The Radio Equalizer: Brian Maloney

30 September 2007

Rush Limbaugh 'Phony Soldiers' Flap, ABC News 'Phony Veterans' Piece

TWO DAYS EARLIER...

ABC's 'Phony Vets': Same Language, Context As Rush






*** Update: Reid's Going Nuts Over Limbaugh, I'll Be Discussing It On Tonight's O'Reilly Factor -- 8pm *** Tuesday Update: O'Reilly Video Here ***

*** NEW POST: Reid's Long History Of Talk Radio Suppression Documented Here ***
*** BRAND NEW: VoteVets.org Unveils Anti-Rush Smear Ad ***
*** EVEN NEWER: Reid Overestimates Influence, Gets Burned ***


In an explosive new twist to the flap over Rush Limbaugh and the "phony soldiers" controversy, it has emerged that ABC News used similar language and the same context in a news segment that aired two days before his comments. As a result, serious doubt should be cast upon those who are pushing for the talk titan's censure.

In fact, on Monday, 24 September, the network's Charlie Gibson introduced a segment reported by Brian Ross regarding a number of "phony veterans" now under investigation for falsely claiming to have served in wartime. One of those mentioned in the story is none other than Jesse MacBeth, the same fake soldier referenced by Rush during the program in question.



With congressional Democrats poised to introduce an anti-Rush resolution on Capitol Hill tomorrow, wouldn't they do well to first take a look at the real story? Otherwise, they may end up with egg on their collective faces.

And given this new information, how will the Soros- funded Media Matters crowd keep this faux controversy alive?

Concerned that the clip in question might soon disappear from ABC's website, your Radio Equalizer placed it on YouTube yesterday as a precaution:





In addition, here's the verbatim transcript:


ABC News Transcript


September 24, 2007 Monday


SHOW: WORLD NEWS WITH CHARLES GIBSON 6:44 PM EST


A CLOSER LOOK; OPERATION STOLEN VALOR


ANCHORS: CHARLES GIBSON


REPORTERS: BRIAN ROSS (NEW YORK, NY USA)


LENGTH: 575 words


CONTENT: OPERATION STOLEN VALOR, US MARINE CORPS, REGGIE BUDDLE, JEFFREY SULLIVAN, DOUGLAS CARVER, US DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, JESSE ADAM MACBETH


GRAPHICS: STOLEN VALOR


CHARLES GIBSON (ABC NEWS)


(Voiceover) 'A Closer Look" tonight at phony heroes. A famous recruiting slogan once touted the Army as a place to be all you can be. But increasingly, scam artists are posing as the war heroes they never were, claiming credit for acts of courage in Iraq and Afghanistan. Federal officials have launched a crackdown. Operation Stolen Valor they call it. Tonight, our Brian Ross investigates.


GRAPHICS: BRIAN ROSS INVESTIGATES


BRIAN ROSS (ABC NEWS)


(Voiceover) At the Washington State Capitol in Olympia this year, a Marine Corps Color Guard included a Marine chaplain to deliver the opening prayer. But authorities later discovered that the Marine chaplain, Captain Reggie Buddle, was not a chaplain.


JEFFREY SULLIVAN (US ATTORNEY)


I think he went to seminary school and flunked out.


BRIAN ROSS (ABC NEWS)


(Voiceover) Nor was a Buddle a captain, nor had he earned all the medals he wore. In fact, Buddle had never been in the Marines, even though he had officiated at numerous Marine weddings, baptisms and funerals.


JEFFREY SULLIVAN (US ATTORNEY)


It was devastating to the people who had relied on him.


BRIAN ROSS (ABC NEWS)


(Voiceover) At a time when tens of thousands of US soldiers have put their lives on the line in Iraq and been honored for their sacrifice and courage, federal prosecutors have had to launch a crackdown on phony heroes.


JEFFREY SULLIVAN (US ATTORNEY)


They want something that they didn't earn. They didn't have the guts to go and do it themselves.


BRIAN ROSS (ABC NEWS)


(Voiceover) Authorities say many of the phony heroes make up their stories, so they can get free treatment at veterans' hospitals.


DOUGLAS CARVER (VETERANS AFFAIRS OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL)


They're taking money away that should be used for the deserving veterans.


BRIAN ROSS (ABC NEWS)


(Voiceover) Most of the phonies are spotted by people who really earned their medals. In St Louis, this supposed Marine with a chest full of honors was turned in because he seemed too fat to be a real Marine. It turns out he never served a day in the Marines.


JESSE ADAM MACBETH (VIDEO BLOGGER)


Once I was in Baghdad...


BRIAN ROSS (ABC NEWS)


(Voiceover) But authorities say the most disturbing case involves this man, 23-year-old Jesse Macbeth. In a YouTube video seen around the world, Macbeth became a rallying point for anti-war groups, as he talked of the Purple Heart he received in Iraq and described how he and other US Army rangers killed innocent civilians at a Baghdad mosque.


JESSE ADAM MACBETH (VIDEO BLOGGER)


Women and men, you know - while in their prayer, we started slaughtering them.


BRIAN ROSS (ABC NEWS)


(Voiceover) It was a complete fabrication.


DOUGLAS CARVER (VETERANS AFFAIRS OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL)


He was in for approximately six weeks and then he was discharged. I don't think he even completed basic training.


BRIAN ROSS (ABC NEWS)


(Off-camera) Last week in federal court in Seattle, Macbeth offered an apology for defaming the real American heroes as he admitted to lying about his service record and his supposed atrocities, Charlie.


