Media Matters leads dishonest smear on Rush Limbaugh’s “phony soldiers” line Video added

posted at 12:45 pm on September 28, 2007 by Bryan

Earlier in the week, it was Bill O’Reilly. Now, it’s Rush Limbaugh in the crosshairs as the lefty Gestapo hunts another head. Like the O’Reilly smear, they’re wrong on the facts here too. But being wrong hasn’t yet gotten in the way of attempting a gotcha if it has a chance of destroying a prominent conservative’s career. Hawkins has the transcript of the exchange in question. Upon reading it, it’s obvious to me that Rush is talking about the actual phony soldiers that the left trots out periodically to criticize the war, as well as fabulists who are in the military but also make themselves useful to the anti-war left by becoming war critics.

People like Jesse MacBeth, who never went to Iraq but claimed to have participated in atrocities there.

People like Micah Wright.

And people like Scott Thomas Beauchamp.

These are all people touted by lefty war critics who turned out to be phony in one way or another. And every time conservatives debunk one of them, the leftists who supported them back quietly away to await the emergence of another one. They’re all looking for the next John Kerry to come along, smear the troops and drive up more anti-war sentiment among the voters. The Media Matters smear merchants never mention these actual phonies in their wholly dishonest diatribe, though, and the lefty blogs just regurgitate whatever Media Matters says about conservatives.

Update: Rush responds.

Update: Rick Moran disagrees with my position. He’s wrong. It’s more than obvious that Limbaugh was talking about the actual phonies like the ones I mentioned above, and not casting left-leaning troops as phonies themselves. Moran’s stance lacks factual context. Here’s the transcript: Rush specifically mentions MacBeth, the phony soldier, right after the call in question.

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.”

If you’re following Media Matters’ take on this, you’re being snookered. End of story.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

How about you leave me alone and I leave you alone?
I certainly don’t want to be photoshopped next to you like Saddam Hussein.

Mcguyver on September 29, 2007 at 1:17 AM

When was Saddam Hussein photoshopped next to me? WTF?

So Mcguyver, you are going to stop stalking RightWinged, but you are going to keep stalking me? Well you are making progress anyway. I guess that’s something.

MB4 on September 29, 2007 at 1:32 AM

Yeah, that’s kinda weird… but is that the deal McGuyver, seriously? Because I’m on board if you’ll stick to it… for the record, I haven’t stalked you, it’s been a one way street. I only spoke up, after MB4 did today, to tell him he’s not alone. You on the other hand, are obsessed with us.

RightWinged on September 29, 2007 at 1:49 AM

and FYI, we get it McGuyver… you know how to use bold and italics.

RightWinged on September 29, 2007 at 1:50 AM

georgej on September 29, 2007 at 1:29 AM

You are a tool. Your many calls for violent action against those with whom you disagree and your overheated rhetoric make you sound like a big baby – albeit a dangerous one since you are old enough to drive or possess a weapon.

Grow up or deal with it – I don’t care. You are who you are.

Bradky on September 29, 2007 at 1:51 AM

but is that the deal McGuyver, seriously? Because I’m on board if you’ll stick to it

Of course it is.. you don’t make ludicrous statements regarding any subject I care about or people I’m debating with… yes, the deal is on.

When was Saddam Hussein photoshopped next to me? WTF?

I said that because for all I know, you could be Rockefeller.

Mcguyver on September 29, 2007 at 1:58 AM

I have nullified every battering point of yours.
So no, I am not done with you.

Mcguyver on September 29, 2007 at 1:44 AM

You are too transparent. If you actually thought that you had nullified every “battering” point of mine, you would be done with me, and not have developed this unhealthy obsession for continually having some kind of “rematch”.

MB4 on September 29, 2007 at 2:05 AM

and FYI, we get it McGuyver… you know how to use bold and italics.

I cherish every compliment you can give me.

Mcguyver on September 29, 2007 at 2:05 AM

Can’t we all just get along?
- Rodney King

MB4 on September 29, 2007 at 2:08 AM

MB4 on September 29, 2007 at 2:05 AM

I see you love a good beating in debate.

Your the one that has developed this unhealthy obsession for continually having some kind of “rematch” by hijacking threads, avoiding my comments directed to you, – with links, with facts – and denigrating my character.

Choose carefully, because I’ve got all weekend, next week, the following weekend, all next year….if you like getting flatfooted in debate that much.

Mcguyver on September 29, 2007 at 2:10 AM

Can’t we all just get along?
- Rodney King

MB4 on September 29, 2007 at 2:08 AM

“Can’t you just grow up and learn how to debate?”
– Confucius’s estranged 2nd cousin.

