The Radio Equalizer: Brian Maloney

30 September 2007

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


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: 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





LENGTH: 575 words




(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.



(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.


I think he went to seminary school and flunked out.


(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.


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


(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.


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


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


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


(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.


Once I was in Baghdad...


(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.


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


(Voiceover) It was a complete fabrication.


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


(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.


(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:


  • Any one wonder if the sleazy hypocrits from the Left will have the same sort of verbal diarrhea toward ABC News Phony Solders Story as they did toward Rush Limbaugh?

    By Blogger The Benson Report, at 30 September, 2007 20:12  

  • Congrats Brian,

    You beat the other media to the punch.

    You got the number one listing on Google Search for this information.

    By Blogger The Benson Report, at 30 September, 2007 20:18  

  • Wow! There are actually real news sources out there! Good job and thanks for this post. I hope it reaches the public, but unfortunately they will probably not want to believe this.

    By Blogger Rich, at 01 October, 2007 00:27  

  • Mr. Limbaugh finished telling some guy that he can't be a real Republican if he wants out of Iraq.

    I heard it for myself, Rush said that soldiers that want America out of Iraq are "Phony Soldiers".

    Pretty spooky stuff this creeping American fascism now you're trying telling me what I heard.

    I heard it with my ears, not yours... thanks.

    You people are obviously counting on folks being either partisan hacks or just plain stupid I shit you not.

    By Blogger Unknown, at 01 October, 2007 04:08  

  • Mr. Limbaugh was clearly having a conversation about soldiers that do not support America's involvement in Iraq.

    He and the guy he was talking to called them "phony soldiers".

    I used to listen to short wave radio, what you are doing is like a Soviet style propaganda snow job.

    The name Jesse Macbeth is getting pulled out as cover for your friend's neo-fascist comment.

    By Blogger Unknown, at 01 October, 2007 04:24  

  • I'm going to have to copyright the word, "fascist," so every time a liberal throws it out, I get a dollar.

    By Blogger Lone Ranger, at 01 October, 2007 05:55  

  • I'm guessing you use the word "liberal" quite a bit yes?

    Here's a new term for you:

    Right-wing Authoritarianism
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    (Redirected from Right Wing Authoritarianism

    Right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) is a psychological personality variable or "ideological attitude" found to a high degree in people who are authoritarian followers (Authoritarian leaders, on the other hand, tend to score highly in social dominance orientation.)(Source: Altemeyer, 1998)

    Right-wing authoritarianism is defined as the co-existence of three attitudinal clusters in a person:

    Authoritarian submission — a high degree of submission to the authorities who are perceived to be established and legitimate in the society in which one lives.
    Authoritarian aggression — a general aggressiveness, directed against various persons, that is perceived to be sanctioned by established authorities.

    Conventionalism — a high degree of adherence to the social conventions that are perceived to be endorsed by society and its established authorities. (Source: Altemeyer, 1996, Chapter 1)
    The "RWA" trait is measured by an attitude scale creatively named the RWA scale. The first item on the scale goes, "Our country desperately needs a mighty leader who will do what has to be done to destroy the radical new ways and sinfulness that are ruining us." Persons who strongly agree with this are showing a lot of authoritarian submission ("Our country desperately needs a mighty leader"), authoritarian aggression ("who will do what has to be done to destroy"), and conventionalism ("the radical new ways and sinfulness that are ruining us").

    The "right-wing" in right-wing authoritarianism does not refer to someone's politics but to his personality. It means the person has a strong need to submit to those he considers the established authorities in society. Those authorities can have right-wing or left-wing political views. In North America, persons who score highly on the RWA scale tend to support conservative political parties. But in the Soviet Union, high RWAs tended to support the Communist Party--which most people consider a very left-wing political movement. (Source: Altemeyer, 1996, Chapters 1 and 5) Another kind of personality, the "left-wing authoritarian," submits to authorities who want to overthrow the established authorities. But (perhaps naturally) it is harder to find such people.

    By Blogger Unknown, at 01 October, 2007 14:30  

  • Hmph.
    No hash.
    No dumass MoPee.
    No fun.

    By Blogger Unknown, at 01 October, 2007 15:59  

  • DaveMartin, meet Mike Godwin's_law

    I also heard Friday's Limbaugh show, but until Brian posted the entire transcript I would have held out the posibility of disposition clouding perception. However,with the release of the full transcript, and in light of a review of the audio, it is clear that Rush was dismissive of the caller's claim to be a Republican (who would claim that who was not) and not generally dismissive of the service records of anyone who disagrees with the war.

    In particular, and in context, Rush refers to the reality of the "phony soldiers" as equal to the reality of trolls or seminar callers.

    If you don't want to be considered a "either partisan hack(s) or just plain stupid" I would suggest you breathe deeply and examine the entire situation before you make a date with Godwin.

    By Blogger Unknown, at 01 October, 2007 16:29  

  • Dave...interesting comments.

    "Liberal"="Anyone But A Chickenhawk Neocon" to these political science geniuses.

    TC....gotta pay some bills.

    Besides, the whole debate is retarded.

    The ABC piece and the Limpbowel brouhaha are two entirely seperate stories, have nothing to do with one another, and go nowhere into explaining each other.

    "I also heard Friday's Limbaugh show, but until Brian posted the entire transcript I would have held out the posibility of disposition clouding perception."

    But what part of this transcript would have altered your perception of the situation in the first place?

    What exactly did it dispel?

    By Blogger hashfanatic, at 01 October, 2007 16:38  

  • No one who has ever really listened to Rush can deny his support for the troops.

    You lib pieces o' horse puckey must really be afraid of him. He's a private citizen for crying out loud. Harry Reid and Jackass Murtha, alleged public "servants", routinely bash our military, but I don't hear your outrage then, do I?