CHARLES GIBSON (ABC NEWS)


(Off-camera) Operation Stolen Valor. Brian Ross investigating, thanks.


Interestingly, there's an entire movement dedicated to promoting and supporting the Stolen Valor Act of 2005. In addition, investigations into false claims by "phony soldiers" has ensnared none other than the late L Ron Hubbard, who lied about his service for many years.


Given the overwhelming evidence to support Limbaugh's contention that he really was talking about phony soldiers who have faked their service, how does the left justify continuing this fabrication?


FOR Boston- area talk radio updates, see our other site.


Your Amazon orders that begin with clicks here, regardless of what you ultimately purchase, help to further this site's efforts.

Or, if you would prefer, please contribute at the Honor System box in the upper right corner. Thanks again!



Technorati tags:

29 September 2007

Rush Limbaugh Media Matters Smear, Armed Forces Radio Network

TARGET CONFIRMED

Lefty Smear Machine Gunning For Armed Forces Radio





*** Urgent Action Item Below ***
*** NEW: VoteVets.org Unveils Anti-Rush Smear Ad ***
*** NEWER: Reid Overestimates Influence, Gets Burned ***


If the left's smear merchants can't succeed in bringing down Rush Limbaugh entirely, will they settle for a partial victory?

At least for now, that seems to be their modus operandi, with a restart of a previously unsuccessful campaign to have the talk titan removed from the Armed Forces Radio Network.

Limbaugh's presence on the military's overseas broadcasting arm has long been a sore spot with "progressives" who would rather have troops hear demoralizing messages from NPR and Air America Radio.

In 2006, they nearly succeeded in eliminating Limbaugh and fellow conservative Sean Hannity's programs from the network, but military brass subsequently changed their minds after an Internet backlash emerged.


This time, the George Soros- funded, anti- American smear machine feels it can somehow convince Americans that Rush Limbaugh is against the troops. Could anything be more absurd?

But with the mainstream media clearly aboard, their next move is a step- by- step removal of Rush's program from the airwaves. Does it matter what he really said? Of course not, the truth is irrelevant.

From Democratic Underground:


Demand that Rush Limbaugh be taken off the Armed Forces Radio Network, IMMEDIATELY


Demand that Rush Limbaugh be taken off the Armed Forces Radio Network, IMMEDIATELY

Edited on Thu Sep-27-07 10:54 PM by fedupinBushcountry

My husband spent 20 years in the Navy and has been to war (Vietnam-2 tours). I was an Ombudsman for 2 of my husband's ships making sure that the sailors and their loved ones were kept up to date on the ship's activities. We served our country as so many have.

Where does Rush Limbaugh get off calling our soldiers 'phony', as he sits his boiled ass in an air-conditioned room spewing hate all day and never had the courage to serve.

He owes EVERY soldier an apology and he should be taken off the air of the Armed Forces Radio Network. IMMEDIATELY! You can go here to make your statement

Rush Limbaugh is the biggest 'phony' of all, he had no Balls to serve.

---

he absolutely did. And boy howdy, is it ever gonna come back to bite him in the asterisk.

As it bloody well should, too.

We're mad as hell and we ain't gonna take it any more.

This is the perfect sh*tstorm for poor widdle Rushie McLimbaugh.

And it couldn't happen to a nicer guy.

:0)

---


8. I emailed them with the following statement

Limbaugh needs to be removed from your radio programming for his insulting and demeaning statement about "phony soldiers". This draft-dodging loudmouth needs to be kept off the air waves.


And from CBS Public Eye:


It’s too early to know how much is going to be made of this story, but it’ll be interesting to see how the coverage of Rush belittling some soldiers compares to MoveOn.org’s ad criticizing General Petraeus. (Labelled a "misstep" here.) He might not generate the media buzz he once did, but Rush still ranks as the number one most influential talk show host… and is heard on the Armed Forces Radio Network.

Regardless of how zealously (or not) they support our military engagement in Iraq, each and every soldier deserves our respect – a sentiment echoed in polls commissioned surrounding the Petraeus testimony. Are their wounds or scars “phony” if they take issue with our foreign policy?

Coincidentally or not, I see a small left-generated online campaign has begun to urge the Armed Forces Radio Network to remove Limbaugh from its airwaves. And the network’s website today indicates that “there was a hard drive failure yesterday” at the site.


In addition to an online petition, anti- free speech liberals are mounting a pressure campaign utilizing AFRN's feedback page. Why not send your own comments? Let's get to work and counter their stupidity, before it's too late.


AT NEWSBUSTERS: Show after show disparages Rush

FOR Boston- area talk radio updates, see our other site.


Your Amazon orders that begin with clicks here, regardless of what you ultimately purchase, help to further this site's efforts.

Or, if you would prefer, please contribute at the Honor System box to the right. Thanks again!



Technorati tags:

28 September 2007

Rush Limbaugh Troops Controversy, Media Matters, Bill O'Reilly

NEXT STOP: RUSHVILLE

Mainstream Media's Smear Train Chugs Along






*** New 30 September: Urgent Action Alert! ***
*** Update: Rush's YouTube Response ***
*** I'll Be Discussing This On Tonight's Bob Grant Show, 8:20pm, WABC NYC ***
*** NEW: Reid Overestimates Influence, Gets Burned ***


Not content to wait until Bill O'Reilly's hoped- for demise, the George Soros- funded Media Matters / mainstream media smear machine has added a second target: Rush Limbaugh.

