Video: Time for another lie about Limbaugh’s “phony soldiers” comment

posted at 2:36 pm on October 2, 2007 by Allahpundit

Via Brian Maloney, anything missing from the audio clip here? Any important information or bit of context that might shed light on whom Rush was referring to when he made his “phony soldiers” remark?

Remember, conservative outrage over the “Betray Us” ad is juvenile nonsense that wastes time which would be better spent debating Iraq. Liberal outrage over Rush Limbaugh is important national business.

Update: Maloney also takes a look at Harry Reid’s charming habit of trying to intimidate his critics in the media — while somehow omitting the most notorious example. If, as expected, we end up with President Hillary next year and the Fairness Doctrine reappears on the radar, there’s no doubt which side of the issue Reid will be on.


Related Posts:

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

Isn’t VoteVets.org that outfit that backed Wesley Clark first, and then jumped onto Kerry’s campaign? And wasn’t some of their guys proven to be “phony?”

I could be wrong, but the logo looks awfully familiar.

crazy_legs on October 2, 2007 at 2:47 PM

What EXACTLY is “Responsible Redeployment”? Please define!!

Does that mean you want to go to Afganistan?

PappaMac on October 2, 2007 at 2:48 PM

Whenever we catch them talking smack – they claim it’s out-of-context. But when we bring up that they are taking Rush’s remarks out-of-context, they don’t want to hear it.

It’s like arguing with a kid – they stick their fingers in their ears and starting shouting “la-la-la-la…”.

Liberalism – the mental disease of our day.

Timothy S. Carlson on October 2, 2007 at 2:49 PM

Duh – it means Okinawa.

Editor on October 2, 2007 at 2:49 PM

It’s so obvious….Rush meant the soldiers who “faked” being soldiers.

Yeah, the Betray-us ad was nothing to get excited about, but Rush says (or reall doesn’t EVEN say) something and bam!, it’s a national crisis.

Those Dem’s really want talk-radio out.

JetBoy on October 2, 2007 at 2:49 PM

I will admit that the Rush quote, IN ITS ENTIRETY is not as clear as it could have been. Its nowhere near the slam dunk that the O’Reilly quote is

But based on his next statement there is sufficient evidence to note that the term ‘phony soldiers’ is for people like MacBeth.

It just takes a willful ignorance that might meet the actual malice claim for a slander and libel lawsuit.

Defector01 on October 2, 2007 at 2:54 PM

Isn’t VoteVets.org that outfit that backed Wesley Clark first, and then jumped onto Kerry’s campaign? And wasn’t some of their guys proven to be “phony?”

I could be wrong, but the logo looks awfully familiar.

crazy_legs on October 2, 2007 at 2:47 PM

Wesley Clark founded VoteVets

CommentGuy on October 2, 2007 at 2:56 PM

Oh my. Take a look at the comments in that first link. Michelle is being viciously attacked.

Brat on October 2, 2007 at 3:00 PM

So I guess VoteVets has 11 members out of how many thousands? They certainly are not even a drop in the bucket as to what our real soldiers believe. BTW……that Jon Stoltz is a complete and total asshoe!!!!!!

Winebabe on October 2, 2007 at 3:00 PM

Gateway Pundit has a real good look at some of the history of VoteVets

They also participated in the Kos Konvention and you probably remember them from the flap about Stoltz confronting a military guy attending in uniform.

CommentGuy on October 2, 2007 at 3:00 PM

I just checked Wikipedia’s entry for “Psycological Projection,” and the page says, “This article or section is in need of attention from an expert on the subject.

Perhaps Reid, Harkin et al can submit their bios and photos.

saint kansas on October 2, 2007 at 3:01 PM

This could work in favor of the Republicans, this bizarre smear campaign financed by George Soros.

gmoonster on October 2, 2007 at 3:04 PM

CommentGuy on October 2, 2007 at 2:56 PM

Thank you, I thought that he was involved somehow.

Now… wasn’t there an add that featured a faker who was mysteriously edited out?

crazy_legs on October 2, 2007 at 3:04 PM

Gateway Pundit- VoteVets.org

Josh Lansdale is the soldier that did commercials for VoteVets.org. He made a few false claims in their ads and had to be edited out.