    I know this is a hard request, but you libs should really try intellectual honesty sometime.

    By Blogger Unknown, at 01 October, 2007 16:58  

  • Hash

    The right wingers are more pathetic than ever. Rush was refering in general to "phony soldiers" in the conversation, a full 90 seconds later, after they were off the topic of 'phony soldiers" did the pig man, mention McBeth.

    Even more pathetic, Limbagh the next day, edited out the 90 seconds to make it appear he talked about Mcbeth right after the 'phony soldiers' refrence. He actually lied about his own transcript! He edited his own transcript, and these freaks of nature claim media matters lied!! They included the entire 4 minutes on their originasl sound clip of the incident, Limbagh DID NOT, either that that filthy pig Gibson on Fox, he pulled the same prank, edited out the 90 seconds between "phony soldiers' and Mcbeth being mentioned. Amazing

    PF!, Benson, they shit right in your face over and over and you come back for more. Rush and FOx news actually have to lie about a transcript to attack media matters.

    We all know what the filthy pig man was talking about, and it wasn't just Jesse McBeth, who at least went to bootcamp, more than Limbaugh ever did

    These people are indeed the most sickening, vile humans alive today. Limbaugh apologists and Bush apologists, dishonest, liars, all the time.

    party over country all the time

    America is way over with Repukes, Limbaugh is avbout as popular as the pet rock is today

    By Blogger Minister of Propaganda, at 01 October, 2007 17:00  

  • Hey, Hash smoker, your rhetoric might be stirring if all of America didn't already know you hacks hate the military and hate the country.

    You're fighting a losing battle. You call our soldiers murderers and butchers, and now you want them to believe you are their defenders?


    By Blogger Unknown, at 01 October, 2007 17:07  

  • and by the way... how much have you ever donated to scholarship funds for the children of marines? how many soldiers have thanked you for your relentless support?

    You, sir, are a piece of crap.

    By Blogger Unknown, at 01 October, 2007 17:10  

  • Brian,

    I believe that Limbaugh's comments are being overblown. That said, the ABC comparison is a false one. The ABC piece was specifically about people pretending to have been soldiers. Limbaugh's comments were more broad -- implying that any military person against the war was, de facto, a "phony" soldier.

    The phrase is similar, and Limbaugh has indeed discussed the same issue that ABC discussed. But, in this particular instance, Limbaugh was being far more broad.

    And Brian, I would ask that you quit referring to those you disagree with as "anti-American." You and I clearly have different POVs on a number of issues, but I'd never suggest that you're anti-American -- just that you'd prefer America to pursue different policies than I would.

    By Blogger Justin, at 01 October, 2007 17:25  

  • ok, so while they're condemning Rush will the also condemn DICK durbin for comparing American Marines NAZIS on the floor of the US Sentate, or john kerry for his comment that American troops are "terrorizing" women or children?? Gutless pansies all those democrats, listen to the whole thing, not the Soros-media-muddled cut and paste hatchet job the MSM reports slavishly.. its clear what Rush is talking about, and clear from his years of broadcasting that these demonrat lies are smears of the lowest order.

    By Blogger Unknown, at 01 October, 2007 17:31  

  • ...and by the way... how much have you ever donated to scholarship funds for the children of marines?

    Lemme guess, Princess Di.

    You went to a "freedom concert" where one whole percent of the proceeds got donated to "the kids" and your political party's favorite sons divvied up the rest of the jackpot?

    No, I haven't...I have better things to do with my money than throw it out on the street.

    " many soldiers have thanked you for your relentless support?"

    Well, that would be stupid(er) of them, because I'm not a Republican, and their army is not mine, so why would they still have my support?

    Go play football, you miserable cow.

    By Blogger hashfanatic, at 01 October, 2007 17:42  

  • Whats obvious by now is that the Left of Center cannot tell the truth anymore. That they must engage in a disinformation campaign. Would this be the same Democrats who recently supported the March on DC. That left the VietNam memorial Vandalized? That has called Marines and US Military Nazis, murderers of Women and Children? And idiots for choosing to serve our Republic? What did John Kerry call them Stupid?

    The Left hates the Military. The Stolen Valor Act of 2005 was an attempt to stop Posers. Wannabe Special Operations, Marines, Army Rangers. The Left quickly embraced Jesse McBeth and published his story Worldwide on the web. They have the blood of US Service people on their hands.

    Moral Cowards, the lot.

    By Blogger Decoupled Debit, at 01 October, 2007 17:45  

  • "You and I clearly have different POVs on a number of issues, but I'd never suggest that you're anti-American -- just that you'd prefer America to pursue different policies than I would."

    Remember, Justin, if they'd throw Chuck Hagel under a bus, what do you imagine rages in their minds in terms of what they think of anyone to the left of Joe Lieberman?

    The neocons have (by design) deteriorated the situation between the nation's own people and degraded the dialogue to a point where the civility and discourse we enjoyed with each other in the past is impossible.

    Either you are with them, or you are against them, and they are out to destroy you.

    Expect nothing more than a grunt from a pig...

    By Blogger hashfanatic, at 01 October, 2007 17:48  

  • Rightards, did you whine so much, and pursue justice with such vehemence at Dan Rather's political execution?

    By Blogger hashfanatic, at 01 October, 2007 17:50  


    a website, the fake patriotic right piss their pants when they visit, all IRAQI WAR VETERANS, all REALLY SERVED and all against the war

    shove it Frank, you fake American, randall, crawl back up Hannity's ass and diana, may you die of toxic shock soon.

    Im done trying to level with you freaks,you are all mentally sick, anyone who takes Limbaugh over the troops is a traitor

    By Blogger Minister of Propaganda, at 01 October, 2007 18:22  


    makes the right, piss their pants
    another site, that makes the fake patriots like the pig man and his 3 remaining follwers piss their pants
    all against the IRAQI war and none of them are GOP members

    Genral Baptiste, fake soldier too??

