RED SOX WIN!!!

I thought I might never see it even once in my lifetime, and I never imagined I would see it twice.

Red Sox Nation--REJOICE!!!

I must now provide an explanation for my silence--and this can be verified. By the time I thought about blogging about the Red Sox this summer, the season was well under way, and the Sox were way out in front. I am very superstitious when it comes to sports in general, but even more so when it comes to the Red Sox. I figured that they were off to the great start without any blogging from me, and I did not want to jinx the deal. As the Yankees started to surge in the second half of the season, I thought that maybe I should break my silence, but I decided to stick with my superstition, and the Red Sox finally pulled away right at the end. Because of that, I stayed silent even when the Indians held a 3-1 lead. And when the Red Sox won three in a row to win the ALCS, I knew I had to keep quiet until the World Series was over.

So for anyone in Red Sox Nation who might wonder whether I'm some Johnny-come-lately to this party, just know that I have been there all season, and now I am thrilled that I can end my silence.

What follows will be understood by Red Sox fans, and if others think it is BS, well, I don't care. Red Sox fans don't fear the drop of the other shoe. We fear the drop of the sledgehammer that crushes our hopes and dreams and then refuses to hit us just so we can't be put out of our misery. That's why even tonight, being up 3-0 in the Series and 3 runs going into the 8th inning, I could not relax. And then Helton got a hit by just putting the bat up as he was moving out of the way of an inside pitch. And then Atkins hit a rocket shot off Okajima to make it a one-run game. The drama continued in the bottom of the 9th as Jamey Carroll connected with a Papelbon fastball that forced Ellsbury to make a running, jumping catch right at the left field wall. I finally exhaled when Papelbon got the strikeout to end the game.

That's it for now. I too tired and too happy to write any more--except for one thing:

RED SOX WIN!!!

What Rush Limbaugh actually said and did (Part 3)

In the previous post, I mentioned a TV ad by VoteVets.org featuring Brian McGough. You can see the ad here. In the ad, McGough says the following:

More and more troops and veterans of Iraq believe George Bush‘s military policy has been a disaster. I am one of them. Rush Limbaugh called vets like me phony soldiers for telling the truth about Iraq. Rush, the shrapnel I took to my head was real. A traumatic brain injury was real, and my belief that we are on the wrong course in Iraq is real.

Until you have the guts to call me a phony soldier to my face, stop telling lies about my service.

On his October 2, 2007, show, Limbaugh initially responded to the ad. NOTE: I included that response in a earlier post. I quoted Limbaugh's transcript from his October 4 show, in which he said his initial response was made on October 2. Anyway, here is what Limbaugh first said about McGough's comments:

You know, this is such a blatant use of a valiant combat veteran, lying to him about what I said, then strapping those lies to his belt, sending him out via the media and a TV ad to walk into as many people as he can walk into. This man will always be a hero to this country with everyone. Whoever pumped him full of these lies about what I said and embarrassed him with this ad has betrayed him. They're not hurting me. They're betraying this soldier. Now, unless he actually believes what he's saying, in which case it's just so unfortunate and sad when the truth of what I said is right out there to be learned.

After nationwide criticism that he had had essentially called McGough a suicide bomber, Rush responded on his October 4, 2007, show. Again, I point out that the title that Limbaugh gave to this transcript from that show was "Rush Never Said 'Suicide Bomber.'" So, his basic defense was that since he never used the specific words "suicide bomber" he did not call McGough a suicide bomber. Let me see if I can play that game...I think Rush Limbaugh is a large bag containing fecal matter. However, since I did not expressly use the words "fat sack of crap," I did not call Limbaugh a fat sack of crap. Wow, that was easy!

Of course, all the dittoheads and wingers would claim that I did indeed call Limbaugh a fat sack of crap--and they would be right. But--amazingly--these same people would still claim that Limbaugh did not call McGough a suicide bomber. Let's get this straight: A suicide bomber straps explosives to himself and then walks into an area where there are lots of people. Limbaugh described exactly what a suicide bomber does but said McGough had words strapped to him and then effectively went into a crowd of people. That is comparing McGough to a suicide bomber, and anyone who claims otherwise is delusional, grossly hypocritical, or monumentally stupid.