And this time, the distortion of words may actually be more severe than in O'Reilly's case.

Now, Media Matters has twisted and edited Rush's words in a way that makes it appear he's insulting the troops. They've taken the false idea that he called anti- war soldiers "phony troops" and spread it across the Internet. Even the White House fell for it. But Limbaugh said nothing of the sort.

Kicking off Friday's show, Rush re-ran the broadcast in question, in addition to airing audio clips of Democrats denouncing him from the floor of Congress yesterday evening. Some falsely accused him of "bashing soldiers". Further turning the tables, the talk titan ran excerpts of lefty politicians attacking Iraq proponents.


Moments ago, Rush had the show segment placed on YouTube:





From The Hill, here's Senator John Kerry (D-MA) dishonestly blasting Rush:


Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) on Thursday demanded an apology from conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh, who called soldiers who oppose the Iraq war “phony.”

“This disgusting attack from Rush Limbaugh, cheerleader for the chicken-hawk wing of the far right, is an insult to American troops,” Kerry said. “Mr. Limbaugh owes an apology to everyone who has ever worn the uniform of our country, and an apology to the families of every soldier buried in Arlington National Cemetery.”

Speaking on Wednesday with a listener who said he used to be in the Army, Limbaugh described veterans who call for withdrawal of troops from Iraq as “phony soldiers.”

Limbaugh’s remark prompted criticism from anti-war groups and liberals. Media Matters, a liberal media watchdog, and Americans Against Escalation In Iraq (AAEI), a pressure group of Iraq veterans who oppose the war, lashed out at Limbaugh.


Atlanta's WSB-TV fell for the Media Matters trick hook, line and sinker:


Dems Rip Limbaugh's 'Phony Troops' Comment

Talk Show Host Draws Fire

POSTED: 7:54 am EDT September 28, 2007
UPDATED: 9:53 am EDT September 28, 2007

The war of words over the conflict in Iraq took a new turn Thursday as Democrats in Congress excoriated radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh for calling some soldiers "phony troops."

Limbaugh had argued with a caller on Wednesday about when U.S. troops ought to be brought home. The caller, who identified himself as "Mike" from Chicago and said he was an a Iraq veteran and a Republican, pushed Limbaugh on whether the occupation in Iraq would last forever.

Limbaugh and his next caller, who also said he was in the military, both referred to soldiers who criticize the war and urge that troops be brought home as "phony troops."

The exchange came a week after the Senate passed a resolution condemning the anti-war group MoveOn for an ad in the New York Times that asked whether Gen. David Petraeus, in testimony before Congress, would be "General Betray-us." The House passed a similar resolution this week.

Rep. Patrick Murphy, D-Pa., an Iraq veteran critical of the war, scolded Limbaugh in a Thursday column on the HuffingtonPost.com Web site.

"When someone like Rush Limbaugh says that soldiers who disagree with the failed strategies of President Bush, Vice President Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld are 'phony soldiers,' you have to consider the source," he wrote.

"Rush Limbaugh, who, in January, called Vietnam veteran Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., 'Senator Betrayus' for disagreeing with President Bush, has made no secret of his disdain for those who serve and speak out. Where was Rush Limbaugh when it came time to serve his country?"

Limbaugh has not served in the military. He has been a vocal supporter of the war in Iraq.


Limbaugh's best point is this (Bill O'Reilly, take note): critics of conservative talk radio, especially in the mainstream media, never actually listen to these shows. They simply accept the Media Matters spin as gospel without actually tuning in. O'Reilly and Limbaugh cannot emphasize this point enough.

Limbaugh was actually talking about the story of Jesse MacBeth, a fake "soldier" who never made it out of boot camp, yet was utilized by the anti- war left as a "veteran" who agreed with Iraq opponents.

But that didn't stop Salon.com from going along with this sleazy scheme:


Rush Limbaugh and the "phony soldiers"

So Rush Limbaugh says there are two kinds of soldiers serving in the U.S. military in Iraq -- real soldiers who think the United States ought to keep fighting there and "phony soldiers" who think the United States ought to start making plans to leave.

Media Matters has the obvious rejoinder: The seven men who wrote "The War as We Saw It" must have been "phony soldiers," right?

Memo to Rush: Try telling that to the "phony mothers," "phony fathers," "phony wives" and "phony kids" of those men, two of whom were killed in Iraq this month.

Memo to John Cornyn and 71 other U.S. senators: Where's the resolution condemning Rush?


See Michelle Malkin's site for background on the Jesse MacBeth story. Also, the Weekly Standard does a good job tearing apart their fabrications here. Outside the Beltway joins in here with the truth. Here's the latest coverage round-up from Memeorandum.


The big question: why has a smear site like Media Matters become a trusted source for the mainstream media? Hello, CNN?

Let's take a look at their latest sleazy behavior, including their version of events:


Limbaugh: Service members who support U.S. withdrawal are "phony soldiers"


During the September 26 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh called service members who advocate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq "phony soldiers." He made the comment while discussing with a caller a conversation he had with a previous caller, "Mike from Chicago," who said he "used to be military," and "believe[s] that we should pull out of Iraq." Limbaugh told the second caller, whom he identified as "Mike, this one from Olympia, Washington," that "[t]here's a lot" that people who favor U.S. withdrawal "don't understand" and that when asked why the United States should pull out, their only answer is, " 'Well, we just gotta bring the troops home.' ...

