Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Beauchamp’s Bde Cdr talks about investigation (update)
Posted by: McQ on Friday, September 28, 2007

I had the opportunity to speak with COL Ricky Gibbs, the Brigade commander of Scott Thomas Beauchamp on the Blogger's Roundtable today. Michael Goldfarb of the Weekly Standard asked COL Gibbs if in fact Beauchamp was being prevented from speaking with the media in general or The New Republic specifically.

COL Gibbs answered, "We don't order them not to talk to the press". Goldfarb pressed, asking if he was being specifically told he couldn't talk to The New Republic. COL Gibbs answered, "No, we don't do that".

Gibbs said he's free to talk with TNR or any members of the press, but has, by choice has decided not to talk with any of them. Gibbs wanted to be clear, however, that the Brigade has not prevented him from talking with the media nor ordered him not to talk with the media.

As to the stories, COL Gibbs said Beauchamp hasn't officially recanted the stories but "he's not standing by them anymore". When asked to clarify that, Gibbs said that an official investigation by an outside investigating officer determined that the "facts" of the stories were "unfounded". He said that none of the soldiers in Beauchamp's unit supported the stories. Said Gibbs, per the investigation, "they didn't happen".

So, there it is from the horse's mouth. We await TNR's reply.

UPDATE: Here's the transcript [pdf] of the questions to COL GIbbs:
MR. HOLT: Okay, Mike Goldfarb.

Q Colonel, thanks for doing this.

I gotta ask you about Scott Beauchamp, and I'm wondering if you can tell me — you know, the last we heard on this was that your command had prevented him from talking to the media. And I'm wondering if that is still the case, or if Beauchamp has been allowed to talk to his editors at the New
Republic or if you can give me any information on that.

COL. GIBBS: Yes, Scott Beauchamp is one of my soldiers. Based upon what we saw in the — in the news, we had — those are not good things that soldiers should be doing. So we, as every good unit does, I directed an official investigation to determine, one, if in fact the — what he said is true, we need to take actions to prevent further acts like that.

We did an investigation, and we found that the incidents described in the article did not take place. He admitted those himself to the investigators, and so we proved that they were unfounded, and the soldier who wrote the piece
has been counseled by the chain of command and allowed to assume his duties as an infantryman. He is not — we can't — we do not order them not to talk to the press. They can talk to the press. And our soldiers are the greatest advertisers for the Army, because they'll speak the truth and tell the truth in most cases.

So I'm proud of the professionalism and dedication of our soldiers, and I'm satisfied that this brigade is conducting our operations with the utmost professionalism and dedication. And that soldier is still serving in his unit
today.

Q Sir, I can just ask you a quick follow-up here. So first off, to be clear, he did admit that those things did not take place?

COL. GIBBS: He did admit to the investigating — not to me, but to the investigator.

Q And can you speak at all, do you know if he's been in touch with the New Republic?

COL. GIBBS: I don't know. I've got 5,000 soldiers plus, so I don't see them all.
At the end of the call, COL Gibbs had this to say in clarification:
COL. GIBBS: My guys handed me a note here to make sure I get the facts right here. I referenced Beauchamp, he did not officially recant what he said.

But further statements from folks in his — troopers in his company and chain of command proved that the allegations were unfounded. Make sure I get all the facts right.

Q Then can we be clear, did he admit that the stories were false or no? Is he standing by the stories?

COL. GIBBS: He's standing by the stories, but the investigation from his buddies that worked with him and other investigations proved the allegations were incorrect, unfounded.

Q Okay, so he is standing by the stories?

COL. GIBBS: Yeah.

Q Okay.

COL. GIBBS: We'll make sure we clarify that. Right now, no, he's not.

He had admitted, no, but he's not standing by it now.

Q I'm confused, guys. Is he standing by the stories or hasn't he?

Q Has he recanted?

COL. GIBBS: No, he's not. No, he has not recanted. But he's not — he's no longer standing by his story. He will not — and he won't talk to the media, they say.

Q Okay.

COL. GIBBS: We'll make sure we clarify that. Right now, no, he's not.

He had admitted, no, but he's not standing by it now.

Q I'm confused, guys. Is he standing by the stories or hasn't he?

Q Has he recanted?

COL. GIBBS: No, he's not. No, he has not recanted. But he's not — he's no longer standing by his story. He will not — and he won't talk to the media, they say.

