4321]

They get their money from contributors like me. As for Limbaugh, like O'Reilly, he can't stand the light of scrutiny when he is caught in, and taken to task for, his petty, mean-spirited, wrong-headed and just plain stupid remarks. It seems they don't like it when they're held to the same standard as they hold those who disagree with them.

The only people not standing the scrutiny are media matters and the stupid Senators who are attacking Limbaugh for a position he never held.

Come on Bully. The transcript isnt that difficult to listen to or read. This attack against Rush is baseless. Unless you think its somehow unpatriotic to attack people who pretend to be soldiers to attack the troops in harms way.

[avatar4321]

Have any evidence to support your assertion? Didn't think so. :fu:

Go <a href=http://mediamatters.org/items/200709280010>HERE</a> for a FULL transcript of Limaugh's exchange with a caller.

naturally. you like to the site that does not put up the full transcript and then claims that the full transcript, which is available to everyone is somehow an addendum.

[actsnoblemartin]

That is an excellent point. I do not like any of the 527's. Im not a fan of character assasins, its why we dont have the best and brightest in politics today.


I used to wonder that exact same thing about the SBVT crowd.

funny, that.

[actsnoblemartin]

I am not a limbaugh fan.

I am not a fan of the fact that many who were opposed to the war, from before to the first two years of it, were silenced, fired, not listened to, and treated in other disrespectful ways.

We either let everybody have their opinion, and freely express it, or we dont. No half ass here.

We have to be fair, thats the bottom line


So the veterans who oppose the war are not as worthwhile and Holy as the vets who agree with the war?
And I suppose that no one is entitled to disagree with Limbaugh.
More hot air from the usual suspects.

[bullypulpit]

The only people not standing the scrutiny are media matters and the stupid Senators who are attacking Limbaugh for a position he never held.

Come on Bully. The transcript isnt that difficult to listen to or read. This attack against Rush is baseless. Unless you think its somehow unpatriotic to attack people who pretend to be soldiers to attack the troops in harms way.

I read the transcript, and listented to the tape, having posted links to them elsewhere. Limbaugh and O'Reilly, to turn a phrase, can dish it out, but they can't take it.

[musicman]

I read the transcript, and listented to the tape, having posted links to them elsewhere. Limbaugh and O'Reilly, to turn a phrase, can dish it out, but they can't take it.

You're invested in this bullshit all the way up to your eyeballs, aren't you, Bully? That's too bad, because you're going to lose.


...As for Limbaugh, like O'Reilly, he can't stand the light of scrutiny when he is caught in, and taken to task for, his petty, mean-spirited, wrong-headed and just plain stupid remarks. It seems they don't like it when they're held to the same standard as they hold those who disagree with them.

That's a lie, Bully, and you know it. The same standards aren't BEING applied. This is a trumped-up, bullshit deflection - the specialty of the American left.


No, they were going after a decorated Vietnam vet who happened to be running for president. As for the truth, none of them actually served with Kerry and their claims have been debunked by Kerry's ship-mates and Navy records

Follow the link:

Republican-funded Group Attacks Kerry's War Record

Another lie, and if you don't know it, you should. Factcheck.org sacrificed its most valuable asset - its credibility - over this bullshit three years ago. Does the name, "Kranich", mean anything to you? I can't believe you even posted this.


Have any evidence to support your assertion? Didn't think so.

Go HERE for a FULL transcript of Limaugh's exchange with a caller.

Went THERE, and I'm glad I did. THIS is the left's "evidence"???!!! Anther lie, Bully - the trifecta! Anyone who's not a drooling retard or an agenda-driven liar can see that Limbaugh was expressing incredulity at the caller's claim that he was a REPUBLICAN. This is just pathetic.

The left have come to realize how badly they stepped on their dicks with the MoveOn ad. They're in a blind panic. ANYTHING that deflects attention from the real issue is more desirable than the truth - no matter how transparently ridiculous. If people are talking about Rush, good or bad, they're NOT talking about MoveOn - and that's the way it has to be, for the left. Attacking Gen. Petraeus was a colossal blunder; they'll say or do ANYTHING to bury it.

And, of course, there you are, Bully - churning it out like a dutiful little soldier ant. Keep up the good work. You convict them more damningly with every keystroke.

[AFbombloader]

Have any evidence to support your assertion? Didn't think so. :fu:

Go <a href=http://mediamatters.org/items/200709280010>HERE</a> for a FULL transcript of Limaugh's exchange with a caller.

I'm sorry, but that is not the full transcript. Media Matters is the source for all of this. They took his statement and did not look at the entire thing and made an issue about it. The link you gave doesn't go back far enough in the conversation Rush was having with his called. Look at my first post and you will see a link to the entire transcript.


AF:salute:

[truthmatters]

Did anyone actually listen to the coment or read it? Taken out of context, 100%.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_092807/content/01125106.guest.html

I am not a Rush Baby, but these attacks are horrible.