'Save the -- keeps the troops safe' or whatever," adding, "[I]t's not possible, intellectually, to follow these people." "Mike" from Olympia replied, "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 interjected, "The phony soldiers." The caller, who had earlier said, "I am a serving American military, in the Army," agreed, replying, "The phony soldiers."

[...]

On September 12, The New York Times noted: "Two of the soldiers who wrote of their pessimism about the war in an Op-Ed article that appeared in The New York Times on Aug. 19 were killed in Baghdad on Monday."

As Media Matters for America has documented, Limbaugh denounced as "contemptible" and "indecent" MoveOn.org's much-discussed advertisement -- titled "General Petraeus or General Betray Us?" -- critical of Gen. David Petraeus, but has repeatedly attacked the patriotism of those with whom he disagrees. For instance, on the January 25 broadcast of his radio show, he told his audience that he had a new name for Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE), a Vietnam veteran: "Senator Betrayus." A day earlier, Hagel had sided with Democrats on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in voting to approve a nonbinding resolution declaring that President Bush's escalation in Iraq was against "the national interest." Additionally, on August 21, 2006, Limbaugh said: "I want to respectfully disagree with the president on the last part of what he said. I am going to challenge the patriotism of people who disagree with him because the people that disagree with him want to lose."

As Media Matters has also documented, on the August 2, 2005, program, Limbaugh repeatedly referred to Iraq war veteran and then-Democratic congressional candidate Paul Hackett as "another liberal Democrat trying to hide behind a military uniform" and accused him of going to Iraq "to pad the resumé." On the day of Limbaugh's comments, Hackett narrowly lost a special election to Republican Jean Schmidt for Ohio's 2nd Congressional District seat.

From the September 26 broadcast of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:


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.

[...]

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.


Now, from Limbaugh's official transcript, here's what really happened on his show, note the section in bold that explains what Rush means by "phony soldiers". That was left out of the Media Matters attack piece seen above:


BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Mike in Chicago, welcome to the EIB Network. Hello.

CALLER: Hi, Rush, how you doing today?

RUSH: Fine, sir, thank you.

CALLER: Good. Why is it that you always just accuse the Democrats of being against the war and that there's actually no Republicans that can possibly be against the war?

RUSH: 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 the Republicans are in the anti-war movement.

CALLER: I'm not talking about the senators. I'm talking about the general public. You accuse the public and all the Democrats of being, you know, wanting to lose --

RUSH: Oh, come on, here we go again. I utter the 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: Well, I am a Republican, and I 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. I'm not a Democrat, but sometimes you gotta cut the losses. I mean, sometimes you really got to admit you're wrong.

RUSH: Well, yeah, you do. I'm not wrong on this. The worst thing that can happen is losing this, getting out of there, waving the white flag.

CALLER: I'm not saying that, I'm not saying anything like that.

RUSH: Of course you are.

CALLER: No, I'm not!

RUSH: The truth is the truth, Mike.

CALLER: We did what we were supposed to do, okay, we got rid of Saddam Hussein; we got rid of a lot of the terrorists. Let them run their country now. Let's get out of there and let's be done with it. We won it.

RUSH: I'm never going to be able to retire. It's not going to work. You are depressing me.

CALLER: Well, sometimes, like you said, the truth hurts, Rush. Sometimes it hurts.

RUSH: I have explained this so many times. I can't believe that you actually listen to this program a lot, because you've heard me say what I'm going to say to you. War is never "plottable" on a piece of paper or on a map. It never goes exactly as anybody thinks it's going to go because nobody can predict the future, for one thing.

CALLER: That's true.

RUSH: Thank you. So what's happening now is that the very enemy that blew us up on 9/11 is facing us in Iraq. We can't cave in defeat and run out of there and say, "Hey guess what, we won, we got Saddam." We are going to be setting ourselves up for future disasters. We will never be able to have any other nation trust us as an ally when we have to go in there again. If we pull out of there before we take care of this, Mike, we're just going to have to do it sometime later at greater cost.

CALLER: Are we ever going to take care of it, though? How long do you think we're going to have to be there to take care of it?

RUSH: Mike, you can't possibly be a Republican.

CALLER: I am.

RUSH: You can't be Republican.

CALLER: Oh, I am definitely Republican.

RUSH: You sound just like a Democrat.

CALLER: No, but seriously, Rush, how long do we have to stay there?

RUSH: As long as it takes.

CALLER: How long?

RUSH: As long as it takes. It is very serious. This is the United States of America at war with Islamofascists. Just like your job, you do everything you have to do, whatever it takes to get it done, if you take it seriously.

CALLER: So then you say we need to stay there forever?

RUSH: No, Bill -- (Laughing) or Mike. I'm sorry. I'm confusing you with the guy from Texas.

CALLER: I used to be military, okay, and I am a Republican.

RUSH: Yeah.

CALLER: And I do listen to you, but --

RUSH: Right, I know. And I, by the way, used to walk on the moon.

CALLER: How long do we have to stay there?

RUSH: You're not listening to what I say. You can't possibly be a Republican. I'm answering every question; it's not what you want to hear, and so it's not even penetrating your little wall of armor you've got built up. I said we stay to get the job done, as long as it takes. I didn't say forever. Nothing takes forever. That's not possible, Bill. Mike. Whatever. Nobody lives forever, no situation lasts forever, everything ends. We determine how do we want it to end, in our favor or in our defeat? With people like you in charge, who want to put a timeline on everything -- do you ever get anything done in your life? Or do you say, "Well, I wanted to have this done by now, and it's not, so screw it"? You don't live your life that way. Well, hell, you might, I don't know. But the limitations that you want to impose here are senseless, and they, frankly, portray no evidence that you are a Republican.