Mcguyver on September 29, 2007 at 2:14 AM

And by the way MB4, just a commenting note here..
before you start in with your next quote of me (or anybody else)… Copy, paste, highlight and then hit the “quote” button, instead of the “emphasis” button.

Makes for easier reading….thanks, just trying to be helpful.

Mcguyver on September 29, 2007 at 2:25 AM

I see you love a good beating in debate.
Mcguyver on September 29, 2007 at 2:10 AM

lol.

If I did, I would never get any satisfaction whatsoever from you that’s for sure.

And if that is anything like what you have ever done you would have been able to have moved on.

Say goodnight Gracie Mcguyver. And don’t forget your meds.

MB4 on September 29, 2007 at 2:39 AM

Say goodnight

Checking in early are you? What, are you on bankers hours? Wimp!

And don’t forget your meds.

I don’t need meds to debate you, you’re too easy and transparent.

Mcguyver on September 29, 2007 at 2:46 AM

McGuyver and MB4:

You guys really need to get a room!

Bradky on September 29, 2007 at 2:47 AM

You guys really need to get a room!

Bradky on September 29, 2007 at 2:47 AM

It better be cheap. Any suggestions, bro?

Mcguyver on September 29, 2007 at 2:49 AM

Motel 6 on 34th and vine is pretty cheap.

Bradky on September 29, 2007 at 2:57 AM

Of course it is.. you don’t make ludicrous statements regarding any subject I care about or people I’m debating with… yes, the deal is on.

Yeah, but you’ve followed me in to various threads where I’ve made completely benign comments, like joking that MKH wanted her a piece of Smeaton… You showed up to obsess over me again. So your “Of course” doesn’t mean much, because you know it’s not a given, because it hasn’t been in the past.

I said that because for all I know, you could be Rockefeller.

Mcguyver on September 29, 2007 at 1:58 AM

Haha, I forgot about that photoshop (and that many of the old posts on my blog are back up after transferring them off the host that screwed everything up). Anyway, there was context to that photoshop. Rockefeller BRAGGED that he went over and told Syria’s leaders (among others) that Bush was going to war in Iraq, OVER A YEAR before he did… Not only is that about as close to treason as you can get, but it also provided ample time to hide WMDs.

RightWinged on September 29, 2007 at 4:09 AM

Motel 6 on 34th and vine is pretty cheap.

Bradky on September 29, 2007 at 2:57 AM

Well, that’s where MB4 and McGuyver will be Bradky, but I’ll see you in the usual place at Bryant Park at 4:30 AM. I’ll be the one wearing the Aardvark costume with the hole in the back.

RightWinged on September 29, 2007 at 4:10 AM

I didn’t know that Rush was fighting. And surrendering to whom?
MB4 on September 28, 2007 at 10:05 PM

OMG, you are dense (and dare I say, sophomoric).

I’ll tell you what. Since you seem to be using the chickenhawk argument, I am going to insist that in the future you yourself demonstrate that fallacious reasoning with your own comments. Every time you comment on any topic, you must demonstrate that you have first hand experience in whatever the topic is, or your comments will be disregarded as worthless and laughable. For example if the topic is the ballet, you cannot make any critical comments unless you prove to us that you are a ballerina.

RightWinged,

Context is everything. It’s clear that Rush intended to talk about the phony soldier, Jesse Macbeth, since he had the story at hand and the two previous calls segued there.

Buy Danish on September 29, 2007 at 12:15 PM

MB4 is a banned poster from PoliPundit. He used to spew his inane crap there, now he’s here.

My best suggestion is to ignore him.

JannyMae on September 29, 2007 at 1:24 PM

MB4 is a banned poster from PoliPundit.

He used to spew his inane crap there, now he’s here.

Interesting!

Thanks for the tip off!

Mcguyver on September 29, 2007 at 2:03 PM

RightWinged,

Context is everything. It’s clear that Rush intended to talk about the phony soldier, Jesse Macbeth, since he had the story at hand and the two previous calls segued there.

Buy Danish on September 29, 2007 at 12:15 PM

Couldn’t agree more.

RightWinged on September 29, 2007 at 3:16 PM

MB4 is a banned poster from PoliPundit. He used to spew his inane crap there, now he’s here.

My best suggestion is to ignore him.

JannyMae on September 29, 2007 at 1:24 PM

lol.

JannyMae is a bitter woman who’s many hen pecked husbands have a way of mysteriously disappearing.

My best suggestion is to avoid her.

MB4 on September 29, 2007 at 4:12 PM

My best suggestion is to avoid her.
MB4 on September 29, 2007 at 4:12 PM

MB4 is a homeless person who writes the best panhandling cardboard sign quotes….
..for example, one I saw him holding up was: Need only 47¢….