    Only difference between ditto-heads and a slimy earth worm, the worm will multiply if you cut it in half, ditto-heads are a shrinking cult and are no longer growing , but rapidly diminishing

    By Blogger Minister of Propaganda, at 01 October, 2007 18:32  

    Vote Vets, all real soldiers who really served
    THE WHOLE POINT IN THIS IS MEANT TO DIMINISH THE VOICES OF REAL VETS AGAINST THE WAR. this is why limbaugh did this, makes him piss his pants
    here is a commercial, for you filthy ditto-heads.
    America hates you

    learn to deal with it. Read the comments on You-Tube, read them , you vile freaks, America hates the pig man.....

    Find a real vet who listrens to the pig man, you will not.
    He is loathed by America

    Maloney, clings on to his cock, in hopes for a job refrence!!! "Please Limbagh, I still get on my knees, Im the only one left defending you, hook me up!!!!"

    another fine day to be a patriot, another misrable day to be a Republican

    By Blogger Minister of Propaganda, at 01 October, 2007 18:37  

  • I am a veteran.

    I heard the Limbaugh comment.

    It was foul.

    I'm not a liberal and none of you guys have any idea what conservatism is.

    Mr. Maloney, you provide a service in the community. On this however, you should be ashamed.

    If all you phony warriors signed up to support the troops, we would not have to wear them out with constant deployments. So what do you say guys, head down to the recruiter? Nah.

    By Blogger Richard Morchoe, at 01 October, 2007 19:35  

  • Minister of Propaganda sure doesn't like Brian.

    Sort of makes me wonder why he/she hangs out here.

    BTW, Rush is the master of multiple inferences underlying the main meaning.

    He laid the trap and baited it with a sweet inference. Sho nuff, ya'all couldn't resist.

    A Song of the South replay, in real time. (that would be the tar baby incident, for those of you from Rio Linda).

    So consider yourselves owned by the master, who can out-talk any one of you with all of his hearing tied behind his back.

    Stop your sobbing!

    Go play a race card.

    By Blogger platypus, at 01 October, 2007 19:55  

  • The left is trying so hard...even THEY have to see it!

    By Blogger Praise and Coffee, at 01 October, 2007 20:11  

  • blusky37I'm sorry, but did davemartin quote Wikipedia to provide a definition of right-wing authoratarianism? I consulted my Oxford English Dictionary, not as prestigious as Wikipedia, granted, but found no such entry. Then it occured to me. Anybody can place an entry in Wikipedia. The article in question was categorized as: Categories: All articles with unsourced statements.

    Of 6 "sources", 4 were the same source. So, davemartin...what community college are you entering next fall?

    By Blogger Ken Adams, at 01 October, 2007 21:08  

  • Riiight...they altered the audio and transcript. I'm sure that Karl Rove is behind this nefariousness. Or is it Halliburton? Or Joooooos? Or General Petraeus?

    BTW, if Jesse MacBeth is considered "better" than Rush Limbaugh because he spent 6 weeks (of a 9 week course) in boot camp, what does that say about Bill and Hillary...or yourself for that matter? And yes, I am currently serving, 9 years and two rotations in Iraq.By your logic I am better than you. I accept that. In fact that makes me better than Hillary. Do I get to be president now?

    By Blogger Ken Adams, at 01 October, 2007 21:14  

  • Ken Adams, you couldn't find "right-wing authoritarianism" in your dictionary and of course you need to throw in an ad hominem attack just for good measure.

    Just like WMD, if you can't find it... it must not exist.

    You seriously expect the people in Iraq will find it in their hearts to be tolerant of each other when you wish me and anyone that doesn't "think" like you nothing but ill will... maybe you should put down the dictionary and pick up the Bible buddy.

    I can appreciate being rude goes along with the package, kind of like being gay.... born with it.

    Here's a study done and paid for under George H. W. Bush's admin... and your not going to like it.

    "Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition"

    Btw, the term "Liberal Democracy" come up in your Dictionary?

    Because that's what America is... it's a LIBERAL Democracy.

    Doesn't that just kill you, America being a LIBERAL Democracy and all?

    By Blogger Unknown, at 01 October, 2007 22:48  

  • "Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition"

    A Google HTML cache version of the document online here:

    Here is the backround of that study:

    "Study of Bush's psyche touches a nerve",12271,1017546,00.html

    By Blogger Unknown, at 01 October, 2007 23:00  

  • Oh what the hell, it's relevant because it mentions Rush Limbaugh:

    "Study of Bush's psyche touches a nerve"

    Julian Borger in Washington
    Wednesday August 13, 2003
    The Guardian

    A study funded by the US government has concluded that conservatism can be explained psychologically as a set of neuroses rooted in "fear and aggression, dogmatism and the intolerance of ambiguity".
    As if that was not enough to get Republican blood boiling, the report's four authors linked Hitler, Mussolini, Ronald Reagan and the rightwing talkshow host, Rush Limbaugh, arguing they all suffered from the same affliction.

    All of them "preached a return to an idealised past and condoned inequality".

    Article continues



    Republicans are demanding to know why the psychologists behind the report, Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition, received $1.2m in public funds for their research from the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health.
    The authors also peer into the psyche of President George Bush, who turns out to be a textbook case. The telltale signs are his preference for moral certainty and frequently expressed dislike of nuance.

    "This intolerance of ambiguity can lead people to cling to the familiar, to arrive at premature conclusions, and to impose simplistic cliches and stereotypes," the authors argue in the Psychological Bulletin.

    One of the psychologists behind the study, Jack Glaser, said the aversion to shades of grey and the need for "closure" could explain the fact that the Bush administration ignored intelligence that contradicted its beliefs about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

    The authors, presumably aware of the outrage they were likely to trigger, added a disclaimer that their study "does not mean that conservatism is pathological or that conservative beliefs are necessarily false".

