I’d agree with you here if Limbaugh hadn’t gone on to specifically call Harry Reid and Scott Beauchamp “phony soldiers”.
Well, I said above that I couldn’t support what Limbaugh said. Or maybe it was another thread. Don’t know at this point.
Even so, for Reid to do what he did seemed unseemly to me.
The letter is dumb, but Limbaugh WAS talking about soldiers who oppose the war. The viewpoint Reid is attributing to him is accurate, no matter how much he tries to backpedal and edit the tapes after the fact.
I don’t recall that. Do you have a cite?
I note that on Harry Reid’s WIkipedia site, there is no mention of military service, and I’m pretty sure he didn’t serve in Iraq.
It cetainly seems to me that Beachamp fabricated his editorials, so while he clearly was a soldier, his accusations appear to be phony.
Asuming your correct and Limbaugh did call them both “phony soldiers” I’d agree that it’s somewhat pointless and innacurate a characterization, but I don’t see how it can be construed to be offensive to those soldiers who have served, yet protest the war with integrity.
…who fabricate claims of atrocities. Yes. I don’t have a particular problem with this. Do you?
I’m sorry, I mistyped–it wasn’t Harry Reid, it was Jack Murtha. Mea culpa. (Long day.)
As for what he said, I quoted it on the first page of this thread.
Rush can’t say he was specifically talking about those who claim to be soldiers but aren’t and then turn around and apply the label to genuine soldiers who do things he doesn’t like. All he’s doing is confirming exactly what everyone is saying about him.
Really? Because it seems to me that Beauchamp messed around with some details, as one often does when trying to write an anonymous story, and his fellow soldiers who substantiated his claims clammed up when the Army clamped down.
But however you see it, Beauchamp is clearly a genuine soldier serving in Iraq.
Scylla:
You leave an implication hanging in the air, like a faint but nasty scent: fabricating atrocities.
By which you mean either that such things happen, but this fellow never actually saw any or that they don’t happen and he’s making shit up for some purpose. Limbaugh does that a lot as well, he alludes in a direction he has no intention of pursuing with evidence, he puffs out a big cloud of insinuations and trusts his audience to come to the implied conclusion. He wants to plant in the mind the notion that reports of wrongdoing by American soldiers are fabrications (to what end? We all know why people who hate America do what they do, what a silly question…) He wants to imply that only “phony” soldiers make such reports, “phony” soldiers peddle such reports to MoveOn or Commissar Soros or some liberal magazine (same things, really, details, petty details…)
He wont actually say that, and he doesn’t have to, when you’re preaching to the choir, they already know the hymnal. Heard him a bit on Hannity and His Bitch tonight, even managed to work John Kerry in to it, as if referring to a proven fact, he buttresses his insinuation with an innuendo.
This is very skilled propaganda. He hasn’t said anything he can be pinned to, it would be like trying to harpoon a drop of mercury with a sewing needle. He aims for people who are smart enough to catch the drift, but not smart enough to see that it is horseshit.
Or, in certain rare circumstances, more than smart enough to see it but refuses to do so.
This revisionist bullshit has already been debunked in this thread.
What it seemed like to me was the reporting of battlefield urban legends. And while I was pretty scrupulous about not pronouncing Beauchamp a hero or liar, I am pretty skeptical about his claims.
But he’s a phony because he told lies about what he claimed happened in Iraq. Hence, “phony soldier”. Although Rush was primarily discussing whoever it was who claimed to be a veteran who washed out of boot camp and lied about it, and whoever it was that published the article in his wife’s magazine claiming all kinds of shit that never seemed to have happened.
I’m sure you would disagree that Limbaugh should get a pass for “messing around with some details”. Apply the same standard to people who are lionized in the MSM for their opposition to the war, but who are found out to be liars. That’s what Limbaugh was objecting to.
Morons like Reid and those agree with him are not susceptible to reason, I know, since they have less interest in the truth than in attacks on those who disagree with them. But for normal folks, one would hope a point as clearly stated as Rush’s has become could be examined for what it is.
Regards,
Shodan
No.
No.
No amount of manufactured controversy will get me listening to or reading what Rush said. Or didn’t say. Or was misrepresented by others. Or by him. Or both. My digestive tract can’t take it. I also don’t care what Wes Clark says.
As to the ?issues? in abstract, if there are any … AFR has the same right as any commercial radio station to broadcast what they want, to not broadcst what they don’t want, and are under the same constraints. If the owners (in this case gubbermint) doesn’t want to play it, they don’t have to. Like any other broadcaster they care about what their listeners want to hear and they are beholden to their sponsors (in this case Congress) who do tend to react some to public outcries. Public outcries can be manufactured and silly or true grass roots disgust. Don’t matter much to the sponsors. Enough outcry and they may react. In this case it seems that the outcry is minimal and that the whining about the outcry is annoyingly loud.
And now I need a Tums just thinking about Rush.
The letter fetched 2.1 million dollars on ebay.
Rush will match that with 2.1 million of his own.
Here’s some info on the Marine Corps LEF league:
Here’s what they have to say about Rush (a long term supporter)
Harry Reid attempts to take credit for the whole thing though he refuses to address his accusations personally with Rush, and ignores the request to make a similar donation to the league
The MCLEF will be able to raise sholarship levels and give more to disable veterans because of this:
Kind of proud to be a Limbaugh fan today.
Such loyalty would be admirable if it were not squandered on a pustule.
Pustule raised over4 million dollars for the families of dead servicemen.
I can only imagine what stellar and Christlike acts of charity you must have accomplished in your life that enable you to look down with disdain upon such a thing.
Kudos to Rush for his auction and his donation.
It sucks that he referred to soldiers who disagree with him as phony (questionably in his original comment, undeniably in his later comments re: Murtha and Beauchamp), and it would be nice if he’d own up to that, but in the absence of that possibility it’s nice that he was able to do something positive with the publicity.
Of course, an asshole who does a good thing is usually still an asshole.
How on earth did it raise that much on ebay? It sounds to me like this is the kind of thing where some random person has bid millions for a laugh, and the correct amount will be much smaller.
But anyway, if there’s a record i’d like to go on it saying that it’s very generous of Limbaugh to raise and give that much money. Fair dos to him; I can think him a wanker, but a charitable wanker. 
I’d still say i’m suspicious of his statements, and I certainly don’t think arguing that way cannot be done “in good faith” despite the impressive repitition of the phrase.
Not a bit of it! I wholly approve of his action auction, it exploits people who have more money than good sense, and that money will go to relieve the burden of orphans created by the policies Rush so heartily endorses. They should have no such burdens that require charitable actions, of course, but that’s another issue entirely.
Happily, Rush was aware of that possibility and you had to prequalify once the bidding got really high. As it turns out, the foundation of a long term listener made the winning bid.
That’s fair.
We’ve argued hard for a long time, and I don’t think you meant that the way it came out.