On October 3, 2007, McGough was interviewed on Countdown. Here is part of what he said in response to Limbaugh:

My initial reaction is disgust. How someone can sit in that chair and say that I am a car bomber or—excuse me, a suicide bomber—is disgusting. I have seen the after-effects of a suicide bomb. I have friends that were hurt by suicide bombs. It makes me mad down to a place where I can‘t even think to describe. It‘s just repugnant.

Limbaugh's attempt at spin on October 4 was rather pathetic.

I called him a hero. The other reference is the Drive-By Media runs in, blows things up, creates all these messes, and then heads on down the road to create another one. So I called him a suicide bomber. You see how this works? I didn't call anybody who legitimately serves a phony soldier. I didn't call this guy a suicide bomber.

Let's play Rush's game again...I think Rush Limbaugh is a great American and a fat sack of crap. See, the fact that I said something nice about Limbaugh does not change the fact that I also called him a fat sack of crap--and it never will. Likewise, just because Limbaugh on the one hand used the specific word "hero" in referring to McGough does not change the fact that he compared him to a suicide bomber.

Limbaugh tried to turn this into a claim of "I was really only saying bad things about the media." That is bullshit, for Limbaugh in essence said that McGough was ignorant and unaware of what he was doing and allowed himself to be used--just like a suicide bomber, by the way.

McGough had plenty to say about that in his appearance on Countdown:

OLBERMANN: To fact check his claims in there, and he has admitted he hadn‘t seen what you said, which is a sort of bad starting point from his point of view, one would imagine. But, did anybody interpret his remarks for you or tell you what to think about them? You have heard them for yourself, have you not? Unlike what Mr. Limbaugh did not hear from you.

MCGOUGH: Yes, I have heard them for myself. I have read the transcripts. I have heard the audio. I was asked if I would be interested in doing an ad. I told them I would be as long as I agreed with the language of the ad. I read the language of the ad and agreed with it. It‘s something that I stand by and stick by.

I do believe it and I can think for myself. And for Rush Limbaugh to say that an American soldier like me can‘t think for myself because I speak out against the Iraq war is preposterous. A growing number, almost 70 percent of the U.S. population, does not believe in the war. Military is just a mirror image of that, so a lot of veterans and troops don‘t believe in the war.

What he is really saying is that a growing large number of veterans and troops can‘t think for themselves.

OLBERMANN: Even if it was just you. Even if it was just you or a handful of people, that‘s still your right, is it not?

MCGOUGH: Yes, it is my right. It‘s my right that I fought for. I bled for. I sweated all the time. I cried for. And he has the right to say what he wants too. But he has to understand he has got a responsibility. And I said what I said, and I‘m coming out and saying, look, these are my words. I believe in them. Where is he? I would like him to have any member of our organization on his show at any time so we can talk to him and look him in the face and say, am I phony soldier? Do I look like a suicide bomber to you? That‘s all we ask.

And, as I already noted before, Limbaugh has not and will not grant that simple request.

What Rush Limbaugh actually said and did (Part 2)

One group which had a quick response to Limbaugh's "phony soldiers" line was VoteVets.org. Here's some info on the group:

The mission of VoteVets.org Political Action Committee is to elect Veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to public office; hold public officials accountable for their words and actions that impact America’s 21st century servicemembers; and fully support our men and women in uniform.

A political action committee (PAC), VoteVets.org was founded in January 2006 by Iraq war Veterans Jon Soltz and Jeremy Broussard. Since its inception, VoteVets.org PAC has endorsed eight candidates for office – both Democratic and Republican. Additionally, VoteVets.org PAC held 11 Members of Congress accountable in 2006 for failing to provide body armor and healthcare to active servicemembers.

One of the founding members of VoteVets.org is Jon Soltz. On September 27, 2007--the day after Limbaugh said "phony soldiers"--Soltz posted a column at The Huffington Post about Limbaugh's remarks. Here are some excerpts:

First, in what universe is a guy who never served even close to being qualified to judge those who have worn the uniform? Rush Limbaugh has never worn a uniform in his life -- not even one at Mickey D's -- and somehow he's got the moral standing to pass judgment on the men and women who risked their lives for this nation, and his right to blather smears on the airwaves?

