Harkin v. Limbaugh

[Stormin]

Are you sure that the link you provided is the full transcript? Other web sites that purport to disclose the full transcript continue far beyond where the Media Matters identifies as the cut-off ("exactly sir"). What Media Matters has done is to selectively ended the transcript where it best suits their purposes.

And of course my suspicions were aroused when I saw that the link you provided was furnished by "Media Matters." The fact that Media Matters is partially funded by MoveOn.org should indicate that they are far from a biased organization.

Media matters endorses no candidates or political parties. They are a non-profit organization which comprehensively monitors and analyzes conservative misinformation in the U.S. media. Perhaps you can post a list of their donors so we can see who they are funded by.

Now why would correcting misinformation put out to the American Public through the media be a BAD THING?????

[JHudd]

Media matters endorses no candidates or political parties. They are a non-profit organization which comprehensively monitors and analyzes conservative misinformation in the U.S. media. Perhaps you can post a list of their donors so we can see who they are funded by.

Now why would correcting misinformation put out to the American Public through the media be a BAD THING?????

Wouldn't the above bolded statement let any normal thinking person know who they endorse, whether publicly or otherwise. I mean if you are out to do truth and justice wouldn't your organization focus on U.S. media misinformation as a whole? Just a thought.....

[clone52]

The context is very clear, he was talking about impersonator soldiers like Jesse Macbeth. Some have tried to rebut this by claiming that he mentions Jesse Macbeth "much later" in the program, but it is only a few sentences later, and it's only because the caller suddenly changes the subject mid-stream to WMDs. Rush just responds briefly about WMDs and then gets back on the subject of phony soldiers.

The UNEDITED transcript link:
The Shield of Achilles: Media Matters Turns Ugly and Phony [Updated]

He and the other Mike were talking about how the real soldiers are glad to be in Iraq and think we are doing the right thing. To me, that sounds like that any soldier that thinks differently is a 'phony soldier'.

I think Rush's problem is that he truly believes that no soldiers think that we should pull out. If he truly believes that, then anyone who says he's a soldier that doesn't support the war must not really be a soldier.

What if I believe that the second Mike is a plant by Rush and not actually a soldier. If I truly believe that, can I call him a phony soldier?

[Cyclonepride]

Media matters endorses no candidates or political parties. They are a non-profit organization which comprehensively monitors and analyzes conservative misinformation in the U.S. media. Perhaps you can post a list of their donors so we can see who they are funded by.

Now why would correcting misinformation put out to the American Public through the media be a BAD THING?????

That is the absolute worst use of spin that I have ever seen

[alaskaguy]

Media Matters only targets news or media that forwards the conservative agenda. Does you consider that to be bias?

Media Matters has a rather notorious record of smearing those that do not subscribe to the "left wing gospel" or at least that is what their right wing targets claim.

The New York Times has reported that financial support is from "wealthy liberals," MoveOn.org, Peter Lewis, and the New Democratic Network.

I don't think that you will find a bigger critic than I of the way that the Iraqi war has been managed. In addition, I am no fan of Rush Limbaugh.

Nevertheless, reading and rereading all the threads and links connected with this topic, leads me to the conclusion that Rush Limbaugh is being unfairly smeared.

[alaskaguy]

Every person who votes has voted for a liar.

So by that logic we should not take notice when politicians lie to us?

[alaskaguy]

If Congress passes a resolution condemning anyone (and I am not advocating that Congress waste time condemning political people and groups), it should be Media Matters for grossly distorting the facts rather than Rush Limbaugh.

[Johnny Tremain]

The context is very clear, he was talking about impersonator soldiers like Jesse Macbeth. Some have tried to rebut this by claiming that he mentions Jesse Macbeth "much later" in the program, but it is only a few sentences later, and it's only because the caller suddenly changes the subject mid-stream to WMDs. Rush just responds briefly about WMDs and then gets back on the subject of phony soldiers.

The UNEDITED transcript link:
The Shield of Achilles: Media Matters Turns Ugly and Phony [Updated]

My time to disengage from the Limbaugh debate is long overdue. Trying to chastise the bad behavior of the world's most reknown pilonidal cyst man is way too much work. Not to mention, a futile endeavor, considering mindset rigidity of his adoring apologists.

[herbiedoobie]

If you dont mind telling me, herbiedoobie, what military forums are you a member?

I am not sure I understand your use of the term the "third rail". The definition of a "third rail" is, as I understand it, a "subject that tends to be avoided because of its offensive or controversial nature." Someone who lies about or exagerate his military record certainly is not a subject that is avoided in any military circles that I know about.

Perhaps an explanation for why "the fellows here (where ever here is) just cannot understand why Iowans keep voting for the guy" might be along the same lines why the folks over here and there voted for GWB in spite of his contreversial military record.

