Where’s the debate to be had? He’s a lying piece of crap, he should be slapped down hard for the fraud he’s committed, and no one should ever believe a word he says ever again. Yes, he fooled a lot of people who might have known better, but those people included the Veteran’s Administration right along with IVAW, so it’s hard to feel too bad about that.
Like elucidator, I had never heard of him before this incident (or at least his name hadn’t stuck with me).
Well, I’ll admit the name did sound vaguely familiar…
I understand that he’s known as The Scottish Phony Soldier among other military impersonators…
Sorry. I just had a life there for a while.
That was my take as well.
Well, I certainly can’t help what you don’t know. But I can answer a question or two if needed. 
No, certainly not. I think if you need firsthand testimony of these horrors, you can easily find such.
So why listen to people who fabricate or embellish their record? That shouldn’t be necessary, should it?
And yet this crops up all of the time. Ads made by Claire McCaskill and Wesley Clark featuring an Iraq vet named Josh Lansdale had to be pulled when it was found that he made unsubstantiated claims about VA health coverage. Antiwar novels published by Micah Ian Wright picked up endorsements from Howard Zinn and Kurt Vonnegut and profiles in major papers before Wright was found to have faked his record as an Army Ranger. The man had never even served.
In this thread, RedFury brought up the story of Jimmy Massey, who claims to have committed atrocities in Iraq. It fell to me to point out that the article he had linked to had been corrected by the Fresno Bee - Massey’s claims were extremely suspect, at any rate couldn’t be verified at all, and the paper couldn’t stand behind the article as originally written.
The New York Times was taken in by an ex-Seabee named Amorita Randall when doing their story on women in combat. As it turns out, she was never in Iraq or any other combat zone.
Now, leaving Limbaugh out of this for the moment, it seems to me that there is a point of discussion here - and it concerns people driven by an agenda or the need to tell a story. And these people are not questioning the credibility of their sources terribly much when they are saying things that fit their own narrative, or have sufficient drama.
Now, I will admit that this temptation runs throughout politics, but it affects people differently, according to the biases they hold. Therefore, antiwar folks might be more easily taken in by frauds telling antiwar stories.
I already said I can’t support Rush on this one. But let’s call things as they are. Murtha made comments about specific soldiers facing prosecution. As a highly placed official, especially one with Defense Department responsibilities, this was an improper imposition on the workings of military justice.
Still, this is a complaint about Murtha’s behavior and sense of responsibility. Of his patriotism and military courage, I have no complaint. And I really wish people could start parsing this distinction - it is a much bigger deal than it seems.
I remember a joke from the last campaign - about a Republican complaining about Kerry’s tax policy and a Democrat yelling at him to stop attacking his Vietnam record. Funny thing is, it wasn’t much of a joke. More of an observation. And we’re in the same fix now.
Rush Limbaugh has been and is attacking Murtha, because of Murtha’s blanket acceptance of the allegations of Marines murdering civilians and children in Haditha which turned out to be falsified and were supported by the Mac Beth claims. Murtha has not backed off or retracted or apologized for these claims. A defamatin suit has been filed against Murtha because of this.
Now that you’re rested and refreshed, a cite or two, perhaps?
And when you say “supported by the MacBeth claims” are you insinuating, implying, or otherwise suggesting that his is the only testimony? And that therefore any and all such reports are suspect?
If the Haditha incident had been proven false, that would seem to be very big news, indeed. Sort of thing certain interests would be at great pains to advertise, in the manner of shrieking at the top of their lungs. And yet I, who regularly haunts news sources, have heard none of it! How very odd.
But since you have the facts at your very fingertips, I look forward to your citations.
If there were something germaine in the ommitted portion or the ommision changed the meaning, than I would be suspicious and think that he was lying deliberately to hide something.
It appears to me that the purpose of ommitting the portion is not to change meaning, but as you say… to condense it, I am not so suspicious, and tend to think it’s simply a mistake.
Actually he talked about the ommission two days ago, discussing how his show is fact-checked by an independant third party and that that mistake would probably end up lowering his accuracy rating.
He then when on to opine that even though the ommission was immaterial, he could have predicted dishonest parties like Media Matters and Harry Reid who are already falsely attributing opinions to him would likely build another falsehood based on this and argue that the ommision somehow represented dishonesty.
Harry Reid spokesman Rodell Mollineau made just that argument "“He must have known he screwed up, or he wouldn’t have edited the script.”
Harry Reid responded to the phony soldiers comment by saying:
“Rush Limbaugh took it upon himself to attack the courage and character of those fighting and dying for him and for all of us. Rush Limbaugh got himself a deferment from serving when he was a young man. He never served in uniform. He never saw in person the extreme difficulty of maintaining peace in a foreign country engaged in a civil war. He never saw a person in combat. Yet, that he thinks his opinion on the war is worth more than those who have been on the front lines,” Reid said.
“Rush Limbaugh owes the men and women of our armed forces an apology,”
Which looks to me like several deliberate lies.
Tom Harking said "“Maybe he was just high on his drugs. I don’t know.” "
I want a cite for this piece of information. What third party? Because Rush isn’t very well-known among those those of us in the reality-based world for his accuracy. Or any actual sincere desire to be accurate, for that matter.
Well no. If you are only reading carefully selected outtakes you’re not really qualified to judge his intent. You don’t get to construe an opinion and attribute it to another party based an this kind of selection.
You seem to be arguing that Rush Limbaugh’s opinion is other than what he states it is.
It is your argument that is flawed.