Q If he won't stand by —

COL. GIBBS: We're not — we're not prohibiting him from doing that.

Q This is Marvin Hutchins. So if I can — if I can maybe find a way to say this right. Are you saying that he's not — that he's not been — he's not standing by the story in public statements or anything, but he's admitting, I suppose in theory, that the investigation has proven that he was false, without coming out and saying, I made it all up?

COL. GIBBS: Yes. We have proven through an investigation of unbiased parties, official investigators, that the allegations are unfounded.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
Geez, with the Iranian president’s speech at Columbia, skepticism about some soldier’s war stories, and a silly ad by an advocacy group, you are really tackling the big issues of the day. Keep up the good work.

 
Written By: David Shaughnessy
URL: http://
Gee... I missed what you blogged about today david, what was that???
 
Written By: Keith_Indy
URL: http://asecondhandconjecture.com
Gee... I missed what you blogged about today david, what was that???
Haven’t you figured out yet that he’s the classic whiner who hasn’t the guts to actually take an original position on something but loves to take shots at others who do?

Or said another way, someone not worth paying attention too, Keith.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
I just like how David keeps putting the exact same comment in every post.

Does drive-by comment spamming pay well, Dave? As opposed to actually writing on a, you know, actual blog? Please enlighten me.
 
Written By: Uncle Pinky
URL: http://
Just keepin ya on task ya see.
To Hell with what interests YOU.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
What’s David’s problem? You covered the monkey-camerawoman story.

I mean, you have a monkey ripping off a french woman’s pants.

What more do you need
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
I think there need to be more exposés concerning Britney, and a whole lot more effort made in covering, or uncovering Mary Katherine Ham.....
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
It appears you overlooked one very significant story: Rush Limbaugh calling soldiers who disagree with Bush’s war policy "phony soldiers." I’m surprised you missed it, being so sensitive to military slights and all. It couldn’t have anything to do with the fact that it is Rush Limbaugh, not MoveOn.org, who made the remark, huh? Nah, that would be totally hypocritical, so that couldn’t be it. Could it?
 
Written By: David Shaughnessy
URL: http://
I’m amused that somehow McQ thinks that his word as a blogger is good enough to make TNR think they need to reply! Seriously, they probably figure that unless the government makes explicit their methodology of investigation or unless people talk to them (there are ways to suggest people not to talk without actually forcing them or making a rule), they have nothing to say. Moreover, if you are right, McQ, and they really messed up, well that gives them double incentive not to say anything. Why let this become an actual story again? Rationally, if they erred, then it’s best for them to let it stay dead. You can say that shows lack of integrity or courage, but I think in the corporate media world that’s par for the course, no matter what the political perspective of the media outlet.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
It isn’t just DS. Whenever any story appears anywhere in the blogosphere that paints the Left in a bad light, the hive’s thousands of little buzzing voices all cry out on cue: "You are just trying to distract us from the Mess That Is Iraq (TM)!"

Of course, the fact that Q and O probably devotes far more coverage of Iraq than any of the Left-wing blogs is no defense.
 
Written By: Aldo
URL: http://
Haven’t you figured out yet that he’s the classic whiner who hasn’t the guts to actually take an original position on something but loves to take shots at others who do? Or said another way, someone not worth paying attention too, Keith.
McQ’s just mad because I called him on becoming a White House shill.
 
Written By: David Shaughnessy
URL: http://
Sorry, David but you asked for the following:
McQ’s just mad because I called him on becoming a White House shill.
Who’s the shill, David?
It appears you overlooked one very significant story: Rush Limbaugh calling soldiers who disagree with Bush’s war policy "phony soldiers." I’m surprised you missed it, being so sensitive to military slights and all. It couldn’t have anything to do with the fact that it is Rush Limbaugh, not MoveOn.org, who made the remark, huh? Nah, that would be totally hypocritical, so that couldn’t be it. Could it?
Well, let’s take a look at the transcript. What the left is screaming about is a phone call-in:
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.
What the Left does not report is the following which was Rush’s commentary immediately after the call:
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.
Transcript available at: http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2007/09/what_limbaugh_said.asp

So, next time you want to hassle someone for not reporting a story make sure there is a story to report.
 
Written By: SShiell
URL: http://
I’m amused that somehow McQ thinks that his word as a blogger is good enough to make TNR think they need to reply!
Dan Rather still thinks that way about LGF.