When I said "third rail", I meant in the "strong, societal taboo" sense of the word. Posing as a military combat veteran is about as "third rail" as you can get, among folks in, and supporters of, the military.

There is nothing controversial about GWB's military record among the folks I know and interact with. Being a member of the Air Guard, (especially if they let you fly neato fighters like the F-102) isn't that bad of a deal. Being released from the Guard because you miss UTAs isn't that big a deal, either. Especially when they eliminate your job. When you move (which GWB did) or your job is eliminated, you are given X amount of days to find a new slot, and if you don't, you are automatically transferred into the Individual Ready Reserves.

Here's a fun fact: Anyone want to guess which is a more dangerous job; serving in the military in Vietnam for a year, or undergoing the year it took to be trained to fly the F-102? Ironically, learning to fly the F-102 is roughly twice as dangerous as a year's service in Vietnam.

[clones_jer]

My time to disengage from the Limbaugh debate is long overdue. Trying to chastise the bad behavior of the world's most reknown pilonidal cyst man is way too much work. Not to mention, a futile endeavor, considering mindset rigidity of his adoring apologists.

Big words Johnny. How's that liberal arts major working out?

Speaking of "mindset rigidity", you don't seem excited to change stances either. Don't feel bad, it's human nature for issue debates to only more firmly entrench both sides into the belief their opinion is correct. (I'll admit, I took a few psych courses, but only for the chics)

Now I gotta go google "pilonidal" ...

[herbiedoobie]

He and the other Mike were talking about how the real soldiers are glad to be in Iraq and think we are doing the right thing. To me, that sounds like that any soldier that thinks differently is a 'phony soldier'.

I think Rush's problem is that he truly believes that no soldiers think that we should pull out. If he truly believes that, then anyone who says he's a soldier that doesn't support the war must not really be a soldier.

What if I believe that the second Mike is a plant by Rush and not actually a soldier. If I truly believe that, can I call him a phony soldier?

B.S. - You are building a Straw Man argument.

Rush's problem, as I understand it, is that much of the opposition to the war is done by folks who embrace and dry-hump "phoney soldiers" like Jesse MacBeth and Tom Harkin and hang on their every lie, as if it were gospel, handed down from a nonexistent God.

All the while, they spit on "real soldiers" who just happen to disagree with their position vis-a-vis the war, or any numbers of things, such as "facts".

Do you think it's a coincidence that the same bunch of thugs are always behind the Jesse MacBeths, the Dan Rathers, the Korean War alleged bridge massacre of civilians, John Murtha's fabricated allegations of rape and murder, etc, etc? (Yes, unsubstantiated accusations by a Senator directed toward servicemembers is waaaay beyond the pale.)

This might shock some, but I've opposed the military intervention of Iraq since before it happened, and the execution of said military operations, since. But I am NOT willing to embrace some scuzzball poseur in order to make a point. I think we, as a society, are better than that.

And to dogpile on what AlaskaGuy said, I'm neither a Bush or Limbaugh supporter. In this case, I just calls 'em like I sees 'em.

[herbiedoobie]

herbiedoobie wrote:

I haven't been following this closely so I am ignorant. Please give us some names of soldiers who are "phony".

Jesse MacBeth - Kicked out of basic training, makes up a story about being a Ranger, and raping and killing civilian Iraqis, is embraced by the left wing as the "real deal" and "proof" that the military is a bunch of filthy murdering thugs, just like they thought.

Tom Harkin - Makes up stories of air combat in Viet Nam. It is found out that he was a maintenance ferry pilot. Changes lies to having flown test pilot missions over Vietnam. Which is also discovered to be a lie, ends up the sad sack of ***** never even got close to Vietnam. His service consisted almost entirely of flying rebuilt birds from Japan to the Phillipines and back. It's not the service, it's the lies.

John Murtha - Upon hearing about the Haditha "massacre" (which, because you aren't paying attention to the news, is looking more and more like the Haditha "plant a bunch of bodies killed in other places so it makes the Marines look bad" went off on a rant about US Servicemembers being a bunch of murdering, rapist, filth.

MacBeth is not the only "phoney soldier" that the left trots out. There are a couple of organizations the "out" poseurs, and there is a disturbing trend, especially around college towns, for the lefty college organizations to have a "stable of posers" to trot out when they do their protest thing. I think that they think it gives them "street cred".

Within the military community, it is considered "unprofessional" to publically oppose the war. I know some genuine article veterans who oppose it and do so unprofessionally. They also tend to be the "Joe Rag Bags" that you could not trust in theater. I know a metric ton of vets who oppose the war for ethical or professional reasons, and they do so quietly and professionally. I'm one of them.