Second, maybe Rush doesn't much care, but the majority of troops on the ground in Iraq, and those who have returned, do not back the President's failed policy. If you go to our "Did You Get the Memo" page at VoteVets.org, there's a good collection of stories, polls, and surveys, which all show American's troops believe we are on the wrong track, not the right one, in Iraq.

Does Rush believe, then, that the majority of the US Armed Forces are "phony?"

Third, the polls and stories don't even take into account the former brass who commanded in Iraq, who are incredibly critical of the Bush administration, and it's steadfast refusal to listen to those commanders on the ground who have sent up warning after warning. Major Generals John Batiste and Paul Eaton left the military and joined VoteVets.org for that very reason.

Does Rush believe that highly decorated Major Generals are "phony soldiers?"

*******

My challenge to you, then, is to have me on the show and say all of this again, right to the face of someone who served in Iraq. I'll come on any day, any time. Not only will I once again explain why your comments were so wrong, but I will completely school you on why your refusal to seek a way out of Iraq is only aiding al Qaeda and crippling American security.

Ball's in your court.

Other members of VoteVets.org made the same challenge to Limbaugh, and I will detail some of their actions in another post. This post will focus on the fact that that simple challenge has gone unanswered.

VoteVets.org made a television commercial featuring Brian McGough, an Iraq war veteran who suffered a traumatic brain injury from shrapnel from a car bomb. The next post will discuss Limbaugh's disgusting response to the ad in which he 1) described McGough as a suicide bomber and 2) then denied that he made such a comparison. This post will examine something else Limbaugh did after making the suicide bomber comparison.

To put the remainder of this post in context, I will quote from an October 2, 2007, letter from the CEO of Clear Channel Communications, Mark P. Mays, to Sen. Harry Reid. Clear Channel is the corporate giant that syndicates Limbaugh's show nationwide. Reid had written Clear Channel protesting Limbaugh's "phony soldiers" statement, and the October 2 letter was in response to Reid. I will say now that the letter is generally well written and contains many things with which I agree. Here are the first two paragraphs from Mays's letter:

I want to thank you and your Senate Democratic colleagues for sharing your concern over recent comments by Rush Limbaugh on his daily radio program. First, let me say that the men and women who wear the uniform in defense of our country deserve the utmost respect and gratitude from each and every one of us whom they serve to protect. I assure you that I fully agree with your statement that “not a single one of our sons, daughters, neighbors, and friends serving overseas is a phony soldier.” As a grateful American citizen, I would reject anyone’s contention to the contrary.

Mr. Limbaugh’s comments last week have stirred a lot of emotion, and I have carefully read the transcript from the episode in question. I hope you will appreciate that I cannot speak with authity as to whom exactly Mr. Limbaugh’s comments were directed, or what was his intent. Only Mr. Limbaugh can speak to those issues, which he has done.

(emphasis added). But had Limbaugh really spoken to those issues? As I noted in the two previous posts Limbaugh could conclusively put an end to the controversy by simply saying that he does not consider anyone who has served or is serving in Iraq to be a "phony soldier," regardless of their views on the war, and although he came close to doing so, he waited until October 4 to do so.

Mays stated a rather obvious point about the possible meaning of Limbaugh's comments:

However, if Mr. Limbaugh’s intention was to classify any soldier opposed to the war in Iraq as a “phony soldier,” which he denies, then I, along with most Americans, would be deeply offended by such a statement.

Mays then wrote about free speech.

While I do not agree with everything Mr. Limbaugh says on every topic, I do believe that he, along with every American, has the right to voice his or her opinion in the manner they choose. The First Amendment gives every American the right to voice his or her opinion, no matter how unpopular. That right is one that I am sure you agree must be cherished and protected.

As the Chief Executive Officer of Clear Channel, I support each of our on-air talent’s right to express himself or herself freely, as long as they do it within the confines of the laws set forth by Congress. For this reason, I have not and will not impose my own views upon any of our on-air talent. Doing so would, quite frankly, undermine the integrity of the broadcast, undercut the trust with our listeners that they are receiving the true and honest opinions of the radio host, and more importantly fly directly in the face the right to free speech that we hold so dear.