    Another author, Arie Kruglanski, of the University of Maryland, said he had received hate mail since the article was published, but he insisted that the study "is not critical of conservatives at all". "The variables we talk about are general human dimensions," he said. "These are the same dimensions that contribute to loyalty and commitment to the group. Liberals might be less intolerant of ambiguity, but they may be less decisive, less committed, less loyal."

    But what drives the psychologists? George Will, a Washington Post columnist who has long suffered from ingrained conservatism, noted, tartly: "The professors have ideas; the rest of us have emanations of our psychological needs and neuroses."

    By Blogger Unknown, at 01 October, 2007 23:10  

  • Thanks for standing up for Rush and great job on O'Reilly.

    By Blogger Deliver Us From Liberals, at 01 October, 2007 23:25  

  • who the fuck cares. get a fucking life or get a piece of ass and settle down. damn, i feel like i'm in junior high again.

    By Blogger Unknown, at 02 October, 2007 00:16  

  • "I believe ... that this war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything, as is shown by the extreme violence in Iraq this week,"
    -Harry Reid

    It's simple, take note liberal morons:

    a)Democrats want the troops to fail and the number of deaths to rise.

    b)Republicans want the troops to succeed and for the number of deaths to drop.

    "The quickest way to end a war is to lose it."
    -George Orwell

    By Blogger blakely seattle, at 02 October, 2007 00:43  

  • I think it is funny to point out the liberals are always the biggest name callers. They change the conservative's names to be unflattering and call them everything under the sun as long as there is plenty of cursing involved. Each instance of that shows how week almost ALL of their so-called arguments are. When it comes to debate, facts are generally preferable, but you have next to none. It would be too funny to see any of you talk to Rush. You would be reduced to trying to shout him down and would probably hang up because his truth is too much for your propaganda riddled minds. Thank you for the entertainment though :)

    By Blogger Unknown, at 02 October, 2007 01:15  

  • Ah Phil, sounds like you need a hug... here.

    No one says that conservatives are "bad" people.

    The just have a tendency to want hand America over to the wealthiest 2%, lager multinational corporations, foreign agents, fanatical Christians, and paramilitary mercenary groups like Blackwater.

    I believe the term is "Corporatism" and yes, it is a form of fascism.

    That's got a lot of people tied up in a bunch, perhaps you can understand... or not.

    As far as a "liberal" talking to Rush... read or hear the transcript of him REGECTING some one as not suitable enough to be a Republican because he does not support an ENDLESS engagement in Iraq.

    It's impossible to reason with someone like that... for one thing, Rush is as real and genuine as a professional wrestler.

    Let me let you on to a little secret, Rush is an entertainer.

    By Blogger Unknown, at 02 October, 2007 05:00  

  • Yes, an entertainer. That is the beauty of it: he gets the liberals so fired up and hateful, all in the course of his entertainment. They are drafting Congressional reprimands because of him! Liberals always complain that so much money is wasted on war, space exploration, tax cuts, how about the time and billions wasted by the Democratic controlled congress? Every time these people lash out (which is every time they speak) they are the ones desperately in need of a hug.

    By Blogger Unknown, at 02 October, 2007 06:48  

  • WHoops, missed some of the earlier swipes at the likes of Blackwater. I would prefer a paramilitary group for security personally. Should we send a bunch of UN "peacekeepers" with no weapons? Why don't we send a couple thousand hippies to put flowers in the insurgents' gun barrels? Companies like Blackwater and even the almighty evil Haliburton do a lot of jobs no other companies can do and frankly, don't want to do. The world is a scary place outside of the US and sometimes rough organizations have to hurt the bad guys in order to provide security. Sometimes innocents get in the middle, but lets compare the civilian loss of life with just about any other war in our history. I bet its lower despite the media reports. We're not exactly carpet bombing their cities at this point, and civilians unfortunately always die in war, its ugly.

    By Blogger Unknown, at 02 October, 2007 06:55  

  • "missed some of the earlier swipes at the likes of Blackwater."

    And Phil, you know who started this? None other than those ultra-left commies called Pacifica radio and their so-called news program Democracy Now! A title that goes beyond a misnomer--this country IS NOT A DEMOCRACY or a nation of laws, this country is A REPUBLIC!

    And of course don't get me started with those Marxists Media Matters!

    By Blogger The Real Bob Anthony, at 02 October, 2007 07:17  

  • Well, just as I predicted - the liberal asswipes remained silent and avoided spewing their verbal diarrhea toward the ABC News Phony Solders Story. Because ABC is one of their pet left-wing media outlets, they tried their usual spin to avoid any comparison with reality. What a bunch of hypocritical buffoons!

    By Blogger The Benson Report, at 02 October, 2007 08:22  

  • This seems to be a hidden cave of 29%'ers...people ready to buy into any lies that Bushco spreads so you don't have to admit the terrible mistake you have made backing the war.

    Get over yourselves...the war has killed maybe a million Iraqi's and insured their hatred of us for at least a generation...made Al Quiada and Iran into far bigger threats that they would have been...bankrupted the U.S. - the list goes on and on - look into your cold little hearts and admit your past misjudgements and help end this war before it spreads to Iran and has FAR greater effects on the future of this country.

    While I do agree that the Dems have foolishly followed the low road that the criminals in the Republican party have opened and this scapegoating (be it or this old dude that used to be on the radio), why doesn't Rush just answer the question, are soldiers against the war "phony soldiers?" (please note that he used the plural and meant more than the one guy he's running for cover behind now).

    But then again, you look to Rush for propaganda not facts, right?