Redbird on October 2, 2007 at 3:05 PM

What EXACTLY is “Responsible Redeployment”? Please define!!

PappaMac on October 2, 2007 at 2:48 PM

Glad that you asked. Redeployment to South Korea or the Pacific, i.e. closer to the madman states (North Korea, Pakistan, China) that already have nukes. Because they want to put our kids out of harms way, you know.

Niko on October 2, 2007 at 3:06 PM

I keep waiting for juicy sound-bite from KP rationalizing all this faux outrage and the lines back to Hillary.

Spirit of 1776 on October 2, 2007 at 3:07 PM

I caught this on Fox’s news ticker this morning, but is it really true that Media Blathers is claiming that Rush edited his broadcast to deny their claims?

JinxMcHue on October 2, 2007 at 3:08 PM

I keep waiting for juicy sound-bite from KP rationalizing all this faux outrage and the lines back to Hillary.

No no, be nice to KP. We’ve made peace.

Allahpundit on October 2, 2007 at 3:09 PM

I’ve seen it claimed elsewhere JinxMcHue, not sure where it started though.

maggie katzen on October 2, 2007 at 3:09 PM

Thanks, maggie. I wouldn’t put it past Media Blathers to make such a claim after they’d been caught lying about what he said.

JinxMcHue on October 2, 2007 at 3:11 PM

We’re back to sentence parsing, just like to good old days of the 90′s. Get used to it, it’s only going to escalate.

swami on October 2, 2007 at 3:11 PM

No no, be nice to KP. We’ve made peace.

No intention to be mean, heck, I’m a fan. But I still wanna hear her explain this labyrinth of ‘logic’ that flows down from the Hillary camp.

Spirit of 1776 on October 2, 2007 at 3:15 PM

remember Wesley Clarks, “it’s because of Iraq” ad last year right before election?

jp on October 2, 2007 at 3:16 PM

Vote Vets is a member of the Americans Against Escalation in Iraq.

Established in January 2007 with the aim of bringing about an immediate withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Iraq, Americans Against Escalation in Iraq (AAEI) describes itself as “a major, multi-million dollar national campaign to oppose the President’s proposal to escalate the war …”

MoveOn.org‘s Washington, DC Director Tom Matzzie to create AAEI. Says Matzzie: “We realized we needed a big campaign on the war because there was this mandate out of the election, but the Democratic majorities were thin and they hadn’t been united on the war, ever.”
Prior to his work with MoveOn and AAEI, Matzzie had been an Online Mobilization Director for the AFL-CIO. In 2004 he worked as Director of Online Organizing for John Kerry‘s presidential campaign. In 2006 he worked on behalf of antiwar Democrat Ned Lamont, who was seeking to take a Connecticut Senate seat from Joe Lieberman, the Democrat-turned-Independent who favored America’s involvement in the Iraq War.
After forming AAEI, Matzzie quickly recruited a large team of leftwing activists to join his new organization, which is structured as a coalition of groups devoted to a consistent antiwar objective. Though AAEI claims that its member groups represent points “across the political spectrum,” its coalition members in fact hail exclusively from the political Left. These members include the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), MoveOn.org, the Center for American Progress Action Fund , USAction, Win Without War, Vote Vets, Campaign for America’s Future, the United States Student Association, Working Assets, Americans United for Change, Campus Progress Action, and the National Security Network.

From its earliest days, AAEI’s principal source of funding has been MoveOn.org.  SEIU has also contributed heavily, as have a number of individual donors whose identities Matzzie refuses to publicly disclose. By September 2007, AAEI had spent $12 million on a combination of grass-roots organizing, polling (Matzzie hired the prominent Democratic pollsters Stan and Anna Greenberg), and television advertisements aimed at persuading the American public and Washington legislators that U.S. involvement in the Iraq War was bad policy. Matzzie states that shaping the media’s coverage of the war, and thereby “influencing the environment that the debate is taking place in,” constitutes “a huge part of what we [AAEI] do.”
According to a September 2007 New York Times piece: “[AAEI] coordinates extensively with Democrats on Capitol Hill. Matzzie himself meets with Speaker Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader, ‘maybe once a month,’ he says, adding that he talks to their staffs ‘once a day, or at least a couple times a week.’ (Senior Democratic aides sometimes even join AAEI’s conference calls.) This might entail discussions of political strategy or more substantive policy briefings by experts from AAEI’s member think tanks.”