I agree with the principles expressed by Mays, but I do need to correct something he said. It is not just the laws of Congress that define the scope of free speech. Given that our right to free speech is born of the First Amendment, it is law established by the Constitution, not the Congress, and thus, a great deal of the scope and limitations of that right are determined by the courts. Also, each state has laws regarding free speech. Given the rest of Mays's letter, I am guessing that he would also take into account these other sources of laws.

Take a look at May's statements and then compare them to what Rush said on October 4 (see my previous post). Mays took far fewer words than Rush and was more direct and unequivocal. Mays also made those statements a day before Limbaugh. In any event, Mays promoted the First Amendment. It's just too bad that neither his company nor Limbaugh have done the same.

You see, Limbaugh has refused to have any member of VoteVets.org make an appearance on his show. To me, that shows cowardice. It also shows that Limbaugh is not interested in something that is considered by many to be a principle of the First Amendment, the marketplace of ideas. Julie Hilden succinctly defined the marketplace of ideas as "a virtual marketplace in which ideas compete against each other and where, in theory, truth, and the best ideas, will prevail." I am not going to discuss or analyze the principle in detail, but I will say that it has been a long-recognized--if not fully accepted or validated--concept in First Amendment law and theory. I will also say that the marketplace cannot function if ideas are excluded from the discussion. In other words, if one side of an issue is presented but all opposing views are excluded, there can be no marketplace, no competition, and no testing to reach the truth. I bring up the marketplace of ideas for two reasons: 1) since he styles himself as a conservative, I figure that Rush professes to believe in free markets rather than tight control and regulation, and 2) Rush his ownself constantly maintains that he and he alone speaks "the truth."

Now I know what some of you are thinking...Limbaugh didn't need to have any of the VoteVets people on his show because he didn't call any of them "phony soldiers." Well, even if that is true--and I don't think that it is--why not have Jon Soltz, Brian McGough, or anyone else from VoteVets.org on his show? That would promote the marketplace of ideas and the First Amendment. And if Rush is so convinced he and he alone proclaims the truth, then surely such an occasion would only serve to prove once and for all his superiority. So why won't Limbaugh have someone from VoteVets.org in the studio as a guest during his show?

As it turns out, it seems that Rush does indeed believe in the marketplace, just not of ideas. See, instead of actually bringing a person from VoteVets.org on his show as a guest, Limbaugh made the following proposal on October 4, 2007:

Now, there's something I can do, and I'm in the process of doing it. It's the least I can do. Your organization is choosing to raise money, using my name, and I'm happy about that. It's the least I can do for you guys. If you need to raise money, and my name raises money for a lot of people, you go right ahead because, Brian, it's going to come back to me. Here's how it works. You keep using your money that I raise for you to run ads on radio. If you buy time on my affiliates -- and it's smart to do, that's going to reach you the largest audience -- we use your money to make money for my station. So it's a win-win here, Brian. I'm happy to raise money for you, and I'm happy when you give it back to me.

Well, he is right about one thing--that is absolutely the least he could do. This "offer" is evidence of the conclusion to my previous post, which opined that making more money is what really motivates Limbaugh and that he is a self-centered, greedy whore. Of course, I also said he is a lying, hypocritical, cowardly jackass, and what transpired the day before Limbaugh made his "offer" provides evidence for that opinion.

It turns out that even before Limbaugh made his "offer," VoteVets.org sought to purchase three spots of advertising time to run a radio version of the McGough TV commercial. Now for the good part...The home station for Limbaugh's show is WJNO in Palm Beach, Florida. WJNO is a Clear Channel station. Clear Channel's Vice President/Marketing Manager for Clear Channel's 12 stations in the Palm Beach area refused to sell VoteVets.org ad time on Limbaugh's show via a letter dated October 3, 2007--the day before Limbaugh made his "offer." Here's the letter:

In light of the audience composition and the tone of the commercial presented by the “Vote for Vets”, we can not air the three spots requested for broadcast on WJNO AM during the Rush Limbaugh Show. Airing anti-Rush Limbaugh commercials during the Rush Limbaugh Show on WJNO AM would only conflict with the listeners who have chosen to listen to Rush Limbaugh.

As an alternative, we would propose airing the commercials during other dayparts on WJNO or on some of our other appropriate stations in the market, and would be happy to make advertising recommendations based on format and demographics to aid you in your station selection.