I almost gave in… when I realized he only needs 100 people to respond to him per hour to really make it a good venture.

Mcguyver on September 29, 2007 at 4:23 PM

Mcguyver on September 29, 2007 at 4:23 PM

lol.

Mcguyver is the guy who was in the stall on the other side of Larry Craig from the undercover COP and is still feeling low because Craig was tapping his foot at the other guy!

MB4 on September 29, 2007 at 4:54 PM

MB4 = Multiple Bionic Quadriplegic, which is short hand for:
A voluptuous elderly tramp, that has reincarnated as Kim Jong-Il’s only remaining tadpole, that even Spermacide cannot eviscerate.
.
.

Note: Kim Jong-il rules after a model his family has followed – ancient Confucianism – which is a highly centralized and paternalistic leadership.

Mcguyver on September 29, 2007 at 5:52 PM

ancient Confucianism.

Mcguyver on September 29, 2007 at 5:54 PM

Mcguyver on September 29, 2007 at 5:52 PM

Mcguyver, if you think that I am voluptuous, you have even bigger problems than I had thought. Much bigger. Please go back to stalking Larry Craig.

MB4 on September 29, 2007 at 6:00 PM

Bradky: “You are a tool.”

Feel free to eat sh*t and die.

Or you can go back to Huffie, DKOS or DU where you would feel more comfortable and among friends.

“…go home and leave us in peace. We seek not your council, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.” Samuel Adams

georgej on September 29, 2007 at 6:12 PM

Please go back to stalking Larry Craig.
MB4 on September 29, 2007 at 6:00 PM

MB4 is a banned poster from PoliPundit
JannyMae on September 29, 2007 at 1:24 PM

Go back to stalking on PoliPundit, MB4….you are a completely useless bionic troll here.

Mcguyver on September 29, 2007 at 6:22 PM

georgej on September 29, 2007 at 6:12 PM

LOL Given your rather hysterical posts regarding killing people I strongly doubt that is the commonly held view at HotAir. Spout off all the quotes from the founders you like but it doesn’t legitimize your virulent hatred in any way, shape or form.
“I knew Sam Adams, Sam Adams was a friend of mine, and Georgej you sir are NO Sam Adams”

I look forward to the day when one of his guests brings a Louisville Slugger to the show and play HARDBALL with his mush-filled head. That’d be worth the price of cable for a year!
georgej on May 23, 2007 at 4:01 AM

I prefer: “Potestas Democraticorum delenda est!” because I hope to see in my lifetime the Democratic party outlawed, its leadership imprisoned for treason, it’s assets confiscated, and DNC headquarters imploded and leveled and replaced by a hot dog stand.
georgej on May 25, 2007 at 1:47 AM

Is it an “execution” if we install machine gun towers very 100 yards along the border and fire on “invaders” attempting to invade America? It seems to me that’s called repelling an invasion and the last time I checked, that’s allowed under Article 51 of the UN Charter.
After all, it’s not an “execution” unless the are in our custody and under our jucidial control…..

georgej on May 27, 2007 at 9:33 PM

Bradky on September 29, 2007 at 7:22 PM

“I knew Sam Adams, Sam Adams was a friend of mine, and Georgej you sir are NO Sam Adams”

Is that the best you can do, moron? Steal Lloyd Bentsen’s line?

You’re exactly the kind of person Adams was talking about. That’s why I chose that quote.

Go back to Huffie or DU or DKOS, troll, and tell them you got humiliated. Again.

georgej on September 30, 2007 at 4:40 AM

georgej on September 30, 2007 at 4:40 AM

Oooh Burn! The non-grownup attempts to make a funny.
Useless tool.

Bradky on September 30, 2007 at 6:02 AM

MB4 is a banned poster from PoliPundit. He used to spew his inane crap there, now he’s here.

My best suggestion is to ignore him.

JannyMae on September 29, 2007 at 1:24 PM

lol.

JannyMae is a bitter woman who’s many hen pecked husbands have a way of mysteriously disappearing.

My best suggestion is to avoid her.

MB4 on September 29, 2007

Well, my observation is based on internet experience. Yours is based on what, exactly?

….back to ignoring your drivel.

JannyMae on September 30, 2007 at 12:43 PM

MB4 is a banned poster from PoliPundit. He used to spew his inane crap there, now he’s here….

….back to ignoring your drivel.
JannyMae on September 30, 2007 at 12:43 PM

Here is the website where MB4 (Multiple Bionic Quadriplegic) is banned:
http://www.polipundit.com/

This is the email address to contact the management over there: polipundit@fastmail.fm

It would be helpful to find out, just exactly what he did over there to get banned.