Another Mike. This one in Olympia, Washington. Welcome to the EIB Network. Hello.

CALLER: Hi, Rush. Thanks for taking my call.

RUSH: You bet.

CALLER: I have a retort to Mike in Chicago, because I am serving in the American military, in the Army. I've been serving for 14 years, very proudly.

RUSH: Thank you, sir.

CALLER: 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, what these people don't understand, is if we pull out of Iraq right now, which is not possible because of all the stuff that's over there, it would 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.

RUSH: There's a lot more than that that they don't understand. The next guy that calls here I'm going to ask them, "What is the imperative of pulling out? What's in it for the United States to pull out?" I don't think they have an answer for that other than, "When's he going to bring the troops home? Keep the troops safe," whatever.

CALLER: Yeah.

RUSH: It's not possible intellectually to follow these people.

CALLER: No, it's not. And what's really funny is they never talk to real soldiers. They pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and spout to the media.

RUSH: The phony soldiers.

CALLER: Phony soldiers. If you talk to any real soldier and they're proud to serve, they want to be over in Iraq, they understand their sacrifice and they're willing to sacrifice for the country.

RUSH: They joined to be in Iraq.

CALLER: A lot of people.

RUSH: You know where you're going these days, the last four years, if you sign up. The odds are you're going there or Afghanistan, or somewhere.

CALLER: Exactly, sir. My other comment, my original comment, was a retort to Jill about the fact we didn't find any weapons of mass destruction. Actually, we have found weapons of mass destruction in chemical agents that terrorists have been using against us for a while now. I've done two tours in Iraq, I just got back in June, and there are many instances of insurgents not knowing what they're using in their IEDs. They're using mustard artillery rounds, VX artillery rounds in their IEDs. Because they didn't know what they were using, they didn't do it right, and so it didn't really hurt anybody. But those munitions are over there. It's a huge desert. If they bury it somewhere, we're never going to find it.

RUSH: Well, that's a moot point for me right now.

CALLER: Right.

RUSH: The weapons of mass destruction. We gotta get beyond that. We're there. We all know they were there, and Mahmoud even admitted it in one of his speeches here talking about Saddam using the poison mustard gas or whatever it is on his own people. But that's moot. 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 your colleagues over there is a great threat to them. It's frustrating and maddening, and why they must be kept in the minority. I want to thank you, Mike, for calling. I appreciate it very much.

Here is a Morning Update that we did recently, talking about fake soldiers. This is a story of who the left props up as heroes. They have their celebrities and one of them was Army Ranger Jesse Macbeth. Now, he was a "corporal." I say in quotes. Twenty-three years old. What made Jesse Macbeth a hero to the anti-war crowd wasn't his Purple Heart; it wasn't his being affiliated with post-traumatic stress disorder from tours in Afghanistan and Iraq. No. What made Jesse Macbeth, Army Ranger, a hero to the left was his courage, in their view, off the battlefield, without regard to consequences. He told the world the abuses he had witnessed in Iraq, American soldiers killing unarmed civilians, hundreds of men, women, even children. In one gruesome account, translated into Arabic and spread widely across the Internet, Army Ranger Jesse Macbeth describes the horrors this way: "We would burn their bodies. We would hang their bodies from the rafters in the mosque." Now, recently, Jesse Macbeth, 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. Forty-four 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 in the Drive-By Media and the Democrat Party as to who is a genuine war hero. 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 for the left is fiction that serves their purpose. They have to lie about such atrocities because they can't find any that fit the template of the way they see the US military. In other words, for the American anti-war left, the greatest inconvenience they face is the truth.

END TRANSCRIPT


Yes, when you see the truth, rather than the Media Matters sleazy edit job, you'll see that Rush was in fact talking about fake soliders like Jesse MacBeth. He was not criticizing bona fide soldiers who serve in Iraq. That's a LIE.

Do you think the left- wing media will admit to their mistake? That congressional Dems will retract their words? Don't hold your breath. This is about bringing down enemies and this crowd firmly believes that the ends justify the means.


FOR Boston- area talk radio updates, see our other site.


Your Amazon orders that begin with clicks here, regardless of what you ultimately purchase, help to further this site's efforts.

Or, if you would prefer,
please contribute at the Honor System box in the upper right corner. Thanks again!


Technorati tags:

Bill O'Reilly Racial Controversy, CBS, ABC

NO END IN SIGHT

O'Reilly Foes Determined To Keep Story Alive







Are you surprised to see the controversy over Bill O'Reilly's best- known restaurant review still generating headlines?

Days after the O'Reilly Factor host's words were taken out of context to make him sound like a bigot, there's no sign of this manufactured story going away in the near future.

If that seems like a long shelf life, consider this: a full five years later, Rush Limbaugh is still taking heat over his comments about Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb. In fact, from the Onion, here's a fresh example.

Moreover, O'Reilly's enemies have already succeeded in bringing down Don Imus. They have the benefit of an established playbook and are following it step- by- step. With so much coverage favorable to their cause, why should the Media Matters gang give up now? There's still a chance he could be destroyed.


In fact, networks have been all- too- pleased to do the Soros- funded group's bidding, repeating its distortions as though they were factual. As a result, Media Research Center President Brent Bozell has called on two of them to apologize to O'Reilly:


"Bill O'Reilly's accusers -- the dishonest leftists at Media Matters, CBS and CNN -- have gone beyond the pale. There was absolutely nothing that Bill O'Reilly said that was in any way offensive," stated L. Brent Bozell III, President of the Media Research Center. "People are sick and tired of these far-left character assass- ination campaigns, whether they come from Media Matters or MoveOn.org.