(spelling and punctuation errors in original). Un-freaking-believable. As Keith Olbermann said, "Making it official now, Limbaugh's fans must be actively protected from any opposing views." I'll add another layer to that theme. The person who wants protection from opposing views is Limbaugh. Rush's SOP is to deride and eventually dismiss anyone who dares to question or disagree with him. Recall how he treated the caller on September 26 who was a veteran and a Republican. Because the caller dared to question Bush's Iraq policy, Rush concluded that there was no way that the man was really a Republican and then he just called him names. Limbaugh did not engage in a substantive discussion in any way. Limbaugh never wants someone in front of him who disagrees with him because then he might actually have to engage in a substantive discussion. And then it might be more difficult for him to convince his all of his listeners that he and he alone speaks "the truth." In other words, Rush must be protected from having to address opposing views because otherwise his listeners might actually get more information and maybe think for themselves. And that could potentially lose Rush some listeners, which in turn could cost Rush and Clear Channel money. Rush is pro-First Amendment to the extent he is not necessarily concerned about what people say, but he is very concerned about what people hear. Allowing opposing views to be expressed and actually discussed would mean that Rush would not have total control over what his listeners hear, and Rush will never allow such a loss of control.

What really makes Limbaugh's "offer" appalling is that it happened after VoteVets.org attempted to buy time on his show and after Clear Channel had already denied that attempt. Stated differently, Rush already knew these facts when he boldly announced on October 4 that VoteVets.org should try to buy air time. If he had really been sincere about his "offer" he could have said that he was aware that VoteVets.org had tried unsuccessfully to buy time, but that he would see to it that they would get that time. Instead, he made it seem like they had been sitting on their hands doing nothing but whining and that he--the mighty instrument of truth--would make sure they had the chance to get on the air.

What a jackass.

Update on "What Rush Limbaugh actually said and did (Part 1)"

At the end of the previous post, I said that I was unaware of Limbaugh making any statement along the lines that that those who have actually served or are currently serving in Iraq who have criticized the war are not in his mind phony soldiers. I began working on that post October 4, and I was unaware until late last night of what transpired on Limbaugh's show on October 4. The short story is that Limbaugh said some things along those lines.

He made those comments as part of a response to criticism of something else he had said about an ad done by VoteVets.org featuring a veteran named Brian McGough. Limbaugh compared McGough to a suicide bomber, and his basic response was that he did not call McGough a suicide bomber because he did not use the words "suicide bomber." If you doubt that, just note that the title given the transcript on Rush's own website is "Rush Never Said 'Suicide Bomber.'" I still plan on discussing in more detail that ad and what Rush said about McGough in a separate post, but for now here's what Rush said initially about McGough:

You know, this is such a blatant use of a valiant combat veteran, lying to him about what I said, then strapping those lies to his belt, sending him out via the media and a TV ad to walk into as many people as he can walk into.

Sure, Rush...you never called him a suicide bomber.

Anyway, here's some of what Limbaugh said on October 4 which qualifies as the sort of statement I referenced at the start of this post:

This man will always be a hero to this country with everyone.

*******

I didn't call anybody who legitimately serves a phony soldier. I didn't call this guy a suicide bomber.

*******

Brian, let me try this again. Mr. McGough, I admire you for your service. I admire anyone and everyone who volunteers to serve in the United States military in this country, always have. I'm grateful to you for your service. And that, Brian, is an unqualified thank you, whether or not you support the war or the surge, President Bush, or not. But, Brian, there are phony soldiers. You aren't one, Brian McGough is not a phony soldier and I never called you a phony soldier.

*******

There are lots of phony soldiers out there, Brian, but I never called you one, not calling you one now, never would call you one...I never implied, never said that you, Brian McGough, or any of your group, were phonies.

I will give Rush credit, but not full credit. To say that he never implied that McGough or anyone at VoteVets.org was not a phony soldier is wrong. His statements up to October 4 were never so clear as to leave no doubt as to his intention and meaning. [NOTE: What follows is an addition to this post made on October 12.] Furthermore, an implication can be found in the context of what the caller said and what Limbaugh then did not say. Specifically, here's the pertinent portion of the transcript:

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.