Mcguyver on September 30, 2007 at 1:20 PM

Watch for a Rush basher, or two, to pop into the comments here…
Mcguyver on September 28, 2007 at 12:52 PM

Just an update…. the Rush bashing didn’t happen as severe in this blog, as I anticipated….. my bad.

It actually happened over here, starting with: AprilOrit on September 29, 2007 at 12:36 PM

It sure brings perspective to Rush’s ability to confront the bullies.

Mcguyver on September 30, 2007 at 1:28 PM

The entire transcript, in contect, that lead to this so-called controversy (YouTube video, 5:10)

Bullsh**. You can hear where he edited it to make it sound like he mentioned MacBeth right after the “phony soldiers” comment. Read the transcript on his website.

Then consider this.

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.

Emphasis mine. They’ve just mentioned “phony soldiers,” and now they’re defining what a “real soldier” (the opposite of a “phony soldier”) is: a soldier who is proud to serve and wants to be over in Iraq. Rush agrees with this assessment, saying (about “real soldiers”) that they joined to be in Iraq. Thus, if you don’t want to be in Iraq, you’re not a real soldier. And what does that make you?

This is part of Rush’s schtick. He defines things very narrowly. And if you don’t fit his definition, you are either lying to him or lying to yourself. Thus, according to Rush, a supporter of military action in Iraq who objects to the torture of terrorism suspects is “hamper[ing] our military effort,” and thus not a real war-supporter. And someone who says they are a soldier who objects to the war in Iraq is a phony soldier. It’s not immediately clear whether Rush means that these “phony soldiers” are not soldiers at all, or than they’re insincere soldiers. But consider the fact that there are enlisted soldiers who oppose the war. And there is only one way in which they could be phony — the one that makes Rush look like a tool who only supports the troops so long as they support his war.

1. Rush: “[real soldiers] joined to be in Iraq.”
2. FACT: not all soldiers joined to be in Iraq, and many do not support that military action.
3. Therefore, Rush considers those enlisted soldiers to be something less than “real soldiers.”

So whether or not Rush meant “phony soldiers” to refer to people masquerading as soldiers or to actual soldiers (or both), it is clear by his following remarks that he considers soldiers who oppose the war in Iraq to be not “real soldiers.”

And of course he’s denying it. Most Conservatives honor soldiers above the war. If Rush were to let it get out that he thinks the war is more important than our soldiers, he’s be castigated by a large segment of his listenership.

Mark Jaquith on September 30, 2007 at 2:29 PM

Mark Jaquith on September 30, 2007 at 2:29 PM

Wrong. Or, have you become so good at mind-reading that you need not stick to the facts?

Bryan on September 30, 2007 at 2:38 PM

Mark Jaquith on September 30, 2007 at 2:29 PM

Considering the fact, that you, Mark Jaquith (scroll halfway down to discover) are connected to: http://www.gnomedex.com/2007/..
…..your numb skulled analysis makes perfect sense in every way.
.
.

Note: the definition of a gnome is: a species of diminutive beings, usually described as shriveled little old men, that inhabit the interior of the earth and act as guardians of its treasures; troll.

.
.
…Vague: thy name is not, Mark Jaquith.
.
.

[The preceding has been provide as public service announcement]

Mcguyver on September 30, 2007 at 3:23 PM

It would be helpful to find out, just exactly what he did over there to get banned.

Mcguyver on September 30, 2007 at 1:20 PM

I have never been banned from PoliPundit. It can not be done. Even hypothetically if it could be done, one of the bloggers there in particular, a U.S. Army Infantry Colonel who has served in both Afghanistan and Iraq, would have unbanned me in a heartbeat.

MB4 on September 30, 2007 at 4:40 PM

Thus, if you don’t want to be in Iraq, you’re not a real soldier. And what does that make you?

Mark Jaquith on September 30, 2007 at 2:29 PM

In the majority.

MB4 on September 30, 2007 at 4:44 PM

Mark Jaquith on September 30, 2007 at 2:29

PM

Considering the fact, that you, Mark Jaquith (scroll halfway down to discover) are connected to: http://www.gnomedex.com/2007/..
..your numb skulled analysis makes perfect sense in every way.
.
.

Note: the definition of a gnome is: a species of diminutive beings, usually described as shriveled little old men, that inhabit the interior of the earth and act as guardians of its treasures; troll.

.
.
…Vague: thy name is not, Mark Jaquith.
.
.