    By Blogger Unknown, at 02 October, 2007 08:45  

  • We look to Rush for insight and entertainment and a refreshing view of the doom and gloom world portrayed by the media and the Democratic Party. By the way, I hope we do go into Iran before they start farming out their nuclear technology! How would that affect our country?

    PS. What is the 29%er? is that anything like Rush's "3 inch crowd"?

    By Blogger Unknown, at 02 October, 2007 09:13  

  • Bottom line, what wingnuts ignore

    Rush actually edited his own fucking transcript to make it sound like he was directly talking about the phony soldier Mcbeth, he edited out 2 full minutes of his own transcript!!! He accuses Media matters of taking him out of context, when he took HIMSELF out of context.

    Notice, the radical right are not talking about Iraq Veterans against the war, or Vote Vets, 2 groups ran by REAL IRaq VETERANS, they refrence this obscure McBeth, who NOBODY ever heard of until ABC and Limbaugh mentioned. Not exactly the voice of the Anti-war movement, considering NOBODY ever heard of him.

    So Limbaugh pissed in his own listeners ears by editing his own transcript
    and Limbaugh downplays all the other Generals and Vets in vote vets. org and, who are against the war. He implied they are fake too, as he failed to mention Jess McBeth for a full 2 minutes after saying "phony soldiers".

    you wing nuts are pathetic

    Phil, you listen to Rush, because before Rush, you did not know how to think. Sonia nailed it, and her voice is exactly what the vast majority of America thinks, including the troops, who when polled by Zogby, WANT TO COME HOME.
    Deal with it CONS, Rush is a degenrate who never served a day, Rush is destroying your party, he actually said "you cant be a Republican if your against the war", he at this point is irrelevant, as the right wing in general is becomming like a cult.

    None of you freaks of nature can handle reality, so you turn to Rush to think for you, a drop out flunkie, who sold billboard ads and was a ROCK d.j, NOT A POLITICAL SCUIENCE EXPERT, NOT A HISTRIAN, A NOBODY

    if you turn to him for insite, please fucking kill yourself

    The 29%ers, embarassing America on a daily basis

    no shot in 2008, losersssssssss. Even Bill Richardson ties Guiliani in recent polls, that is the 5th place Democratic candidate defeating Guilliani the top GOP candidate!!!!!!! It is over cons.

    Cons: taking Limbaugh over the troops, and being pissed on by their drug addled hero on a daily basis

    seriously pathetic.

    Liberals take America first, conservatives protect their cult first.

    cons are defending this filthy pig, like they are at war, what a bunch of testicleless sissies. Support the fucking troops traitors, not Rush. Cons support the WAR not the troops. "R" over "USA" all the fucking time, no surprise Americans are rejecting the GOP in record numbers. Bill Richardson is amost beating Rudy Guiliani!!!! so some balls cons, defend America not the GOP

    By Blogger Minister of Propaganda, at 02 October, 2007 10:03  

  • ...don't try to make this about Bush. This is about the Majority Leader spreading lies. Harry Reid is a traitor, not Rush.

    Harry Reid basically said that if you disagree with him, that you are unpatriotic. He is doing what many Democrats have accused Republicans of doing.

    Democrats are really nothing more than a bunch of morons. I have Democratic friends. They are cool and all, but I am smarter than all of them.

    By Blogger dbquijano, at 02 October, 2007 10:05  

  • "anyone who takes Limbaugh over the troops is a traitor"

    You traitors are the ones who want to hang our troops out to dry. We have supported the troops from the outset, and they know it. After all, we're not the ones comparing them to Nazi's, calling them murderers, and generally demoralizing them. No, that would be the Demoncrat Party leadership.

    You keep saying Rush never served. Well neither did Bill, Hillary, Harry, Nancy, Jackass, or little Dickie Durban. How 'bout a consistent standard here? Oh yeah, you're not capable of that.

    You weasles have done the pancake flip-flop to suit your own purposes for so long you no longer know how to be objective. The troops know you hate them, so all your media pals cant help you. Your pathetic actions speak louder than your flimsy rhetoric, which changes almost weekly. No one believes you anymore.

    As for Al-Qaeda not being much of a threat before we invaded Iraq I would like to remind you of 9-11 you morons. They attacked us first. And prior to that, they've attacked our embassies, they've attacked our ships, and they've attacked many other nations in the world. Radical Islamofacism is the enemy, not the US, or George Bush.

    You people want to love and be friends with people who want to cut your head off. You want to be tolerant of people who are intolerant of anyone who doesn't hold their stone age view of the world. How will you like it when they take over the world and make your wives and daughters quit school, quit work, and wear a gunny sack when not giving birth to more of their vile spawn. That is what radical Islam is. Look around the world, open your eyes, and see what they really want by what they do, rather than the rhetoric they blather (which by the way is exactly what the Demoncrat party lin is.) Let me see - Bin Laden hates America. Democrats hate America. They want us to be Euroweenies. I think maybe the Democrats are the enemy.

    Read these 2 books, if you can read something without pictures in it:

    Because They Hate and Londonistan.

    If you do, you will see the true nature of Islam, and what is in store for us if we let these people prevail.

    I repeat, George Bush is not the enemy, and neither is Rush Limbaugh. Last time I checked, neither of them had destroyed any American buildings or cut anyone's head off.

    And for you people that hate capitalism - quit your corporate job and move to a socialist country. And remember this old russian quip - "We pretend to work, and they pretend to pay us." But you wont quit, you love your money as much as anyone. You are pathetic hypocrites.

    By Blogger Unknown, at 02 October, 2007 11:34  

  • Diania is projecting GOP failures prior to 9-11 on the Democrats.....

    Wing nut posted:
    as for Al-Qaeda not being much of a threat before we invaded Iraq I would like to remind you of 9-11 you morons. They attacked us first. And prior to that, they've attacked our embassies, they've attacked our ships, and they've attacked many other nations in the world. Radical Islamofacism is the enemy, not the US, or George Bush.