It is reasonable to find that the caller implied that no "real soldiers" ever talk to the media and that those who do suddenly talk to the media are not "real soldiers." It is thus reasonable to find that the caller considered veterans or active duty personnel who criticize the war in the media not to be "real soldiers." And it is reasonable to find that when the caller used the term "phony soldiers," he was referring to the same people he considered not to be "real soldiers." Did Limbaugh say anything to dispel such implication? No. One would think that somebody that talks about how much he respects and supports the troops would have recognized the implication and the possibility of misinterpretation and done something to dispel any erroneous notions. Instead, Limbaugh did nothing. You would think that someone who talks about how much he respects and supports the troops would have made a point of saying that when he started talking about Jesse MacBeth, it was only to Mac Beth that he was referring when he used the term "phony soldiers." Instead, Limbaugh did nothing.

And the caller's comments and Limbaugh's lack of clarification raise another question, namely just who are "real" soldiers in the context of that conversation? Are only combat troops "real" soldiers? What about those that serve in support and logistical roles that don't go into combat but are nonetheless present in or near combat theaters? What about active duty personnel that are not in Iraq? Those answers are not readily apparent in that conversation, which is important because what I am addressing at this moment is what Limbaugh might have implied before October 4.

And if Limbaugh simply made an innocent oversight in failing to clarify matters as suggested in the previous paragraph, then [end of October 12 addition] why did it take him eight days to say things that he could have said on October 27? Note that much of what Limbaugh said was directed at McGough, and even the things that could be applied in a broader sense were prompted by what McGough had said. Why, then, did Limbaugh wait to say anything along these lines until Brian McGough came forward? My point is that Limbaugh could have said these things on September 27. If they reflect how he truly feels--and he certainly at the least implies that they do--those feelings did not just suddenly form after Brian McGough made his commercial.

And so I go back to how I concluded the previous post...

What Rush Limbaugh actually said and did (Part 1)

Limbaugh's most recent pattern of bullshit behavior started during his radio show on September 26, 2007. During that show, many people believe that he called U.S. military personnel who criticize the Iraq war "phony soldiers." That is certainly the way I see it. An adequate discussion of this story requires several posts because, as usual, Rush has engaged in more manipulation and lies after the initial incident. I will begin with the transcript from his show on September 26. I obtained the transcript from two posts at Media Matters (here and here). The initial exchange below helps put the "phony soldiers" comment in context.

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.

I included this exchange because it shows Limbaugh's SOP of dealing in absolutes and broad characterizations. This caller said he was a Republican and a veteran, yet Rush kept asserting that just because the caller criticized the Iraq war he could not possibly be a Republican. I happen to know some Republicans who to a meaningful degree have criticized the war, and trust me, they are definitely Republicans. However, in Limbaugh's world, anyone who is against the Iraq war in any way is a Democrat, not a Republican.

With that in mind, here is the transcript of the conversation with the next caller.

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.

_

LIMBAUGH: -- 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. And, and my other comment was -- and the reason I was calling for -- was to report to Jill about the fact that we didn't, didn't find any weapons of mass destruction. Actually, we have found weapons of mass destruction in chemical agents that [inaudible] been using against us for awhile now.

I've done two tours in Iraq. I just got back in June and there were many instances of -- since [inaudible] not know what they're using in their IEDs [improvised explosive devices]. They're using mustard artillery rounds. The VX artillery rounds in their IEDs.

Because they didn't know what they were using, they didn't do it right, and so it just kind of -- it, it didn't really hurt anybody but there are -- those munitions are over there, it's just -- it's a huge desert. If they've buried it somewhere, we're never gonna find it.

LIMBAUGH: Well, you know, that's a moot point for me right now --

MIKE: Rush --

LIMBAUGH: -- the weapons of mass destruction. We gotta get beyond that. We're, we're there. What -- who cares if, if -- we all know they were there and, and Mahmoud [Ahmadinejad, Iranian president] even admitted it in one of his speeches here about -- talkin' about Saddam using the poison mustard gas or whatever it is on his own people -- but that, that's moot, right? What, what's more important is all this is taking place now in the midst of the surge working.

And all of these anti-war Democrats are getting even more hell-bent on pulling out of there, which means that success on the part of you and, and your colleagues over there is, is a great threat to them.