CommentGuy on October 2, 2007 at 3:21 PM

I caught this on Fox’s news ticker this morning, but is it really true that Media Blathers is claiming that Rush edited his broadcast to deny their claims?

JinxMcHue on October 2, 2007 at 3:08 PM

He edited out about 1 minute of conversation about WMD and IED stuff that had no bearing on the smear by Media Matters, it’s just a strawman.

CommentGuy on October 2, 2007 at 3:23 PM

I caught this on Fox’s news ticker this morning, but is it really true that Media Blathers is claiming that Rush edited his broadcast to deny their claims?

JinxMcHue on October 2, 2007 at 3:08 PM

MediaMatters is indeed saying that Rush edited the transcript of his show. Their arugment is that Armed Forces Radio did not hear the original broadcast — since they only broadcast one hour of the Limbaugh show. When Rush addressed the smear durint the first hour of a subsequent broadcast (so AFR listeners could hear it), he deleted 1 minute 50 seconds of his conversation. Apparently this gap was between the original mention of “phony soldiers” and Rush’s in-depth discussion of Macbeth. Oooooo… 1:50. I don’t even know if it’s true — not interested enough to compare the transcripts of the two shows. But even if it is — big whoop! So he did not mention a specific example 90 seconds sooner. Everyone knows that Rush supports the troops — far more than Reid, Durbin, or their ilk. I wish they would survey the troops to see if they want to keep Rush on AFR. I bet the response would be overwhelming!

lan astaslem on October 2, 2007 at 3:24 PM

durint = during
PIMF

lan astaslem on October 2, 2007 at 3:25 PM

don’t know if the pipsqueaks at
this blog are worth paying attention to, but they’ve identified vetwerans for freedom as nazis, one poster even drew a comparison of the veterans at gathering of eagles with the proto-nazi freikorps.

jummy on October 2, 2007 at 3:29 PM

I really have to wonder about something here. To hear the Conventional Wisdom ™, the Bush Admistration is so inept, so stupid, and so hated by the entire country that there is no way in the depths of Hades that any Republican could even think of having a chance of winning the White House next year. And I admit, I’ve considered that as well, just like in ’76, there was no way Ford would win after the Nixon situation.

So when you apply that, depending on the eventual Democrat nominee, all they pretty much have to do is at least appear competent (that being a key word I’ve heard from even good pundits), and not say anything too terribly stupid, and it’s a waltz to 1600 Penn.

So why, oh why are they going out of their way this early to try to discredit, remove, or otherwise malign any voice of “opposition,” in an apparent attempt to remove any real or perceived obstacles?

When one engages in these sort of tactics, either directly or indirectly such as Hillery, there is always a chance that it will backfire in your face.

I can only come up with a couple of possible reasons for this. One, they are so desparate to gain the power that they are blinded to the possible backlash, and are trying to not take ANY chance on the “stupidity” of the electorate. Two, is it possible, just perhaps, that all this hatred of AllThingBush is even more ginned up than even we believe? Is it possible that Americans really DO support the efforts of our military to help secure peace and prosperity in one of the poorest parts of the planet?

There’s something off here, and I can’t quite put my finger on it.

JamesLee on October 2, 2007 at 3:30 PM

can we not post links now?

jummy on October 2, 2007 at 3:31 PM

No no, be nice to KP. We’ve made peace.

Ha! I saw this coming… wasn’t even holding my breath!

Mcguyver on October 2, 2007 at 3:36 PM

Wesley Clark has joined the left in attempting to remove Rush from AFRTS.

CommentGuy on October 2, 2007 at 3:36 PM

Amazing how this all came together so quickly…almost seems like it was coordinated between the MSM, the DNC and Media Matters.

Nah…couldn’t be true.

Asher on October 2, 2007 at 3:39 PM

Hey, where are our Congressmen and Senators on this? I don’t hear them standing up for Rush. They should be using this to counter-attack Media Matters and the other Stalinist activists.

After all Rush has done for the Conservative Movement, he’s our national treasure. Shame on anyone too timid to stand up for him now.

Left unchecked, their attacks will build in the months ahead into a campaign for restoring the ‘fairness doctrine’, to take conservative thinking off the air altogether. Hillary, given half a chance, will make this happen.