"CBS and CNN must distance themselves from dishonest, far-left, hatemongering organizations such as Media Matters," Bozell continued. "Media Matters and MoveOn.org have two things in common. Both are funded by ultra-leftist billionaire George Soros and both have rich histories of sleazy character assassination campaigns. Those who continue to associate with disreputable organizations such as these are only embarrassing themselves.

"Mr. O'Reilly's words were taken out of context -- deliberately. Yet, neither CBS nor CNN checked the facts before giving credibility to the smear against him. Failing to apologize now makes them willing participants in this smear."


Meanwhile, Media Matters hasn't stopped cranking out blog entries designed to keep their manufactured flap front and center:


On the September 25 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, host Bill O'Reilly told National Public Radio senior correspondent and Fox News contributor Juan Williams: "I've been attacked 109 times in one year by Media Matters."

On the September 26 edition of The O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly repeated the charge, twice claiming that "Media Matters has personally attacked me 109 times" and later adding that Media Matters for America "slimed me 109 times in a year." On-screen text indicated that the 109 "attack[s]" were during the period "Sept 2006-2007."

But O'Reilly did not offer a single example of Media Matters' alleged personal attacks. In fact, Media Matters has posted more than 125 items documenting statements by O'Reilly during the period in question, including full transcripts of his comments with corresponding audio or video.


Does he need to? A quick trip to the website on any given day brings a number of examples of exactly what O'Reilly has alleged.


While some might wonder why O'Reilly chooses to engage his enemies rather than ignoring the flap, the truth is that his name is topping the left's hit list, along with Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and others.

At the moment, they are so close to taking down a key target, they can taste it. That's why this isn't going away anytime soon.


FOR Boston- area talk radio updates, see our other site. New: more Howie Carr smears from Boston magazine.


Your Amazon orders that begin with clicks here, regardless of what you ultimately purchase, help to further this site's efforts.

Or, if you would prefer,
please contribute at the Honor System box in the upper right corner. Thanks again!


Technorati tags:

27 September 2007

Bill O'Reilly Harlem Flap, Joe Scarborough, Tammy Bruce

AHMADINE-JOE

Our Country's Tyrants Work For The Media







Just two days ago, your Radio Equalizer was on a high horse about the relative lack of free speech in Canadian broadcasting as compared with the United States. Given the manufactured "outrage" over relatively benign remarks by Bill O'Reilly, however, are we really any better off?

While it is true that Canada's CRTC has the ability to regulate content in a way the FCC does not, we simply go about censorship differently. In fact, given the way our tyrannical, self- appointed radio PC police operate, we may now be worse off than loonie- land.

Would you wish Media Matters and the mainstream media outlets that do its bidding upon your worst enemy? These budding dictators rule their little empires in the same way one would expect from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Hugo Chavez and Robert Mugabe.

Some of our mini- tyrants work for the Washington Post, throwaway rags, left- wing smear sites, CBS and CNN, while others have cable talk shows on MSNBC.


In fact, your Radio Equalizer nominates MSNBC's "Morning Joe" Scarborough as Thug Of The Week. Rather than defend Bill or even remain neutral, he's bashing Al Sharpton for not coming down on O'Reilly hard enough!

Yes, our friend Ahmadine-Joe thinks the censorship gestapo hasn't been activated fast enough. Should we bring in the Burmese military dictatorship to take care of Bill?

From Mark Finkelstein's transcript at NewsBusters:


JOE SCARBOROUGH: Al Sharpton went on Bill O'Reilly's show last night, and apparently said very little.

WILLIE GEIST: Well, to be honest, I didn't see him last night, but from what I read he said "I'm going to wait and listen to the tape. It sounds bad on paper, but I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt."

MIKA BRZEZINSKI: It sounds bad on tape, too.

SCARBOROUGH: It does; it sounds bad on tape. You know what else sounds bad? I wonder if Al Sharpton waited three or four days until after the Don Imus dust-up. [Imitating an imaginary Sharpton] "And you know what, I really haven't had time to listen to the [Imus] tape, I'm gonna wait." Come on: what's going on here? He's giving O'Reilly a break. All he has to do is take about ten seconds and listen to what Bill O'Reilly said.


Later in the program:


SCARBOROUGH: What a moron! "[Imitating O'Reilly] I picked up the tab and now I'm getting attacked so it's alright for me to make racist comments as long as I go to a Harlem restaurant and pick up the tabs."


Funny enough, there is still some debate in conservative circles as to whether Joe is "one of us". Once and for all, let's give that a rest. Why would either side want to claim a jerk like Scarborough as one of their own?


Meanwhile, conservative talk host Tammy Bruce is standing up for freedom of expression, which has the Media Matters crowd fit to be tied. Gateway Pundit has a very different take on Tammy's strong words.

When this flap finally blows over, hopefully without O'Reilly forced off the air Imus- style, remember those who stood up for free speech as well as those who were waiting for a moment of weakness so they could stick a knife in another host's back.

Think of that the next time you're tempted to watch would- be dictator Ahmadine-Joe.


ELSEWHERE: Bush is correct, CNN is WRONG: it's Burma, not Myanmar.

UPDATE: Is Olbermann the real racist?