LIMBAUGH: It's just, it's frustrating and maddening, and it is why they must be kept in the minority.

Look, I want to thank you, Mike, for calling. I appreciate it very much. I gotta -- let me see -- got something -- 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. And they have their celebrities.

One of them was Jesse MacBeth. Now, he was a "corporal," I say in quotes -- 23 years old.

[reading from "Morning Update" (subscription required)]

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, though. 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, a 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 -- 44-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."

You probably haven't even heard about this, and if you have, you haven't heard much about it. This doesn't fit the narrative and the template of the drive-by media and the Democrat [sic] Party as to who a genuine war hero is.

Don't look for any retractions, by the way, not from the anti-war left, the anti-military drive-by media or the Arabic websites that spread Jesse MacBeth's lies about our troops, because the truth of the left is fiction, is what serves their purpose. They have to lie about such atrocities 'cause they can't find any that fit the template of the way they see the U.S. military.

In other words, for the American anti-war left, the greatest inconvenience they face is the truth.

(emphasis added). The emphasized portion is significant because of Limbaugh's spin once he started catching heat for the "phony soldiers" crack. As explained by Media Matters, Limbaugh

claimed that he had not been talking "about the anti-war movement generally," but rather "about one soldier ... Jesse MacBeth." Limbaugh further asserted that "Media Matters had the transcript, but they selectively choose what they want to make their point." To support this claim, Limbaugh purported to air the "entire" segment in question from the September 26 broadcast of his show. In fact, the clip he then aired had been edited. Excised from the clip was a full 1 minute and 35 seconds of the 1 minute and 50 second discussion that occurred between Limbaugh's original "phony soldiers" comment and his reference to MacBeth[.]

The emphasized portions are what Limbaugh left out of his version of the "entire" segment. Ah, but this is par for the course for him--do the very thing you accuse your critics of doing..

Given Limbaugh's penchant for absolutes and broad generalizations in name-calling, I have no doubt that "phony soldiers" was not limited to Jesse MacBeth. My opinion finds support in what Limbaugh and his corporate masters at Clear Channel have done in the last few days, but that will be discussed in subsequent posts.

And for anyone who wants to defend Limbaugh, I have a question: has he once said that those who have actually served or are currently serving in Iraq who have criticized the war are not in his mind phony soldiers? If he has made such a statement, I am not aware of it. Making such a statement would clarify this matter once and for all and bring an end to the controversy.

Ah, but Rush is not interested in clarifying anything. Clarification could bring calm and reduce emotion, and calm and lack of emotion don't sell--especially in Rush's world. And whether Limbaugh actually believes that those who criticize the war are "phony soldiers" is not his ultimate motivation. Making himself the news so that he stays in the spotlight so that he can get free publicity and more listeners and more money is what really motivates him. So in addition to being a lying, hypocritical, cowardly jackass, he is also a self-centered, greedy whore.

I have expressed my opinion about the MoveOn ad, and now it's time to turn to Rush Limbaugh.

Rush Limbaugh is a lying, hypocritical, cowardly jackass. Details to follow later today regarding his "phony soldiers" crack.

MoveOn.org needs to get smarter, and the Congress needs to do something that matters.

I am sure most people remember that about three weeks ago, on the occasion of Gen Petraeus's testimony before Congress, MoveOn.org placed an ad in the New York Times which is big letters said "GENERAL PETRAEUS OR GENERAL BETRAY US?"

I have already said that I thought the ad was a bad idea, and now I will explain that opinion. The ad was over-the-top and rather childish and thus was detrimental to the message that the surge has been less than effective. The ad was without a doubt a personal attack on Petraeus. That was the focus of the ad. The facts and data discussed therein were secondary. The ad was primarily about a personal attack on Petraeus. As such, it gave the wingers (and as we will see, all of Congress) something to focus on instead of substantive issues. It gave the right the chance to say--with some evidence--that the far left does not support the troops. And it caused problems for those of us who think that the right can be plainly exposed by focusing on substance instead of name-calling.