    You people want to love and be friends with people who want to cut your head of

    Who said Al Queda was not a problem becides John Ashcroft and Donald Rumsfeld prior to 9-11????? The Democrats warned the incomming Republicans about Al Queda, your party decided to ignore it. Why are you projecting? The Dems recognized the threat of Al Queda, and prior to 9-11 the GOP ignored it. I understand facts hurt, but these are the facts. Prior to 9-11 the Bush administration called off the weekly counter terrorism gatherings in the Pentagon that Clinton started and was not interested in even hearing about Al Queda. Sorry, Diane, these are the FACTS.

    Nobody wants to be friends with the terrorists, and NOBODY ever said before Iraq that Al Quedas was not a problem on the Democratic side, your side said exactly that
    "Al Queda, not a priority" Donal Rumsfeld pre 9-11

    Diana, reality is scary when you blanket yourself in RNC lies and distortions

    STOP PROJECTING, the GOP laughed at terrorism prior to 9-11, not the Democrats, YOUR SIDE. Your Middle East policies created a larger Al Queda, it grew 200% since Iraq , facts, from your own government

    and the drug addled, young boy loving freak Limbaugh ,will never tell you the truth.
    In fact, he dumbed you down into somebody who just can't see the truth. Limbaugh's truth, is his opinion... FACTS ARE FACTS, and I present FACTS
    Grow up Diana

    stop taking "R" over "USA"

    By Blogger Minister of Propaganda, at 02 October, 2007 11:48  

  • Uh, dope head, Slick Willy was president before George Bush.

    The USS Cole happened on Slick Willy's watch.

    The failure to apprehend Bin Laden was, you guessed it: Slick Willy's.

    The embassy bombings have all happened during Demoncrat administrations.

    Hostages in Iran - oh yeah, the Peanut Farmer with no balls. Jimmy Carter was a..... Yes! a Demoncrat.

    Once again you show your total lack of understanding and history. You are out of touch. (But we knew that didn't we?)

    By Blogger Unknown, at 02 October, 2007 11:55  

  • Di .. moo, baby!

    By Blogger Unknown, at 02 October, 2007 12:01  

  • Let's try a different route.

    Bush is making Al Qaeda 200% larger. So the solution is....?

    Tell us how you would deal with an enemy who unilaterally attacks us whenever and wherever they can? Tell us YOUR solution for how to deal with these people?

    Since we obviously cant think, and need people like you to think for us instead of Rush, please, tell me how YOU would save the world.

    By Blogger Unknown, at 02 October, 2007 12:03  

  • I have a serious question for you. I'm so stupid I don't understand.

    GB has a horrendous approval rating, right?

    What is Congress' approval rating? Less than 14%. Doesn't that mean that the people are even madder at the Congress than the Prez? And follow my thinking here... the Demoncrats run the Congress.

    The Congress has done nothing but criticize Republicans. Other than passing a minimum wage bill, they have done NOTHING. Oops, sorry, they did agree with the tyrant of Iran.

    So I think people are more upset with you people than they are with Bush. Why don't you guys just stop complaining about Republicans and actually DO something.

    You have no program other than to bash Bush. That is not how to run a country.

    By Blogger Unknown, at 02 October, 2007 12:18  

  • Also, I see you haven't answered my previous question.

    I can only assume it's because you have no plan for dealing with our country's enemies, other than to pander to them and try to appease them.

    It only furthers my belief that you have no ability to lead America, you only have the ability to criticize Republicans.

    It's easy to criticize; it's much harder to lead. Why don't you guys try that...

    By Blogger Unknown, at 02 October, 2007 12:20  

  • "Bush is making Al Qaeda 200% larger. "

    Though unsubstantiated,
    I would say that's better than the 400% it grew under Clinton.

    By Blogger Unknown, at 02 October, 2007 13:55  

  • "Tell us how you would deal with an enemy who unilaterally attacks us whenever and wherever they can?"

    I don't know, Princess...when we ARE actually attacked, should we call you and let you know?

    By Blogger hashfanatic, at 02 October, 2007 14:03  

  • Diana recites one Hannityism after another and ignores my debunking

    Before 9-11 terrorism was not a priority for the Bush administration. These are the cold hard facts........................

    instead of grasping this fact, you go back to reciting the same old Hannity bullshit about Clinton. Back to clinton, I dont support Clinton, just mentioning that Clinton at least established counter-terrorism information gathering, which the Bush administration ignored. Babbling about Carter? Carter is a Vet, far from a man with no balls, and there was much Republican interference regarding the hostages, to make Reagan look good. Your the one with little grasp on history, Diana.

    Now why did the GOP ignore terrorism prior to 9-11. As per our own inteligence since we invaded Iraq TERRORISM increased around 200% around the globe. Do the homework, you will see Im right.

    The solution, no more pre-emptive invasions for oil, that's a start. Treat terrorism as what it is a CRIME, not an army that you can defeat militarilly, your way has failed. Why were they attacking us prior to 9-11 and on 9-11? as per Bin Laden himself, American military base in Saudi Arabia, which Bush shut down right after 9-11 !!!

    Your solution to fighting terror? Invade another country Iran? To furthur propel the AL Queda cause??
    nice idea! That is working real well I see.

    come to grips with one thing Diane the Bush administration faild to keep America safe on 9/11. They ignored EVERYTHING leading up to 9-11. This was not Clinton's fault, this was Ashcroft and Rummy.
    Deal with this..

    Hash tends to think the government itself was involved with 9-11, I tend to think if anything, they may have let it happen, as an excuse to go into Iraq. Hey, if Clinton killed vince Foster, anything is possible, and over 50% of America thinks there was a coverup

    By Blogger Minister of Propaganda, at 02 October, 2007 15:36  

  • Hash:

    Actually the part Rush left out changed my perception.