[Johnny Tremain]

There is nothing controversial about GWB's military record among the folks I know and interact with. Being a member of the Air Guard, (especially if they let you fly neato fighters like the F-102) isn't that big a deal. Being released from the Guard because you miss UTAs isn't that big a deal, either. Especially when they eliminate your job. When you move (which GWB did) or your job is eliminated, you are given X amount of days to find a new slot, and if you don't, you are automatically transferred into the Individual Ready Reserves.

I am not going to agree that there was nothing contreversial about GWB's military service.

See link: President George W. Bush's Military Service: A Critical Analysis. I invite your special attention to page 34, Chapter X: Conclusions.

If you want to examine GWB source military documents, see second link. Documents not provided are: Bush's last DD-214, records from the Flight Inquiry Board convened after Bush was suspended as a pilot, evidence of Bush's reclassification into another AFSC after suspension as a pilot, Air Force Form 142 (Aviation Service Audit Worksheet), photos of George Bush in a military uniform after 1972, anything at all from any Alabama unit with GWB's name on it, copies of form 44a from the Alabama National Guard certifying attendance, documents proving service by Bush between May 1972 and May 1973.

LInk 1: http://www.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/.../lechliter.pdf

Link 2: USATODAY.com

[herbiedoobie]

I am not going to agree that there was nothing contreversial about GWB's military service.

See link: President George W. Bush's Military Service: A Critical Analysis. I invite your special attention to page 34, Chapter X: Conclusions.

If you want to examine GWB source military documents, see second link. Documents not provided are: Bush's last DD-214, records from the Flight Inquiry Board convened after Bush was suspended as a pilot, evidence of Bush's reclassification into another AFSC after suspension as a pilot, Air Force Form 142 (Aviation Service Audit Worksheet), photos of George Bush in a military uniform after 1972, anything at all from any Alabama unit with GWB's name on it, copies of form 44a from the Alabama National Guard certifying attendance, documents proving service by Bush between May 1972 and May 1973.

LInk 1: http://www.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/.../lechliter.pdf

Link 2: USATODAY.com

Interesting link #1, haven't reached past the first few pages but have discovered that First, Lechliter is not an "uninterested observer", but admits to being on a "fishing expedition".

Second, and most important, Lechliter does not understand National Guard regs; there are statutory and supplemental regs, most of which can be adapted by the State Adjutant General. Specifically, Lechliter (as a retired active duty guy, who understandably is NOT an authority in the arcane facts of NG regs) is completely and utterly incorrect in what constitutes "satisfactory participation." To get a "good year" in the Guard, you must accumulate 60 points. Each UTA is a point. You get 15 points for belonging to a unit, and one point for each Unit Training Assembly. 48 of those UTAs are the monthly "drill" everyone knows about. 15-29 of those are the Annual Training requirement. So, to satisfy a good year, you could get 15 points for being in a unit, show up for 45 of the monthly drill, and blow off annual training. Even if some of your drills are Unauthorized Absence, if you get the 60 points, you are good to go, as far as the Guard is concerned. The most they can do is fire you.

But, even if you do not get a "good year", you can ask to be excused from your responsibilities, and in the case of GWB, who had lost his flying job because returning Vietnam Veterans were more qualified, and moved to another state, he evidently applied for and was granted this excusal. The State Adjutant General CAN DO THIS, despite what Lechliter, who doesn't know his head from his rectum on this issue, has to say about it.

So GWB did not go AWOL. There is no offense in non-mobilized Guard units known as AWOL. That's an Active Duty only offense.

TWICE, in my 25 years of military service, I had events in my life that interfered with service with the National Guard. Each time I took some time off, and either made it up, later, or just blew it off. This practice is not only acceptable, it is common. When transferring between states, service requirements are extremely murky, and this is when most folks just quit going. It is the responsibility of the unit commanders to then transfer these folks to the Inactive Ready Reserve or kick them out.

But if you are a conspiracy theorist, it sounds just enough like the truth to make a really, really good story, doesn't it?

BTW, the correct action by the Guard would've been to transfer GWB to the IRR. I don't know if they did or not, but once he becomes an officer and is trained as a pilot, he doesn't go to Vietnam as a private.

[Johnny Tremain]

Big words Johnny. How's that liberal arts major working out?

Speaking of "mindset rigidity", you don't seem excited to change stances either. Don't feel bad, it's human nature for issue debates to only more firmly entrench both sides into the belief their opinion is correct. (I'll admit, I took a few psych courses, but only for the chics)

Now I gotta go google "pilonidal" ...

Mindset rigidity. Me? Nah... Well, maybe once or twice. But no more than that, I think. And only when those damn right-wingers drive me to it.

Cheers.