[The preceding has been provide as public service announcement]

Mcguyver on September 30, 2007 at 4:45 PM

But consider the fact that there are plenty of enlisted soldiers and Officers who oppose the war

Mark Jaquith on September 30, 2007 at 2:29 PM

MB4 on September 30, 2007 at 4:49 PM

In the majority.
MB4 on September 30, 2007 at 4:44 PM

To MB4,
Here’s an organization: www.gnomedex.com
……that I highly, highly recommend that you join.

Mcguyver on September 30, 2007 at 4:57 PM

Here’s an organization: http://www.gnomedex.com
……that I highly, highly recommend that you join.

Mcguyver on September 30, 2007 at 4:57 PM

Here’s an organization: http://www.usarmy.com
……that I highly, highly recommend that you join.

MB4 on September 30, 2007 at 5:05 PM

MB4 on September 30, 2007 at 5:05 PM

You can knock off the chickenhawk nonsense right now.

Bryan on September 30, 2007 at 6:51 PM

The slightest, tiniest, itsy-bitsiest, teeny-weeniest perceived hint at what could be conceived of by anyone as even a slight illusion to the “Huhnerfalke” word and it is almost like the apocalypse now, crimes against humanity, off with their heads, reeducation camp.

You know it is absolutely astounding to me that those who do not support Bush’s Islamic “nation building” policies in Iraq, which is a clear majority of the American people, can be called all manner of vile epitaphs (diminutive beings, shriveled little old men, ludicrous, nonsense, traitors, BULL CRAP, numb skulled, Quadriplegic, drivel, troll, tramp, reincarnated as Kim Jong-Il’s only remaining tadpole, troll. And that is just on this thread! Need I go on?)), but NO ONE is suppose to even say anything that could be taken by anyone as the slightest, tiniest, itsy-bitsiest, teeny-weeniest possible hint at the “Huhnerfalke” word, das ist Verboten!, even for those who NEVER served at all and yet beat the war drums the VERY LOUDEST and dis those who did serve. Unreal. Absolutely astounding.

Gall darn one sided freedom of speech for Americans to put it very mildly.

The founding fathers are not amused.

MB4 on September 30, 2007 at 8:16 PM

You know it is absolutely astounding to me that those who do not support Bush’s Islamic “nation building” policies in Iraq, which is a clear majority minority of the American people,can be called all manner of vile epitaphs,
MB4 on September 30, 2007 at 8:16 PM

I’m glad… that you mentioned that.

Let’s start from scratch….

Why did Joe Lieberman – a war hawk – win in a land slide in the liberal kook State of Connecticut, running as an Independent…if a “majority” are against it?

You and I went round and round here and you lost the debate, because you cannot prove your outlier theory (MB4 on September 17, 2007 at 12:30 AM)

Here is how that debate transpired verbatim:

Liebermann was an outlier. Do the math.

“In statistics, an outlier is an observation that is numerically distant from the rest of the data. Statistics derived from data sets that include outliers [and certainly depend on them] will often be [very] misleading.”

MB4 on September 17, 2007 at 12:30 AM

.

My response:

Are you trying to debate with reasoned logic or just trying to appear superior?

Mcguyver on September 17, 2007 at 12:36 AM

.

My further response:

MB4,
When you come back with with reasonable debate logic instead of stats not related to why people voted for Liebermann – I’m in – otherwise start writing the invitation-to-honesty script for the liberals.

Mcguyver on September 17, 2007 at 12:40 AM

.
Your response insult:

Have you stopped beating your wife?
MB4 on September 17, 2007 at 12:40 AM

.
Your response:

So why do you think that Democrats made such huge gains in both houses of congress in 2006 then?

Do you think that it was on account of their good looks?

There were some things other than stuck in Iraq going on that could account for lesser gains, but the huge gains that they made?

Come on.

MB4 on September 17, 2007 at 12:46 AM

.
My response:

MB4,
Were the liberals in the kook state of Connecticut voting for their fringe left – were they being honest to themselves?
Mcguyver on September 17, 2007 at 12:47 AM

.
My further response:

MB4,
Acording to your outlier stats – if any of the current republican candidates were to run as an outlier – they would win by a landslide….pick one… they are all pro-war as is Liebermann.

Mcguyver on September 17, 2007 at 12:48 AM

.
My further response: (editing your quote from 12:46 AM)

So why do you think that Democrats made such huge puny gains in both houses of congress in 2006 then?
.
All elections have been very “tight” since Bush took office….

Come on… I know you can be intellectually honest…… or…. wait….you’re just trying to make sense?

Mcguyver on September 17, 2007 at 12:51 AM

.
My further response: (includes your quote from 12:46 AM)

Do you think that it was on account of their good looks?
.

Most Zell Miller Dems are still voting for statues….and yours is not included.
Mcguyver on September 17, 2007 at 12:52 AM

.
My response to your insult: at 12:40 AM

Go to Eharmony.com to find a wife that you can beat up debate with.