As does Mary Mapes.

When will these little bloggers learn that they are dealing with professional journalists?
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
So, next time you want to hassle someone for not reporting a story make sure there is a story to report.
Ahh, but you are letting facts interfere with the leftist narrative.

Bad boy.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
It appears you overlooked one very significant story: Rush Limbaugh calling soldiers who disagree with Bush’s war policy "phony soldiers."
Another bot following media matters marching orders. (media matters shill, how pathetic)

I think it is pretty obvious that he is talking about phony soldiers like
- fake ranger Jesse McBeth
- fake ranger Micah Wright
- fake journalist Scott Beauchamp

You guys sure fall for a lot of scams. Are any of you in Amway or something?

 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
SShiell:

Here is the transcript up until the point where the discussion moves to another topic (WMDs):
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.
I don’t see how the transcript changes anything. He said what he said. Phony soldiers. Like the ones who spouted offf to the media in the New York Times. Now, as for his "cleanup" where Limbaugh tries to limit his remarks to Jesse MacBeth, well, sure . . . And what MoveOn meant to say was . . . What Beauchamp really was trying to say . . .
 
Written By: David Shaughnessy
URL: http://
He said what he said. Phony soldiers.
Like the MacBeth joke, who he mentioned, who was a phony soldier.

You got nothing.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://tomdperkins.blogspot.com/
You got nothing.
Oh no, I gota lot more than nothing. I got hypocrisy in action. When the MoveOn ad was first mentioned here I immediately condemned it. I also condemn Limbaugh’s comment. That’s consistency. Try it sometime.
 
Written By: David Shaughnessy
URL: http://
I’m amused that somehow McQ thinks that his word as a blogger is good enough to make TNR think they need to reply!
Well, how about TNR’s word?

they swore that right after their vacation, they’d get right to the bottom of things...

Their version, their words, have been refuted and disproven several times, and they are silent.

Don’t you think they should, perhaps, admit their mistake at the very least?
I don’t see how the transcript changes anything. He said what he said. Phony soldiers. Like the ones who spouted offf to the media in the New York Times. Now, as for his "cleanup" where Limbaugh tries to limit his remarks to Jesse MacBeth, well, sure . . . And what MoveOn meant to say was . . . What Beauchamp really was trying to say . . .
You’re clueless, aren’t you...

He’s calling people who weren’t soldiers (or who have been proven to have lied about what they saw/did) phony soldiers.

He’s not calling soldiers who disagree with Bush phony, he’s calling people who to be who/what/where they are/were not phony.

And since they are claiming things that are not true, he’d be correct.
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
Why condem a Limbaugh’s comment when it is factual and accutrate?

Honestly David, you need to stop taking those stupid pills...
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
Dave S wrote:
I also condemn Limbaugh’s comment. That’s consistency. Try it sometime.
And then Scott Jacobs wrote:
Why condem a Limbaugh’s comment when it is factual and accutrate?

Honestly David, you need to stop taking those stupid pills...
The thing is, Dave S. is just being consistently stupid.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://tomdperkins.blogspot.com/
He’s calling people who weren’t soldiers (or who have been proven to have lied about what they saw/did) phony soldiers.

He’s not calling soldiers who disagree with Bush phony, he’s calling people who to be who/what/where they are/were not phony.
Oh yeah? Gee, I didn’t see that in the transcript.
Like the MacBeth joke,
Yeah, that came up at CYA time — after the conversation was over. There was no mention of MacBeth before that. In fact, just before the phony soldiers remark, Limbaugh was mocking the caller who said that he was Republican and retired military yet opposed the war. That is the context for the phony soldiers comment.
 
Written By: David Shaughnessy
URL: http://
Wow
It’s clear Rush thought the guy who wanted to pull out wasn’t a Republican, and probably wasn’t or had been a soldier.
Could the guy have been both, yep.
But Rush clearly didn’t believe he was and hadn’t been.

As to your ’evidence’
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.

Comprehension? Context? What? What would it take to see, regardless of the bulk of the transcript when the second guy calls he uses the word Phony in regards to the Jesse McBeth class of soldiers. Soldiers who aren’t soldiers who became the temporary darlings till their stories were examined and debunked?

While Beauchamp is a real soldier, his narrative was false - so what would you like us to call him? A real phony soldier?
How about, um, liar, instead?