How’s progress with the Kingston Resolution?

petefrt on October 2, 2007 at 3:39 PM

“The phony soldiers.”

Three words. I think Cardinal Richelieu said it best:

Give me six lines written by the most honorable of men, and I will find an excuse in them to hang him.

The Monster on October 2, 2007 at 3:40 PM

Clark has an appeal up on HuffPo to mail bomb congress to pull Rush off AFRTS.

Step by step their plan is coming out to be seen for what it is.

CommentGuy on October 2, 2007 at 3:40 PM

Wesley Clark has joined the left in attempting to remove Rush from AFRTS.

CommentGuy on October 2, 2007 at 3:36 PM

We didn’t want to listen to Wesley Clark when he was one of our Generals…why should we listen to him now?

James on October 2, 2007 at 3:58 PM

What EXACTLY is “Responsible Redeployment”? Please define!!

Does that mean you want to go to Afganistan?

PappaMac on October 2, 2007 at 2:48 PM

Duh – it means Okinawa.
Editor on October 2, 2007 at 2:49 PM

You mean Guam.

geckomon on October 2, 2007 at 4:01 PM

What EXACTLY is “Responsible Redeployment”? Please define!!

PappaMac on October 2, 2007 at 2:48 PM

According to their definition, you yell “RUN AWAY!” and flee in panic like in Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

Wesley Clark has joined the left in attempting to remove Rush from AFRTS.

CommentGuy on October 2, 2007 at 3:36 PM

Of course, neither Weaselly Clark nor (the rest of) the left would ever consider asking the troops what they want–first of all because they could care less, and second because they know it would be to keep Rush.

It’s utterly laughable that liberals who hate America and the military think they can score points for patriotism by smearing an actual patriotic American. But then it would obviously be too repugnant to them to score points for patriotism by genuinely being patriotic.

ReubenJCogburn on October 2, 2007 at 4:01 PM

JamesLee – good points! I’ve also thought that if the Repubs couldn’t win another election for the life of them, why oh why are the Dems raising so much money? Heck, there are some 3rd world countries you can buy for much less than what this election is going to cost.

24K lady on October 2, 2007 at 4:03 PM

! So he did not mention a specific example 90 seconds sooner.

You have to understand how Limbaugh runs the show. He does his show prep by reading the legacy media, hits Dextrosphere blogs like mm and here, and comes up with a list of things he wants to talk about. He gives that list to Snerdley, who puts through calls from people who want to talk about those things. (Except for Open Line Friday, when you can talk about other things.)

So Rush has on a sheet, index cards, or post-its in front of him the things he wants to hit, and McBeth, Beauchamp, etc. was one of those things. The call comes through, and Rush reads the screen where his transcriptionist types in real time what the caller is saying (because his hearing is so bad, even with the implant, that he misses stuff), and when the caller has set the table sufficiently, (the purpose of a caller being to make the host look good) he launches his preplanned missiles.

In this case, Rush had two things going on at the same time; riding McBeth for longer than a Morning Update would allow, and the caller making specific reference to the previous caller. To the staff people who edited out the 90 seconds of talking about the other guy, it wasn’t relevant to what Rush wanted to talk about, McBeth.

“Something wicked this way comes!”

The Monster on October 2, 2007 at 4:04 PM

No no, be nice to KP. We’ve made peace.

Allahpundit on October 2, 2007 at 3:09 PM

I’m gonna need a flow chart to follow that thread!

All kidding aside, peace is good. Even with the dissenters.

geckomon on October 2, 2007 at 4:07 PM

VoteVets are probably very similar to Vietnam Veterans Against The War that Kerry used in order to smear the military back in the 70s. Most of them couldn’t find Vietnam on a map. I would probably guess that there are not any Infantrymen in this organization. I may be wrong. In Nam for every guy doing the fighting there were 7 that didn’t know a war was going on. This could easily be the same scenario.

volsense on October 2, 2007 at 4:14 PM

Liberals Loosing it over Limbaugh -by Rick Moran.

See ya and raise!

CommentGuy on October 2, 2007 at 4:15 PM

Vote Vets is a member of the Americans Against Escalation in Iraq.

Did George Soros just grow another tentacle?