UPDATE: O'REILLY FIRES BACK- "I'm Going To Hunt You Down!"

FOR Boston- area talk radio updates, see our other site. New: blogs come together to raise big money for a Massachusetts Republican candidate.


Your Amazon orders that begin with clicks here, regardless of what you ultimately purchase, help to further this site's efforts.

Or, if you would prefer, please contribute at the Honor System box in the upper right corner. Thanks again!



Technorati tags:

Bill O'Reilly Harlem Restaurant Flap, Response

DON'T BLOW IT!

To Survive, O'Reilly Must Avoid Mistakes Of Others







By now, it should be obvious to everyone that the Media Matters / mainstream media alliance isn't going to back down until Bill O'Reilly has been removed from the airwaves.

Determined to prove the O'Reilly Factor host is a racist, this crowd smells blood and is not about to give up without Bill's head on a platter. Why should they? Don Imus is still off the air, isn't he?

In a state of panic after using clearly bigoted language on his own show earlier this year, Imus made a number of mistakes, some of which cost him the program. How can O'Reilly avoid the same blunders? Is it already too late?


Here are your Radio Equalizer's do's and don'ts on how Bill should behave from here:


Don't start apologizing. Unlike Don's overtly racist speech, O'Reilly has done nothing wrong. He's the victim of a smear campaign, one where his words have been taken out of context. Bill, every time you start to think you should say the word "sorry", make sure you stop yourself. Apology tours stink.


Do not appear as a guest on talk shows hosted by Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, or others who are out to whack you. Just say no.


Don't listen to network executives who attempt to guide you a certain way through this mess with the hint that it will save your show. They're looking out only for themselves and will flush you down the toilet the moment it becomes necessary. Just say nyet.


Don't say another word about the flap on your show. That's letting your enemies steal precious airtime. How about covering the monks who are dying in Burma for freedom and democracy? They deserve our time, Media Matters doesn't.


Ask your FOX counterparts to stop covering this topic on their shows as well. Yes, we know you don't have control over other network programming, but it's worth making the case that these clowns shouldn't be dominating FOX airtime outside of the O'Reilly Factor, either.


Do take a refresher course on how Imus handled his situation and make sure you're doing the opposite.


Make no further public comments about the situation. Let others fight the battle for you. That's what blogs and talk radio are there to do.


Bill, as we speak, the mainstream media have smeared your name from one coast to another and around the world. You have the power to stop this madness right in its tracks. Don't become the next Imus.



FOR Boston- area talk radio updates, see our other site. New: Kahn's husband's magazine used to trash Howie Carr.


Your Amazon orders that begin with clicks here, regardless of what you ultimately purchase, help to further this site's efforts.

Or, if you would prefer, please contribute at the Honor System box in the upper right corner. Thanks again!



Technorati tags:

26 September 2007

Bill O'Reilly Harlem Restaurant Flap, Juan Williams, Radio Factor

SMEAR 101

Hoping To Create The Next Imus, Enemies Clobber O'Reilly






*** NEW Posts: How Bill Should Handle This Mess , Ahmadine-Joe Scarborough***

If your opinion is based only on reports from the mainstream media, by now you are probably waiting for Bill O'Reilly to emerge wearing white sheets and holding a bottle of lighter fluid, ready for the next Klan meeting. Is the FOX News Channel ratings king a rabid racist?

Those willing to listen to the radio program in question, however, are in for a surprise: this is nothing more than a sleazy attempt to turn O'Reilly into the next Imus by his well- funded enemies at Media Matters. One network has even made the comparison.

In fact, this is by far the most disgusting attempt at taking words out of context we've seen in a long time.

Until hearing the show itself, your Radio Equalizer wasn't sure to think. With so much media attention, now including CNN and the New York Times, this site was bracing for the worst. After listening to Bill's 19 September Radio Factor broadcast, however, it's clear he was actually in the middle of a lengthy and constructive conversation about our perceptions of race.


First, let's take a look at the smear machine at work, beginning with the first Media Matters report:


O'Reilly surprised "there was no difference" between Harlem restaurant and other New York restaurants


Summary: Discussing his recent dinner with Rev. Al Sharpton at the Harlem restaurant Sylvia's, Bill O'Reilly reported that he "couldn't get over the fact that there was no difference between Sylvia's restaurant and any other restaurant in New York City. I mean, it was exactly the same, even though it's run by blacks, primarily black patronship." O'Reilly added: "There wasn't one person in Sylvia's who was screaming, 'M-Fer, I want more iced tea.' "

During the September 19 edition of his nationally syndicated radio program, discussing his recent trip to have dinner with Rev. Al Sharpton at Sylvia's, a famous restaurant in Harlem, Bill O'Reilly reported that he "had a great time, and all the people up there are tremendously respectful," adding: "I couldn't get over the fact that there was no difference between Sylvia's restaurant and any other restaurant in New York City. I mean, it was exactly the same, even though it's run by blacks, primarily black patronship."

Later, during a discussion with National Public Radio senior correspondent and Fox News contributor Juan Williams about the effect of rap on culture, O'Reilly asserted: "There wasn't one person in Sylvia's who was screaming, 'M-Fer, I want more iced tea.' You know, I mean, everybody was -- it was like going into an Italian restaurant in an all-white suburb in the sense of people were sitting there, and they were ordering and having fun. And there wasn't any kind of craziness at all." O'Reilly also stated: "I think black Americans are starting to think more and more for themselves. They're getting away from the Sharptons and the [Rev. Jesse] Jacksons and the people trying to lead them into a race-based culture. They're just trying to figure it out. 'Look, I can make it. If I work hard and get educated, I can make it."