What’s with you guys lately, are you that embarrassed by MoveOn that you have to fabricate an incident from the first crappy thing you can find?
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
That is the context for the phony soldiers comment.
That’s what you claim. I generally do wonder if a loudly pro-lose-the-war "soldier" is in fact really a soldier at all. MacBeth isn’t the only fake (or faker—Beauchamp) who’s on the lose-the-war side.

And so far they have all been on the lose-the-war side.

It’s called learning from experience—leftists lie as readily as they breathe, there is no human truth in them that isn’t coincidental.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://tomdperkins.blogspot.com/
Here is the callers comment and Rush’s response that has Dave’s panties in a bunch:
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.
The question is, who is Rush refering to?

The caller’s comment: "they never talk to real soldiers. They pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and spout to the media." implies the likes of MacBeth. That’s the most reasonable interpretation.

And the fact that Rush later goes on to mention MacBeth bolsters that.

Dave is actually showing the hypocracy of the left: anything Rush says that can be used against he be used against him, even if the most tortured logic is required. Clarifications will be ignored. When a leftist says something, on the other hand, we must always assume the best, and we must accept the clarification at face value.



 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
Gee... I missed what you blogged about today david, what was that???
I don’t know about him, but the last few days I’ve blogged about the biggest stories facing the US: the impact of the current credit crisis and extremely weak dollar (this could be far bigger than what’s happening in Iraq), and about Iran.

I’d love to see some of the neo-libertarians take a stab at what the current credit crisis means given the huge current accounts deficit we’re carrying, the fact that consumers no longer have cheap credit and home equity loans to keep the economy moving, and the risk of a possible dollar crisis (unlikely it’ll crash quickly, too much of the world has too much at stake) and recession. Note as well that China has diversified and Europe relies little on the US market. At the very least the world economy is rebalancing to take into consideration a relatively weaker American economy.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Thing is, David didn’t read the transcript. Benen, Yglesias TPM all have this one bit of the transcript that they copied from Media Matters. None have provided a link, or bothered to read the actual transcript for themselves. One can not blame David for being confused. He doesn’t want to actually go to the source.

But I’m glad he’s "really tackling the big issues of the day."
 
Written By: Uncle Pinky
URL: http://
Yeah, that came up at CYA time — after the conversation was over. There was no mention of MacBeth before that. In fact, just before the phony soldiers remark, Limbaugh was mocking the caller who said that he was Republican and retired military yet opposed the war. That is the context for the phony soldiers comment.
So the fact that STB lied in his bits for TNR (one could call his stories "phony") is completely lost on you?

Tom’s right. You are consistantly stupid.

And thus ends my ever reading your idiocy ever again.
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
I generally do wonder if a loudly pro-lose-the-war "soldier" is in fact really a soldier at all.
Thank you for clarifying that. At least Rush isn’t alone.
 
Written By: David Shaughnessy
URL: http://
Thing is, David didn’t read the transcript. Benen, Yglesias TPM all have this one bit of the transcript that they copied from Media Matters. None have provided a link, or bothered to read the actual transcript for themselves. One can not blame David for being confused. He doesn’t want to actually go to the source.
The transcript is at The Weekly Standard. Don’t you get tired of being wrong all the time?
 
Written By: David Shaughnessy
URL: http://
Dave is actually showing the hypocracy of the left: anything Rush says that can be used against he be used against him, even if the most tortured logic is required. Clarifications will be ignored. When a leftist says something, on the other hand, we must always assume the best, and we must accept the clarification at face value.
Wrong. (You guys are batting ZERO.) I couldn’t care less about Rush Limbaugh. No wait, I care even less about MoveOn.org. I condemn their idiotic remarks equally. But neither one of them matters. That is the point.
 
Written By: David Shaughnessy
URL: http://
By the way, this charming comment has been overlooked so far:
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.
 
Written By: David Shaughnessy
URL: http://
Kind of ironic this started out as mocking the choice of blogging coverage, followed by a misrepresentation of a case discussing this sort of coverage, in order to prove it all means nothing.

What, exactly, does the sound of one hand clapping sound like?
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
By the way, this charming comment has been overlooked so far:
Keep digging David, after all, it doesn’t matter, that’s the point you’re trying to make with this entire manufactured outrage incident, isn’t it?

 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
it doesn’t matter
Hypocrisy always matters.
 