This one particular, carefully selected outtake presents the possibility of multiple interpretations. Almost his complete record on the subject is diametrically opposed to one possible interpretation. Rush Limbaugh has himself denied that interpretation.
You however seem to be arguing that if you take this one outtake, assign it a meaning that the man himself denies and ignore everything else the man has said that this then proves he holds this view.
He simply does not hold this view. Attributing it to him is dishonest.
It’s amazing how you can tell me about what he says without even listening.
Even assuming all that, how does it make Murtha a “phony soldier”? Doesn’t calling Murtha a phony soldier negate Rush’s claim that he was referring only to those who had faked their service?
The edit was meant to bring the “phony soldier” comment and the discussion of Macbeth closer together, when in fact there was a big gap between the two.
I suppose that’s fair. I knew it and I knew better. Sorry.
Well, since Rush Limbaugh is being attacked over this issue by many on the left including members of congress, it seems disingenuous to claim that he is “manufacturing” this scandal.
As you know, I am one of those who is so “pretending” and I take umbrage at being called “fool,” particularly by a moderator and particularly in GD. But to respond, to the allegation, I habitually listen to the program over lunch, and have for several years. I heard the exchange live. I’ve heard Rush make many similar comments about posers who pretend they are veterans to denounce the war and provide specific examples of others falsifying charges and allegations against our servicemen such as Scott Thomas. When one of these is uncovered, he usually spends some time on it. So, Rush Limbaugh has a history of exposing journalists and phony soldiers making atrocity claims on his show. He has done this with the explicit stated purpose of defending our servicemen against false defamatory statements. He has taken issue with Murtha’s publicizing, giving credibility, and accepting false claims of atrocities that resulted in penalties and hardship to the servicemen falsely accused.
It has been largely through his efforts that these false accusations have come to light and received any publicity. It is largely through his efforts that antiwar veterans organizations have become more careful and stringent about who they accept, and attempt to verify service and stories before publicizing them.
He has this history, and for these actions I think he deserves to be lauded. I think it’s good that there is somebody out there defending our soldiers against false accusations, and raising standards for proof.
So, having listened to Rush’s show for several years and having heard all this firsthand, and having observed this record am I a “fool” for “pretending” the comments were really referring to Mac Beth.
Personally, I think it’s more foolish to accept one single carefully selected excerpt over a multi- year track record.
But, I guess since I only listen to the guy I should take your opinion.
Which is based on…
Oh yeah! One ambiguous quote.
I agree that he should not be removed from AFN and that AFN should be allowed, (nay, encouraged), to play political commentary.
All else is posturing.
[/QUOTE]
Rush called Murtha a phony soldier several days after the incident. Mostly, in my opinion to fan the flames to again attack Murtha based on his nonretraction of accusations against the vindicated marines he accused of atrocities.
Not exactly a rhetorically clean manuever, I’ll grant, but Murtha does not get much sympathy from this as he’s largely skated.
You can’t know what it was “meant” to do unless you can read the mind of the person who made the edit. An equally reasonable interpretation is that it simply saved time and space and brought clarity.
You could only reasonably construe that the edit was disingenuous if the entire transcript were not available and Rush could have the reasonable expectation that a disingenous edit would not be caught. Rush’s show however are canned and available in full to anyone who pays the subscriber fee, so no such expectation can reasonably exist.
Mediamatters’ edit on the other hand leaves out germain context and seems to imply a different meaning to his words than a less selective edit would provide.
Weaving gossamer threads of innuendo, you seem to be suggesting that the incident at Haditha never happened. Might we have something a bit more explicit? Which false charges are you talking about, when and under what circumstances was the falseness revealed? Its all very well to speak approvingly of defending our soldiers against false charges, Heaven knows! but which, where, when, how, cite?
If so, the new has not gotten around sufficiently, as of yesterday, charges were still be brought (though reduced to negligent homicide for the officer in question…)
Pentagon: Lesser charges proposed for Marine in Haditha incident
And if this isn’t the incident that is “false”, well, then, what is? Can you specify any false charges that Rush has repudiated? Can you actually prove any of this?
Its all right to include the occassional cite in your work, friend Scylla, it makes the whole rather more substantial, hence pleasing, like a good crunchy granola compared to an aerosol can of Cheez Whiz.
His accuracy rating is determined each month by an audit conducted by the Sullivan group.
http://www.antiauthority.com/propaganda/limbaugh_lexicon-rush.asp
I’m glad you questioned that. Now that I’m looking at it, I think he is being facetious.
Actually, I thought you were merely reporting this incident to make a different point, so I was unaware that I was calling you a fool. You may describe yourself however you wish.
Given that the Macbeth issue was not a really big focal point of any serious group, (it tended to be a matter of the loonies on the extremes fighting over a lone false voice–not even the Daily KOS made any serious mention of Macbeth until after Limbaugh waved around his name), I see no reason to believe that Limbaugh was not referring to all the protesting Iraq-deployed soldiers as “phony” soldiers. His initial comment was to the first “Mike” who made the absurd claim that there were not real soldiers in Iraq raising objections to our presence–a point with which Limbaugh agreed with his “phony” comment. Given that the much larger recent story was in regards to the deaths of three of seven soldiers who had publicly criticized the war, Mike’s comment was absurd and I see no reason to believe that Limbaugh was not including them in his characterization of who he gets to call phony.
Rush Limbaugh has an accuracy rating? Does Hannibl Lecter have a rating from Diner’s Club?
And, by the by, have you any of those cites at hand?
You can’t know what it seems to have “meant” to do unless you can read the mind of the person who made the edit. An equally reasonable interpretation is that it simply saved time and space and brought clarity.