    As I advised DaveMartin, who by the way seems to be quite reasonable, read the silly thing, and listen to the entire audio. Remember that in Rush's "world" the abomination of actual posers was all the talk, and he could feel justified in assuming that his fanbase would fully understand a callback reference.

    Did he set himself up for an out of context quote, sure. Is he as bright as he says, not hardly. Is he slamming dissenting views, sure. Is he questioning the service of dissenting service personnel, no.

    p.s. Brian, keep up the quality review of the media, I doubt I'll bother with your minions again, too fringy.

    By Blogger Unknown, at 02 October, 2007 15:42  

  • MOP wrote:

    come to grips with one thing Diane the Bush administration faild to keep America safe on 9/11. They ignored EVERYTHING leading up to 9-11. This was not Clinton's fault, this was Ashcroft and Rummy.
    Deal with this..

    Perhaps you need to actually listen to President Clinton's own Terror Czar, Richard Clarke (unless you have more of an inside scoop on the Clinton Administration's Terror plans)?:

    GORTON: Now, since my yellow light is on, at this point my final question will be this: Assuming that the recommendations that you made on January 25th of 2001, based on Delenda, based on Blue Sky, including aid to the Northern Alliance, which had been an agenda item at this point for two and a half years without any action, assuming that there had been more Predator reconnaissance missions, assuming that that had all been adopted say on January 26th, year 2001, is there the remotest chance that it would have prevented 9/11?

    CLARKE: No.

    REFERENCE: CNN Transcripts

    So it appears you're pretty much incorrect here. The time to prevent 9/11 was PRIOR to the Bush Administration, per Richard Clarke. In other words, 9/11 was set on an inevitable course during the Clinton Administration, and the time to stop it was prior to January 26th, 2001. Again, per the Clinton Administration's own Terror Czar, a man not known to be a fan or even friend of the Bush Administration.

    Willing to admit your error, or just going to continue on with your delusions?

    By Blogger Shanghai Dan, at 02 October, 2007 22:00  

  • So Minister, did Rush edit out "a full 90 seconds" or "2 full minutes"??!! You mentioned both and I just wanted to be sure what I should be looking for... Is that like the missing 18 minutes of audio from the Nixon tapes?

    And Dave Martin, why trust ANYTHING from the Government, like the study about the Conservative psyche done during the Bush 41 presidency, that you cited? I guess you were trying to make a point that if something comes from one of the Bush administrations that the Conservatives will take it as truth? Please, I am old enough, smart enough, and question enough things not to take the party line. However, I will take the Conservative side over the Liberal side virtually all the time. Reading this entire discussion just futher solidifies that for me.

    And I guess since I have Christ as my Saviour, I'll have to change my handle to be "Christian fanatic", or else I won't be allowed to speak...

    One more note, related to that: Cleaning up your language and having REAL discourse/discussion will go further than the rants laid out on this Board. Maybe Rodney wasn't so far off when he said "Why can't we all just get along"...

    By Blogger svcctr87, at 02 October, 2007 23:59  

  • I made that point earlier. You can tell the liberals by the frequent name calling laced with profanity and the hysterical hatred toward conservatives. Why don't you all move to San Francisco, we can wall it off, and we will all chip in an extra few tax dollars for a food and narcotic drop a couple times a month. That would solve alot of problems for the rest of America and you people could all live at peace with each other. Think about it and LMK.

    By Blogger Unknown, at 03 October, 2007 09:04  

  • DA
    nice try but you did mnot address the facs, prior to 9-11 under the Bush administraton not a single counter terrorism meeting was held
    So you quote Clarke, who would agree with me not 100% but 1000%, why did the GOP ignore terrorism prior to 9-11??? They were warned, this is FACT, they did nothing, as per Rumsfeld "it is not a priority" and Ashcroft " I dont want to hear about Al Queda"

    Again, you proved NOTHINg. do your homework, you will see Im not 100% correct but 1000% correct. Could clinton have done more, absolutly, that is Clarke's point, but did the Bush administration do anything prior to 9-11??????

    Not a damm thing, they laughed at the threat.

    Dont let reality stand in the way of your spin

    and histroy will remember the Bush administration ignored the warning and laughed it off.
    Refute this, don't divert the argument. Why did they ignore terrorism prior to 9-11? Why was not a single counter terrorism meeting held????

    The media covers this up and they have for 6 years
    Dont believe me
    check this out, CIA accountablilty report prior to 9-11

    all facts , all the time

    By Blogger Minister of Propaganda, at 03 October, 2007 12:00  

  • MOP,

    Here is ample documentation of meetings and discussions about terrorism prior to 9/11.

    In fact, if you read the CNN transcripts you'd find that while questioned by Tim Roemer, Richard Clarke admits there were meetings in January and February.

    In other words, your contention that meetings didn't happen is completely incorrect. You can decide if you were just wrong or lying, since I cannot know if you had this information prior to now.

    Unlike those on the political Left I understand that just because you got something wrong it does not mean you were lying...

    And it still does not affect the fact that all the recommendations of Clarke and the Clinton administration would not have stopped 9/11.

    The Clinton Administration was attacked by Al Qaeda for 8 years, and did nothing about it. They were offered Osama bin Laden multiple times, and refused. The plans for countering terrorism were incomplete and ineffective, by their own words.

    Spin it as you want, the record is clear - the time to stop 9/11 was the Clinton Administration, and they simply dropped the ball.

    By Blogger Shanghai Dan, at 03 October, 2007 13:08  

  • Firat, the other poster asked about the time ofthe edited part of the pig man's fake soldiers , 2 minutes and 8 seconds

    second da;They were offered Osama bin Laden multiple times, and refused. The plans for countering terrorism were incomplete and ineffective, by their own words.