Sure, "betray us" is a convenient play on words with "Petraeus," but the use of that phrase all but directly accused a decorated and widely respected career military commander with treason. Anyone with a modicum of common sense should have realized that, and anyone with a modicum of common sense should have known that the use of that phrase would cause a backlash unrelated to the important, substantive issues. I don't think the phrase should have been used at all, but even so, it could have been used in a less incendiary way. For instance, the ad could have said "Genereal Petraeus, please don't betray us." Then the ad could have asked for him to be fair and frank in his testimony in light of facts and data that had already been released. Instead, the ad basically asserted that Petraeus had in fact already committed a betrayal. Not smart.

Another reason that the ad was a bad idea is that it chose the wrong target. As I explained on September 13, the truly important questions about Iraq policy were not and could have been answered by Petraeus. Those answers have to come from Bush and Secretary of Defense Gates. That means that the relevant questions have to be directed to them. That also means that any really harsh criticism such as that in the MoveOn ad should be directed toward them, not Petraeus. Am I saying that Petraeus should not have been criticized? No. Am I saying that MoveOn absolutely should not have gone after Petraeus? No. However, I am saying that by targeting Petraeus with a personal attack, MoveOn made a mistake.

In other words, the ad was a strategic and PR blunder. In the context of trying to change Iraq policy and/or get accountability, going after Petraeus was never going to succeed. First of all, as explained, he does not determine that policy. Second, it has been made abundantly clear that attacking Bush's designated messengers does not sway Bush. You want to put pressure on Bush? Go after him directly. Point out, as many others did and continue to do, that he keeps trying to deflect responsibility away from himself. Point out that he has made a mess of Iraq. Don't give him the chance to say that others are primarily responsible. Expose him for the incompetent disaster he has been and continues to be. Do not personally attack a member of the military that does not bear the ultimate responsibility. Do not do something that is easy to twist into "you're attacking the troops." Do not do something that diverts attention away from the real issues and gives the opposition a chance to change the subject.

And the subject was definitely changed. Everyone on the right immediately went into a frenzy over the ad. That frenzy is what caught the media's and the public's attention. And should anyone think that it did not affect Congress, think again. The Congress made sure that it passed a resolution condemning the ad. Instead of actually doing something substantive and constructive, Congress took up its time and energy passing something that in the end means nothing and does nothing. What a waste of time and energy. Congress's job is not to pass resolutions. Congress's job is to pass laws and do some oversight. The resolution condemning the ad did nothing along these lines. Not a damn thing. Oh, but that did not keep members of Congress from declaring "We have done something! We support the troops!" Yeah, and putting a sticker on your car makes everything better doesn't it? Ordinary citizens are not in a position to directly affect our government's policy on Iraq. Ordinary citizens do not have as their job to create laws regarding our government's policy on Iraq. Members of Congress, on the other hand, are in such a position, and in fact that is their job. Passing resolutions which do not address matters of substance is a waste of time and energy that should be spent on fulfilling that job.

Which brings me to another matter, namely how MoveOn and other parts of the far left are on the verge of screwing things up for the rest of us. This ad utilized the same tactics that the wingers use. This sort of personal and childish name calling is exactly what the wingers do. Some of us have been complaining about that for years. Some of us have been saying that such a tactic is bullshit. And here is MoveOn.org doing exactly the same thing. That's really helping out the cause, isn't it?

MoveOn.org needs to realize that it does not speak for everyone who is--and always has been--against the Iraq war. MoveOn.org also needs to realize that the wingers will always try to depict MoveOn as representing all opposition and will always try to use whatever MoveOn does in an effort to attack and marginalize all opposition. What I am saying here is that MoveOn.org needs to think about what it says and does ahead of time and really consider whether those actions will help or hurt. That was not done with the New York Times ad. Alternatively, if such consideration was given, whoever made the decision to go with that ad should be sacked.

MoveOn.org needs to realize that speaking out, while vital, is not the only action needed. It is also strategically vital to consider not just what one says, but how one says it. In the New York Times ad, the content of the message was lost because of how it was said. And that mistake in turn had a detrimental impact on the substantive debate. In my opinion, the nation cannot afford diversions and delays on the issue of the Iraq war, yet MoveOn.org's ad created both delay and diversion. That should not happen again. MoveOn needs to keep speaking out, but it must find a way to do so that does not degenerate into inflammatory noise.