N. O'Brain on October 2, 2007 at 4:18 PM

In a perverse way these liberal Move-On pansies, including Reid, Harkin, et. al., are doing us a favor with this bullshit regarding Rush.

I doubt it, as opposed to Allah evidently, but if the Clintons do win the White House in ’08, I’m sure they will try to re-implement the equivalent of a “fairness doctrine.”

We now know the template that they will use.

Not going to work. They may as well try rescinding the Second Amendment. That won’t work either. It might get ugly but as they say, Freedom ain’t free.

there it is on October 2, 2007 at 4:21 PM

No no, be nice to KP. We’ve made peace.

Allahpundit on October 2, 2007 at 3:09 PM

What? When? How?

Why?

Troy Rasmussen on October 2, 2007 at 4:29 PM

Did George Soros just grow another tentacle?

N. O’Brain on October 2, 2007 at 4:18 PM

Bingo

CommentGuy on October 2, 2007 at 4:31 PM

Redbird on October 2, 2007 at 3:05 PM

Thanks for the link, Redbird. I knew that was the group.

crazy_legs on October 2, 2007 at 4:36 PM

I cannot for the life of me figure out why our Afganistan and Iraq vets are not demanding Reid’s, Harkin’s, Murtha’s, and Durbin’s resignation.
Can you imagine the number of signatures that petition would get?
Dirty Harry’s numbers calling for condemnation of Rush would pale in comparison.

leanright on October 2, 2007 at 4:40 PM

Here is a link to the YouTube new VoteVets ad they just released

CommentGuy on October 2, 2007 at 4:43 PM

How many times has Harry made a visit to the troops?

How about Nancy? Sorry, Syrian troops don’t count.

STFU, til you walk a mile in their shoes.

fogw on October 2, 2007 at 4:45 PM

Here is a link to the YouTube new VoteVets ad they just released

CommentGuy on October 2, 2007 at 4:43 PM

That little pisswad is bought and paid for.

leanright on October 2, 2007 at 4:50 PM

Remember, conservative outrage over the “Betray Us” ad is juvenile nonsense that wastes time which would be better spent debating Iraq. Liberal outrage over Rush Limbaugh is important national business.

KP was of that “this is a distraction from the debate on Iraq” during the MoveOn thing… I’ll be interested to see if she says the same thing about the Limbaugh situation.

RightWinged on October 2, 2007 at 4:58 PM

Vote Vets like Media Matters and Harry Reid knows what Rush was talking about but it doesn’t matter. They don’t care about the truth.

roux on October 2, 2007 at 5:05 PM

Rush demands that Reid resign.
who did they think they were messing with?

Rightwingsparkle on October 2, 2007 at 5:26 PM

I mean Rush has nothing to lose here. He isn’t a public servant. He made his money off those who listen to him. Guess what? Those that listen to him KNOW what he said.

Reid is such an idiot.

Rightwingsparkle on October 2, 2007 at 5:27 PM

Media Matters still is beating the dead horse of the 1 minute 35 second edit of Rush’s initial response.

Just digging deeper and deeper and grasping for straws.

Just got through listening to the reply Rush did this morning and he came out with both barrels blazing.

CommentGuy on October 2, 2007 at 6:05 PM

Their “overplaying” of their hand is so magically perfect in every way that I have to wonder if Rove is really retired.

TBinSTL on October 2, 2007 at 6:59 PM

So why, oh why are they going out of their way this early to try to discredit, remove, or otherwise malign any voice of “opposition,” in an apparent attempt to remove any real or perceived obstacles?
JamesLee on October 2, 2007 at 3:30 PM

They are like sharks on a feeding frenzy. Not to do so would be out of character.

SIJ6141 on October 2, 2007 at 7:54 PM

I could be wrong, but the logo looks awfully familiar.

crazy_legs on October 2, 2007 at 2:47 PM

This may have been answered, but if it looks familiar it’s because it looks exactly like the MoveOn.org logo.

What a coincidence!

Buy Danish on October 2, 2007 at 10:49 PM

After all Rush has done for the Conservative Movement, he’s our national treasure. Shame on anyone too timid to stand up for him now.

petefrt on October 2, 2007 at 3:39 PM

Well then, shame on MB4.

Goodnight.

Buy Danish on October 2, 2007 at 10:52 PM