Mcguyver on September 17, 2007 at 12:55 AM

.
Your response to me at: 12:48 AM

What we got here is… failure to communicate.
- Captain, Road Prison 36

You appear to have missed my whole point. Outliers are the exception, not the rule.

MB4 on September 17, 2007 at 1:03 AM

.
My response: (including your quote)

Outliers are the exception, not the rule.
.

In this very intense debate of war or not war, Liebermann’s case was not an exception – it mattered too much to the voters……

I know your are trying to make sense….I’m still waiting.

Mcguyver on September 17, 2007 at 1:11 AM

And there ends the only substantive debate you and I have ever had.

Every other attempt of mine to debate you, has resulted in anything but a debate, because you don’t have any supporting legs to stand on.
.

Here is a great comment from the same debate.

MB4,
I’m not convinced that Leiberman’s victory was simply an “outlier” either. 2006 may have been more of a statement of “we want change” (ie. not the Republicans) rather than an Iraq-related thing. On a separate note, it would be nice if you were a bit more polite to people on this board. We conservatives need to stick together.
.

Mcguyver,
I’m not sure why the liberals changed their tune from right after 9-11 to now. Gelernter mentions that liberals have been pushing this (rather unpopular) “appeasement, pacifism and globalism” agenda for quite some time now, dating to before the Vietnam war. I suspect that the liberal powers that be laid off the gas a bit just after 9/11, realizing that this already unpopular philosophy would be even more unpopular just after 9/11. As 9/11 receded in people’s minds over the years, perhaps Soros and other lefty powers that be calculated that they could slowly crank up the volume again.

dave_lantos on September 17, 2007 at 12:57 AM

.
And another one:

I think that the Republicans lost in some close races because of the Mark Foley “October surprise” combined with the constant drumbeat of “corruption” from the Dumocrats, who were lying as they always do. Also some Republicans stayed at home because they didn’t like the way the war in Iraq was being run. They wanted a much harsher war or to install a “glass parking lot” there.
TruthToBeTold on September 17, 2007 at 1:31 AM

.
And yet another one:

In my view America’s purpose in the world (the purpose for which it was founded) is to guarantee and protect the innate human rights of it’s citizens, against all enemies, where ever they are (”foreign or dommestic”). By doing so it serves as an inspiration and beacon of liberty to other nations less blessed.
-
So anything that works against that purpose is destructive to the nation. If Harry and friends want to define some other purpose that contradicts the Founding Principles, they are essentially converting America into something that it was never intended to be.
-
As far as federal elected officials go, they took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution, so this puts certain contstraints on what they can say or do while in office.

Herikutsu on September 17, 2007 at 1:17 AM

….

..
.
Now here is your assignment (and invitation to debate):

Read everything above here and come back with any factual point you want to make, without starting any insults or name calling…….
..I know this kind of concentration will take a while for you….

But that’s O.K…..I’ve got my cricket tape playing end-to-end, so…..no hurry, seriously.

If I never hear from you again, that’s O.K. too.

Either way, thanks for your service in the Vietnam war, even though, you don’t believe your service was the right thing to do.
That’s O.K. You can believe however you want, thanks to the many of have served.
.
.
……………….[crickets chirping]………………

Mcguyver on September 30, 2007 at 9:51 PM

MB4 on September 30, 2007 at 8:16 PM

Enjoying your cocktails much?

Speaking of Leieberman, I’m curious. Is there another MB4 tripping around the blogsphere, or was comment number 377 made by you?

MB4 says:
August 26th, 2006 at 6:13 pm

Any of these major Democratic leaders who do not act to expel Lieberman should be expelled themselves.

If they do not have the courage to act, we don’t need them.

By the way, if you ever come back down to Earth, you need to look up the word “epithet” which you are confusing with “epitaph”.

Buy Danish on September 30, 2007 at 10:26 PM

Is there another MB4 tripping around the blogsphere, or was comment number 377 made by you?
Buy Danish on September 30, 2007 at 10:26 PM

Yup that’s him….amazing!

you need to look up the word “epithet” which you are confusing with “epitaph”.

Maybe he was not confused….

Mcguyver on September 30, 2007 at 10:39 PM

Enjoying your cocktails much?

Actually I’m a beer man but thank you anyway.

Speaking of Leieberman, I’m curious. Is there another MB4 tripping around the blogsphere, or was comment number 377 made by you?

MB4 says:
August 26th, 2006 at 6:13 pm

Any of these major Democratic leaders who do not act to expel Lieberman should be expelled themselves.

If they do not have the courage to act, we don’t need them.