AF:salute:



Rush edited the tape to make it seem like he was not refering to the preivios caller. When you listen to the UNedited tape it is clear to any fair minded person he was refering to the the previous caller. ASK yourself WHY Rush edited the tape if he is so innnocent?

[Nukeman]

I'm sorry, but that is not the full transcript. Media Matters is the source for all of this. They took his statement and did not look at the entire thing and made an issue about it. The link you gave doesn't go back far enough in the conversation Rush was having with his called. Look at my first post and you will see a link to the entire transcript.


AF:salute:AF you dont actually expect Bully to go and get completely infromed do you! If he was than he might have to change his mind.

Anyone with half a brain know damn good and well exactly what Rush was talking about. I personally dont listen to Rush but I picked up on this titd bit right away.

[Nukeman]

Rush edited the tape to make it seem like he was not refering to the preivios caller. When you listen to the UNedited tape it is clear to any fair minded person he was refering to the the previous caller. ASK yourself WHY Rush edited the tape if he is so innnocent?

And just exaclty where did YOU get this UNEDITED tape.

How do you know your uneditted version is real or for that matter the "truth".

[Nukeman]

Rush edited the tape to make it seem like he was not refering to the preivios caller. When you listen to the UNedited tape it is clear to any fair minded person he was refering to the the previous caller. ASK yourself WHY Rush edited the tape if he is so innnocent?

Got a link to back this up???


:link::link::link::link:

[truthmatters]

Media matters recorded it off the air from the original broadcast. This is what media matter does. They record what is said and when they find an issue they write about it. Then when the people responsible try to refute what was said MM has a tape so if anyone tries something funny (like Rush did) people will know.



http://tinyurl.com/32fhm6
here is a link to the unedited tape

[Gunny]

Media matters recorded it off the air from the original broadcast. This is what media matter does. They record what is said and when they find an issue they write about it. Then when the people responsible try to refute what was said MM has a tape so if anyone tries something funny (like Rush did) people will know.



http://tinyurl.com/32fhm6
here is a link to the unedited tape

Rush didn't try anything funny. He was quoted out of context to stir up shit. Period.

[Nukeman]

Media matters recorded it off the air from the original broadcast. This is what media matter does. They record what is said and when they find an issue they write about it. Then when the people responsible try to refute what was said MM has a tape so if anyone tries something funny (like Rush did) people will know.



http://tinyurl.com/32fhm6
here is a link to the unedited tape

Gee I read the whole transcript and I dont see where he is refering to this particular caller. I do see the caller2 stating that the media needs to talk to "real soldiers" and rush sates you mean "phony soldiers" in response to his statement.

Last time I checked the oppisite of real is fake (phony)

http://mediamatters.org/items/200709270010


From the September 26 broadcast of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:

LIMBAUGH: Mike in Chicago, welcome to the EIB Network. Hello.

CALLER 1: Hi Rush, how you doing today?

LIMBAUGH: I'm fine sir, thank you.

CALLER 1: Good. Why is it that you always just accuse the Democrats of being against the war and suggest that there are absolutely no Republicans that could possibly be against the war?

LIMBAUGH: Well, who are these Republicans? I can think of Chuck Hagel, and I can think of Gordon Smith, two Republican senators, but they don't want to lose the war like the Democrats do. I can't think of -- who are the Republicans in the anti-war movement?

CALLER 1: I'm just -- I'm not talking about the senators. I'm talking about the general public -- like you accuse the public of all the Democrats of being, you know, wanting to lose, but --

LIMBAUGH: Oh, come on! Here we go again. I uttered a truth, and you can't handle it, so you gotta call here and change the subject. How come I'm not also hitting Republicans? I don't know a single Republican or conservative, Mike, who wants to pull out of Iraq in defeat. The Democrats have made the last four years about that specifically.

CALLER 1: Well, I am a Republican, and I've listened to you for a long time, and you're right on a lot of things, but I do believe that we should pull out of Iraq. I don't think it's winnable. And I'm not a Democrat, but I just -- sometimes you've got to cut the losses.

LIMBAUGH: Well, you -- you --

CALLER 1: I mean, sometimes you really gotta know when you're wrong.

LIMBAUGH: Well, yeah, you do. I'm not wrong on this. The worst thing that can happen is losing this, flying out of there, waving the white flag. Do you have --

CALLER 1: Oh, I'm not saying that. I'm not saying anything like that, but, you know --

LIMBAUGH: Well, of course you are.

CALLER 1: No, I'm not.

LIMBAUGH: Bill, the truth is -- the truth is the truth, Mike.

CALLER 1: We did what we were supposed to do, OK. We got rid of Saddam Hussein. We got rid of a lot of the terrorists. Let them run their country --

LIMBAUGH: Oh, good lord! Good lord.

[...]

CALLER 1: How long is it gonna -- how long do you think we're going to have to be there for them to take care of that?

LIMBAUGH: Mike --

CALLER 1: How long -- you know -- what is it?

LIMBAUGH: Mike --

CALLER 1: What is it?