Next, the story successfully spread to a number of mainstream media outlets, even getting CNN coverage as a "news" story. It has since been incorporated into the restaurant review section of the New York Times.

Here's one of the NYT's bloggers picking and choosing O'Reilly words the same way it was done by Media Matters, but with an attempt at honesty in one later paragraph:


Apparently, he was working his way through a tribute to the American Dream and the Melting Pot, familiar points for the talk show host who often touts his working-class Irish American roots. More from Mr. O’Reilly:

And that’s really what this society’s all about now here in the U.S.A. There’s no difference. There’s no difference. There may be a cultural entertainment — people may gravitate toward different cultural entertainment, but you go down to Little Italy, and you’re gonna have that. It has nothing to do with the color of anybody’s skin.


By then, it’s too late. While trying to dramatically prove a point about equality on his radio show by retelling how he himself was convinced, Mr. O’Reilly admitted that he once believed that not all restaurant managers and patrons were created equal.

The transcript then jumps to a later point in the show, when Mr. O’Reilly sounds some more foul notes. The conversation now includes Juan Williams, an NPR correspondent, and is focused on comparing hip-hop’s image and the reality of black America. In that context, he was surprised once again, this time by what he saw at an Anita Baker concert at Radio City Music Hall:


The band was excellent, but they were dressed in tuxedoes, and this is what white America doesn’t know, particularly people who don’t have a lot of interaction with black Americans. They think that the culture is dominated by Twista, Ludacris, and Snoop Dogg.


Mr. Williams heartily agrees, and Mr. O’Reilly flashes back to the first scene to provide yet another sound bite that sounds so much worse when served without the background that he’s comparing rap and reality.


Never one to miss a chance to slam conservatives, the New York Daily News dishonestly jumped in next:


Fox News blowhard Bill O'Reilly really, really needs to get out more.

After sitting down to eat coconut shrimp at Harlem's most famous soul food restaurant with the Rev. Al Sharpton, the talk show host told his radio listeners he was surprised that Sylvia's was a perfectly normal, civilized restaurant.

"I couldn't get over the fact that there was no difference between Sylvia's restaurant and any other restaurant in New York City. It was exactly the same, even though it's run by blacks [and has a] primarily black patronship," O'Reilly said. "There wasn't one person in Sylvia's who was screaming, 'M-Fer, I want more iced tea!'"

"It was like going into an Italian restaurant in an all-white suburb in the sense of people [who] were sitting there, and they were ordering and having fun. And there wasn't any kind of craziness at all," he said.

O'Reilly was apparently trying to say that not all black people are into profane gangsta rap culture.

The comments, made in an hour-long show about race last Wednesday and then publicized by the liberal watchdog group Media Matters, prompted jeers, outrage and guffaws yesterday.

"It is very insulting," said restaurant manager Trenness Woods-Black, granddaughter of the famous Sylvia Woods.


Under scrutiny, none of the allegations against O'Reilly hold up. Where to begin?

First, placed in their proper context, his comments simply don't come across as inflammatory. O'Reilly's overall theme is that many whites have very little real experience with black people. As a result, their views of African- Americans are clouded by negative perceptions that come from mainstream media consumption.

Are all black people gangsta rappers or convicts? Of course not, but without a lot of personal interaction, many white people may not recognize that.

Does O'Reilly share some of that ignorance? Perhaps, especially when his words are improperly isolated.

Even if he does, so what? Obviously, this a common problem in our society. That should not seem newsworthy to CNN.

Another gaping hole in the Media Matters smear campaign is the fact that the comments in question were made during an interview with liberal African- American pundit Juan Williams. And if you listen to the audio, Williams agrees with O'Reilly on these very points!

In fact, Williams has actually come out swinging in order to defend O'Reilly, which Johnny Dollar has captured and placed on YouTube:






Williams makes it clear that their discussion has been turned on its head by O'Reilly's enemies. Now, however, it's Williams that's on the firing line. How dare you get in the way of Imus II!


Between O'Reilly and Imus, there's no comparison. While the latter was guilty of uttering some outrageous slurs, Bill O'Reilly was doing nothing more than attempting to carry on an intelligent discussion about race relations in America. CNN, CBS and the New York Times are guilty of perpetuating this Soros- funded smear campaign and should truly be ashamed of themselves.

What's more disturbing is that CNN is beholden to Media Matters in the same way Hillary Clinton and other Democrats can't risk denouncing MoveOn.org, no matter how outrageous its antics might become.


UPDATE: Media Matters digs its hole even deeper

UPDATES: "Sharpton will decide" - is he still in charge of talk radio programming? Also: more lefty grandstanding. Hip Hop trashmeisters weigh in. FOX has a "race" problem. The left has packed a year's worth of lying into one week! The AP jumps in on the fun.

Earl Ofari Hutchinson has written a well- reasoned defense of O'Reilly here. Media Matters still pushing the envelope.

CYBERALERT: Clintons kill negative story

FOR Boston- area talk radio updates, see our other site. New: the effort to get a Republican elected in Massachusetts is rapidly gaining momentum.


Your Amazon orders that begin with clicks here, regardless of what you ultimately purchase, help to further this site's efforts.

Or, if you would prefer,
please contribute at the Honor System box in the upper right corner. Thanks again!


Technorati tags:

Some images: AP, NYT



 
Page Rank Checker

Powered by Blogger