That does not look familiar. Although I could maybe see myself going on a left wing site and playing “agent provocateur” sometime. Thanks for the idea. Might be just a little bit fun if I get really bored sometime. Speaking of getting bored – YAWN. But no that does not look like me.

By the way, if you ever come back down to Earth, you need to look up the word “epithet” which you are confusing with “epitaph”.

You did get me on my spelling. Congratulations. Maybe AP will give you an iPod.

Buy Danish on September 30, 2007 at 10:26 PM

*

Mcguyver on September 30, 2007 at 9:51 PM

Mcguyver, you really need to get some interests in life other than just me! You don’t actually expect me or anyone else to read that voluminous whatever do you?

While on the spelling and meaning of words you need to think really hard about this word because if you don’t watch out your picture is going to be appearing in the dictionary right next to it:

ob·ses·sion

1. Compulsive preoccupation with a fixed idea or person or an unwanted feeling or emotion, often accompanied by symptoms of anxiety.
2. A compulsive, often unreasonable idea or emotion.

MB4 on October 1, 2007 at 12:22 AM

MB4 on October 1, 2007 at 12:22 AM

You make my point.

You don’t care about the facts, when you have an opinion.

You don’t even care about having a debate.

Because when you are invited to a debate, as I have, you refuse to review the only “debate” you and I ever had.

You don’t care about the truth…you cannot deny that was your comment over at http://www.firedoglake.com wait… you didn’t deny and you didn’t confirm….typical of your ilk that doesn’t care about the truth.

Instead of reviewing the facts laid out by me regarding your theory… your response, simply is, it’s too much for you to comprehend.

Instead you try to divert the attention to a word that I should study.

I, thank you for your service to our country and you either don’t respond or you say “have a nice day”.

The truth hurts for you because you believe the country betrayed you. That’s understandable. The war was rough.
You did what you thought was the right thing and then the bottom fell out of that support.
It was very, very rough.

But that doesn’t exclude you from being held to a standard of factual debating.

But of course you don’t care. Because your inner emotions have been hijacked by betrayal.
That’s understandable and even permissible.

Mcguyver on October 1, 2007 at 1:35 AM

That does not look familiar. Although I could maybe see myself going on a left wing site and playing “agent provocateur” sometime. Blah Blah Blah.

MB4 on October 1, 2007 at 12:22 AM

You know what I think? I think that you are a poseur and a prevaricator, not an agent-provocateur, and whatever you consumed last night must have been in very large quantities indeed. Or are unhinged rants just part of your natural state of being?

For the record, the difference between an epithet and an epitaph has nothing to do with spelling and everything to do with mangling the English language.

Buy Danish on October 1, 2007 at 9:18 AM

MB4 on October 1, 2007 at 12:22 AM
.
……..you need to think really hard about these words:

pre·var·i·ca·tor……. [pri-var-i-key-ter]
1. a person who speaks falsely; liar.
2. a person who speaks so as to avoid the precise truth; quibbler; equivocator.

.
.
po·seur…….[poh-zur]
a person who attempts to impress others by assuming or affecting a manner, degree of elegance, sentiment, etc., other than his or her true one.

Mcguyver on October 1, 2007 at 10:02 AM

even for those who NEVER served at all and yet beat the war drums the VERY LOUDEST and dis those who did serve. Unreal. Absolutely astounding.

MB4. I reread your posts above the one quoted here and didn’t see you hitting the “___hawk” point hard if at all.

I agree with BuyDanish’s post that you don’t have to be a ballerina to comment on or run a ballet. However, I’m at a loss to explain how President Bush’s team missed the mark on the Iraq planning by the margin they did. Would they have been aided in their strategic planning if one of the architects had more military experience? Would we be where we are today if Eisenhower were president? It isn’t about being brave or not, but rather seeing a complex problem with the granularity that someone gains through field experience.

dedalus on October 1, 2007 at 11:00 AM

but rather seeing a complex problem with the granularity that someone gains through field experience.
dedalus on October 1, 2007 at 11:00 AM

I think what you’re missing here is the fact that this War-on-Terror/Islamic Extremism (or whatever convoluted PC term MB4 would like to name it) has never been confronted, therefore experienced with this intensity before.

And therefore, nobody could have the field experience.

So of course a lot of mistakes would/will be made…Next question, please.
.
.
The following is a good example of what the battle really is – which is an information war – scroll down to my highlights, if this is too voluminous for you (MB4):

Newsflash: diplomatic convoys in Iraq are huge targets for the enemy, and Iraqi civilians are notoriously bad eyewitnesses of anything. During my last tour, local shopkeepers were being openly gunned down on the street by the Mahdi Army, aka JAM (guys dressed just like ordinary Iraqi “civilians”) while we were literally a block away drinking chai with the local police captains trying to establish good rapport.