Written By: David Shaughnessy
URL: http://
And thus ends my ever reading your idiocy ever again.
Wow. I’m not sure I can go on.
 
Written By: David Shaughnessy
URL: http://
The transcript is at The Weekly Standard. Don’t you get tired of being wrong all the time?

Hey Dave, that bit of transcript is up in many places. As you provided no link, how in the blue hell am I supposed to know where you got it from? Don’t you get tired of being an irrational hothead all the time?

After reading the full transcript, are you still convinced that: "Rush Limbaugh (is) calling soldiers who disagree with Bush’s war policy ’phony soldiers.’"? You have read the full transcript, haven’t you? I know how you value accuracy, so I will assume that you have gone to the primary source and read the full content. Do you still feel the same way about your earlier statement?
 
Written By: Uncle Pinky
URL: http://
Wow. I’m not sure I can go on.
Tease.
 
Written By: Ted
URL: http://rocketjones.mu.nu
Wow
I couldn’t care less about Rush Limbaugh. No wait, I care even less about MoveOn.org. I condemn their idiotic remarks equally. But neither one of them matters. That is the point.
it doesn’t matter
Hypocrisy always matters.
Are there two David Shaughnessys posting today?

The rest of us can read, and I have read the transcript.
Taken out of context there’s hypocrisy(big surprise), in context there’s not.

You know, just because you stand around stamping your feet and shouting that "Hypocrisy!" has occurred, doesn’t mean it has occurred.

So if your point was that McQ (and many of us) are being hypocrites, well, it has yet to be proven based on the instance and evidence you’re providing so far.

And, just sayin, but your first gripe seemed to be about the quality of the choice of subject, not the hypocrisy of the subject.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Professor Erb kept professing that he was awaiting TNR’s response (I’m too lazy to look up the comment)and that their response was delayed due to the Army stonewalling on releasing the results of their investigation. Well, now that the Army has commented on it on the record, has stated that TNR and Beauchamp will be able to commumicate, what is the prof’s response
I’m amused that somehow McQ thinks that his word as a blogger is good enough to make TNR think they need to reply! Seriously, they probably figure that unless the government makes explicit their methodology of investigation or unless people talk to them (there are ways to suggest people not to talk without actually forcing them or making a rule), they have nothing to say.
Professor, this is why you piss me off.
 
Written By: tom scott
URL: http://
After reading the full transcript, are you still convinced that: "Rush Limbaugh (is) calling soldiers who disagree with Bush’s war policy ’phony soldiers.’"? You have read the full transcript, haven’t you? I know how you value accuracy, so I will assume that you have gone to the primary source and read the full content. Do you still feel the same way about your earlier statement?
What I posted is the full transcript up until another caller moves on to a different subject. I absolutely do think that Limbaugh was saying — see Tom Perkins above — that soldiers who do not agree with the war policy are "phony soldiers." I base that on the context of the comment, to wit:
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.
Now, as far as Limbaugh’s post-hac "clarification," I accept it as him disavowing the meaning of his statement and I’m glad he did so. But it doesn’t change what he said. The point with these things is that we can spend all day talking about what so and so said, and what he or she meant, but who cares? I certainly don’t want to see a Senate resolution condemning Limbaugh’s remarks, but for consistency, that’s what should happen. In any case, people should have the courage to condemn those with whom they generally agree — whether it’s Democrats and MoveOn.org or Republicans and Rush Limbaugh.
 
Written By: David Shaughnessy
URL: http://
Taken out of context there’s hypocrisy(big surprise), in context there’s not.
Just the opposite is true. In context, it is clear that Limbaugh was asserting that those who oppose the Iraq War are "phony soldiers." Limbaugh just finished claiming that Democrats want to lose the Iraq War, and that his caller couldn’t be military (or Republican) because the caller disagreed with the Iraq policy and wanted the U.S to leave. That was when the "phony soliders" comments occurred. Afterwards, i.e., out-of-context, Limbaugh tried to argue that what he really meant was . . . .
 
Written By: David Shaughnessy
URL: http://
Afterwards, i.e., out-of-context, Limbaugh tried to argue that what he really meant was . . . .
Afterwards was in seconds thereof. That’s in context especially when the caller mentioning phony callers was before Limbaugh did, with the introduction of the term and the Limbaugh’s emphasis on his usage of it bracketing his usage of it. That’s the context.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://tomdperkins.blogspot.com/
Your claim that terms like "out of the blue," and "never talk to real soldiers" means what you claim is pretty tendentious. To compare it to MoveOn’s ad goes beyond silly. Rush said what he meant later, which you can call CYA if you want. MoveOn proudly stands by what they said.