LIMBAUGH: Mike, you can't possibly be a Republican.

CALLER 1: I am.

LIMBAUGH: You are -- you are --

CALLER 1: I am definitely a Republican.

LIMBAUGH: You can't be a Republican. You are --

CALLER 1: Oh, I am definitely a Republican.

LIMBAUGH: You are tarnishing the reputation, 'cause you sound just like a Democrat.

CALLER 1: No, but --

LIMBAUGH: The answer to your question --

CALLER 1: -- seriously, how long do we have to stay there --

LIMBAUGH: As long as it takes!

CALLER 1: -- to win it? How long?

LIMBAUGH: As long as it takes! It is very serious.

CALLER 1: And that is what?

LIMBAUGH: This is the United States of America at war with Islamofascists. We stay as long -- just like your job. You do everything you have to do, whatever it takes to get it done, if you take it seriously.

CALLER 1: So then you say we need to stay there forever --

LIMBAUGH: I -- it won't --

CALLER 1: -- because that's what it'll take.

LIMBAUGH: No, Bill, or Mike -- I'm sorry. I'm confusing you with the guy from Texas.

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

LIMBAUGH: Yeah. Yeah.

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

LIMBAUGH: Right. Right. Right, I know.

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

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

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

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

[...]

LIMBAUGH: Another Mike, this one in Olympia, Washington. Welcome to the EIB Network. Hello.

CALLER 2: Hi Rush, thanks for taking my call.

LIMBAUGH: You bet.

CALLER 2: I have a retort to Mike in Chicago, because I am a serving American military, in the Army. I've been serving for 14 years, very proudly.

LIMBAUGH: Thank you, sir.

CALLER 2: And, you know, I'm one of the few that joined the Army to serve my country, I'm proud to say, not for the money or anything like that. What I would like to retort to is that, if we pull -- what these people don't understand is if we pull out of Iraq right now, which is about impossible because of all the stuff that's over there, it'd take us at least a year to pull everything back out of Iraq, then Iraq itself would collapse, and we'd have to go right back over there within a year or so. And --

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

CALLER 2: Yeah, and, you know what --

LIMBAUGH: "Save the -- keep the troops safe" or whatever. I -- it's not possible, intellectually, to follow these people.

CALLER 2: No, it's not, and what's really funny is, they never talk to real soldiers. They like to pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and talk to the media.

LIMBAUGH: The phony soldiers.

CALLER 2: The phony soldiers. If you talk to a real soldier, they are proud to serve. They want to be over in Iraq. They understand their sacrifice, and they're willing to sacrifice for their country.

LIMBAUGH: They joined to be in Iraq. They joined --

CALLER 2: A lot of them -- the new kids, yeah.

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

CALLER 2: Exactly, sir.

[Gaffer]

Have any evidence to support your assertion? Didn't think so. :fu:

Go <a href=http://mediamatters.org/items/200709280010>HERE</a> for a FULL transcript of Limaugh's exchange with a caller.

You want links to you and kerry being full of shit?

[Gaffer]

I'm sorry, but that is not the full transcript. Media Matters is the source for all of this. They took his statement and did not look at the entire thing and made an issue about it. The link you gave doesn't go back far enough in the conversation Rush was having with his called. Look at my first post and you will see a link to the entire transcript.


AF:salute:

They looked at it very carefully. Then they carefully edited it to say what they wanted it to say. They are professional smear merchants and don't do anything that isn't carefully planned out.

[Monkeybone]

that was my first thought about the transcripts..who is to say that they didn't edit it?

[avatar4321]

Rush edited the tape to make it seem like he was not refering to the preivios caller. When you listen to the UNedited tape it is clear to any fair minded person he was refering to the the previous caller. ASK yourself WHY Rush edited the tape if he is so innnocent?

Probably because there were about a minute and a half of dialogue with the caller about weapons of mass destruction which was completely irrelevant to the discussion.

The real question is why does Media matters have to edit MORE to get their point across? ive heard the unedited tape. And its pretty damn obvious what Rush is talking about. He is talking about people who pretend to be soldiers to attack the troops. Like Jesse.

Anyone with any amount of intellectual honesty admits it. That's why there isnt an issue when Rush edits the irrelevant WMD discussion out of the text and focuses specifically on what he was saying about phoney soldiers who pretend to be soldiers in order to attack them.

But then you guys dont have a problem with that obviously. Because it doesnt matter how much the truth gets destroyed as long as you can attack the President and this war.

[avatar4321]

that was my first thought about the transcripts..who is to say that they didn't edit it?

The fact that the transcipts and audio of the entire text is clearly available for anyone and they dont match up with Media matters is obviously to anyone who bothers to actually look at it. Media matters specifically edited out important parts of the conversation. And its completely dishonest for anyone to claim otherwise when we have the full text to look at.

[MtnBiker]

Media Matters is agenda driven, what they present is a baised point of view. Hillary help start Media Matters.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?t=7548