Within minutes we would haul to the scene on foot and ask who shot the man and people would point at us and say “you did.” (Meaning U.S. soldiers.) We were the only ones in the area, so we knew this to be untrue, but the rumors (actually well-timed enemy propaganda) had already spread so fast that even this man’s relatives were already convinced that we had shot him down. He had only been killed for this very reason: to blame on us and thus discredit all the hard work we had already put in around that section of Baghdad.

This type of scenario is what occurs on a daily basis all around Iraq. This is why the war has made such hard and slow progress. All-out combat is relatively rare in Iraq and has been for years. 90% of patrols go by without incident. ****But we are fighting an information war constantly, and it certainly does not help that our own media is so often complicit.

.
.
**** This information war includes debating non-factual points made my MB4, et al.

Mcguyver on October 1, 2007 at 11:34 AM

I think what you’re missing here is the fact that this War-on-Terror/Islamic Extremism (or whatever convoluted PC term MB4 would like to name it) has never been confronted, therefore experienced with this intensity before.

The experience I was referring to was military experience with wars of occupation, which have been experienced. We can debate the big picture conflict with Islamofascism, but if you believe that Iraq was a key element of the bigger war then it is all-the-more infuriating that the strategic thinkers (say Wolfowitz & Cheney) didn’t synch up with the operations people (say Rumsfeld and Franks). A quick victory in Iraq that established an orderly society could have had a positive regional impact. I’m really surprised by Cheney who is on record in the 90′s with his thoughts on the difficulties a post-Saddam Iraq would present.

dedalus on October 1, 2007 at 12:00 PM

…was military experience with wars of occupation,
…A quick victory in Iraq that established an orderly society could have had a positive regional impact
dedalus on October 1, 2007 at 12:00 PM

I’m not arguing the fact that mistakes – un/avoidable – were made..either way, that does not make it helpful for a Bush denigration syndrome. The same mistakes would/could’ve been made with any party in office.

The focus should be that the battle is an information war and quit making it a political battle!

Since AQ is now in Iraq, in force, we absolutely have to win there!
These radicals believe that the only way they can experience sexual freedom is to make it safely to Allah, where, upon arrival, they will be rewarded with 72 virgins and can have sex 100 times a day…. and the reason they deserve to be rewarded with all this, is because, they died in the process of killing those who don’t believe the same way they do.

That’s why, we have absolute moral authority to kill them, before, they kill more innocent people.

Mcguyver on October 1, 2007 at 1:09 PM

Hi Mcguyver,
Did you say 72 virgins? Hmm, sounds interesting…

Seriously though. I agree with you that we need to maintain a commitment in Iraq, given that the current mess there is both a moral and geo-political problem. I also agree with you that it is good to kill people who are preparing to commit terrorist acts against Americans.

I’m not on the same page that mistakes happen at the same rate regardless of who the head coach is. I think conservatives who believe the fight against radical Islam is important should be very critical of the Bush team’s poor execution. It is more than just unexpected problems when Bush has a policy that the Iraqi army shouldn’t be disbanded, then Bremer disbands it, then Bremer gets the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

dedalus on October 1, 2007 at 2:10 PM

Bush has a policy that the Iraqi army shouldn’t be disbanded, then Bremer disbands it, then Bremer gets the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

dedalus on October 1, 2007 at 2:10 PM

I’m not disagreeing with you on the mistakes that were made…
they also could’ve been made by any team..

It’s the denigration bandwagon/propaganda that is harmful here.

But don’t expect MB4 and et al, to admit that.

Mcguyver on October 1, 2007 at 2:23 PM

Wrong. Or, have you become so good at mind-reading that you need not stick to the facts?

I can’t mind-read what “wrong” is in reference to. All of it? The fact that Rush edited the clip he played to make it sound like the Jesse MacBeth remark was tied to the “phony soldiers” remark? The fact that Rush said that “[real soldiers] joined to be in Iraq”? The fact that Rush said that speaking out against torture of terrorism suspects means you are “hamper[ing] our military effort”?

Rush doesn’t give a damn about our troops if they don’t fit his stereotype. The previous caller on his show mentioned that he used to be in the military, and Rush replied “And I, by the way, used to walk on the moon.”

Rush Limbaugh is a phony supporter of American soldiers.

Mark Jaquith on October 1, 2007 at 7:11 PM

Mark Jaquith on October 1, 2007 at 7:11 PM

And you are a phony American.

Mcguyver on October 2, 2007 at 2:52 AM

Comment pages: 1 2