    Their plans were inded incomplete but at least they had one, Again, the counter terrorism meetihngs were held 3 times a wek under Clinton, under Bush, how many ??? 2 times?? Fact, they were clueless regarding terrorism and did not take it seriously. I never said clinton was the Anti-terror master, but he had a clue at least. 9-11 was the fault of an incompetant Bush administion laughing about terrorism prior to 9-11. That was thir attitude> They felt if Clinton was concerned it must be "liberal lies". They ignored it prior to 9-11, if they met 2 times, great.

    bin laden handed to them?? I don't think soooooooooooooo. George Tenat called off Clinton's planned assination of Bin Laden and busah gave Tenat the medal of freedom Remember that? Clinton was gonig to assinate him, Tenat called it off, over shaky inteligence. FACTS.

    still nobody can explain why Limbaigh edited 2 minutes of the incident ?

    I can prove in seconds the GOP guilt regarding 9-11. Immediatly after 9-11 they blamed Clinton. Hannity was ready to roll with the talking point "bin laden on a silver platter" which is a LIE.
    The right did what they do best ater 9-11, PROJECT their failures onto others........ Projection is the rights best trait, you guys are experts at projection

    and why did Rice lie to the American people "we have no idea airplanes would be flown into buildings"... That was a lie, they knew in 1999, when the CIA broke up project bojenka, which detailed the exact attack on the WTC. FACTS.

    By Blogger Minister of Propaganda, at 03 October, 2007 14:23  

  • I am speaking on behalf of my daughter who is in Iraq right now (third time), who is a liberal democrat, who opposes the war, yet does her job regardless of hardships and hazards, who has earned two bronze stars and seven distinguished service citations for her performance. "Phoney soldier" indeed.

    Since 9/11, my daughter has missed every family milestone - every holiday, every birth, and every death. I call it “Family Interrupted.” With each passing year, there is always the empty place at the family dinner table. I watch the evening news and note the losses of other families, hoping my daughter’s name will never appear on a casualty list. "Phoney soldier" indeed.

    I think you can well understand my rage over this remark.

    About that Jingo Limbo comment, it offends me to the point of wanting to hunt him down like a dog and push in his face and pluck out his eyes.

    By Blogger Swampcracker, at 03 October, 2007 19:46  

  • This manufactured controversy is clearly a desperate attempt by George Soros et al to deflect attention from the shamefully stupid "Betray Us" ad. First, they went after O'Reilly, but that bombed when they couldn't get Sharpton or Jackson to condemn him, so now they're going after Rush. This, too, shall bomb. For one thing, nobody will believe that the John Kerry "American GIs Are Murderers" crowd gives a damn about soldiers, phony or otherwise. Give me a break. For another, Rush Limbaugh is a private citizen, basically an entertainer, albeit an influential one. Even if he meant what the Left says he did, so what? To attempt to equate Limbaugh with is pathetic, and only shows how badly the Soros crowd was stung by the criticism that was rightly heaped on them. Oh, and one more thing: liberals may pride themselves on their so-called compassion, but apparently that doesn't extend to overweight people, as evidenced by the "pig man" comments here and similar insults on other blogs. Guess it's still OK to denigrate people with weight problems... you know, like Ted Kennedy.

    By Blogger Unknown, at 03 October, 2007 20:02  

  • ecophotos: No, I can't understand your rage over that remark. People like your daughter are precisely why Limbaugh's remark wasn't intended the way you have chosen to take it. You should save your rage for the phony soldiers who make a mockery of true heroes like your daughter. I wish nothing but the best for her and your family.

    By Blogger Unknown, at 03 October, 2007 20:22  

  • MOP,

    Spin as you want, the facts are that Richard Clarke, the Clinton AND Bush Administration's Terror Czar in SWORN TESTIMONY stated that 9/11 could not have been prevented by the Bush administration, given the information and plans provided to the Bush administration.

    And that same Mr. Clarke testified that there were weekly meetings regarding terror.

    Your statements simply don't hold water. The facts are that Mr. Clarke, whom I trust has a LOT more inside information about both administrations, simply claims counter to your position.

    The 9/11 attack is laid squarely at the feet of the Clinton administration. And that includes Mr. Clarke himself.

    By Blogger Shanghai Dan, at 05 October, 2007 10:25  

  • So many drug addicts and closet homosexuals in the Republican Party that it is more leftist than the Democrats.

    By Blogger Progger, at 06 October, 2007 12:04  

  • So long free speech.

    Should congress take action against those whose speech they find offensive? Read the first amendment before you answer.

    The Senate resolution mentions Rush Limbaugh by name and they took action against him by writing his employer a letter. The House resolution mentions Limbaugh by name too.

    The Senate resolution in support of General Petraeus does not mention Moveon.Org by name nor did they take action. It was still wrong.

    So long to free speech it was nice while it lasted.

    Silence Dogood

    By Blogger Unknown, at 09 October, 2007 11:32  


    It was well-known that Bush engaged
    In slander, or more subtly
    Had henchmen as covertly waged,
    If never too covertly--

    Nor even of his partymen
    Did any raise a finger,
    Much less to wag; so after then
    The consequence must linger.

    The populace but saw good sport in
    Fear-mongering´s worst tactics,
    As negritude of Willie Horton
    Made them seek prophylactics.

    So too the dipping into swill
    Gave dippers so much promise,
    As when there was a seat to fill
    The justice named was Thomas.

    (Again, thank goodness, words reveal
    Their fortitude with time,
    Or lack thereof: what they conceal
    Fall out just like sub-prime.)

    It was not hardly hidden from
    The populace at large,
    As even now has yet to come
    To terms with treason´s barge,

    As blithely so it sails away
    Unto a sure perdition:
    We are the heirs of yesterday,
    So sins come to fruition.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10 November, 2007 14:12  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Page Rank Checker

Powered by Blogger