Anyway, in the update to my post on this I respond to the problem of people who claim they get say to what people meant. This is a problem with both the left, right and in between, but it is a problem.
 
Written By: Lance
URL: http://asecondhandconjecture.com
David my lad,

You insist on reading this

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.

as an indication that Limbaugh is calling anti-war soldiers "phony".

The caller states that they do not talk to "real" soldiers. The transcript does not have quotes around the term soldiers in the second sentence, but Limbaugh makes it clear that he thinks that the caller is referring to MacBeth and Micah Wright types as phonies.

Now, as far as Limbaugh’s post-hac (sic) "clarification," I accept it as him disavowing the meaning of his statement and I’m glad he did so. But it doesn’t change what he said.

As far as Limbaugh’s post hoc clarification, it takes a little while to cue up the tape of the story you did earlier as an illustration.

But some hacks like to post truncated versions of transcripts in order to make dishonest points. I think you can probably see this, and I hope that you are upset at having the wool pulled over your eyes. I’ve seen plenty of people on both sides of the aisle pull this kind of crap, and it’s always infuriating.

And with that, as the five o’clock hour looms, I’ll be at the bar. Have a nice weekend, if you want to.
 
Written By: Uncle Pinky
URL: http://
In context, it is clear that Limbaugh was asserting that those who oppose the Iraq War are "phony soldiers
Actually, just because you say it is, doesn’t make it so.

In fact, just the opposite is true if you read the thing.

You’re just like Erb- being intentionally obtuse.

 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Just the opposite is true. In context, it is clear that Limbaugh was asserting that those who oppose the Iraq War are "phony soldiers." Limbaugh just finished claiming that Democrats want to lose the Iraq War, and that his caller couldn’t be military (or Republican) because the caller disagreed with the Iraq policy and wanted the U.S to leave. That was when the "phony soliders" comments occurred
Okay - translation for people who don’t speak English as a native language (and I see I’m piling on, but I wrote it, and dammit I’m gonna post it, this is just too stupid not to comment on...)

Whole segment -

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.
Translation:
"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."
He’s talking about Mike from Chicago, and people like him. People who want us to withdraw. Regardless of whether or not Mike is/was a soldier (which clearly Rush does not believe in the first place).

(I’ll skip the caller’s ’YEAH’ translation.....)
RUSH: It’s not possible intellectually to follow these people " -
"These people" is still the people like Mike from Chicago who Rush can’t understand because they advocate a pull out, because he thinks they will not have a proper answer if they were asked what’s the alternative - hence "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,".
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.
Now, pay attention here Dave, it gets kinda difficult if English isn’t your native tongue, because the caller is shifting the subject.
’They’, which are people like Mike, never talk to REAL SOLDIERS.

The caller’s not saying MIKE isn’t a real soldier, he’s saying, in blanket stereotype, that ’they’ the people who want the troops to come home now, never talk to REAL SOLDIERS to support their arguments.

"They" pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and spout to the media.
So, the Mike’s of the world find soldiers ’out of the blue’, ie, FAKE soldiers to talk to the media.

So Rush, making sure he emphasises and understands the caller’s change of subject from ’they’(Mikes) to ’soldiers out of the blue’......(which, um, well, you’ve already proven you can’t or won’t, but what the hell)....says
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.
And the caller acknowledges that that is who they are talking about now, the ’phony soldiers’, that would be the Jesse McBeth’s, Paul Lemmen’s, etc of the world.

Rush isn’t calling American Troops - Phony Soldiers, at any point here, they’re talking about soliders who came ’out of the blue’ (and that doesn’t mean US Air Force).

I thought the reading level of the average American was supposed to be at least at the 8th grade.
And I’m supposed to want you people, you mighty intellectuals, to vote in elections where critical issues are being decided? You can’t even follow this conversation and get the context!
Good Lord.

Wasted time I suppose.....

Want a laugh now, go Google the words Phony Soldiers, the leftosphere has already cranked into highest dungeon over it.

A month from now, all we’ll hear is ’Rush said’ and it’ll be just part of the meme(forever) of how poor MoveOn was slandered, and Rush got away with verbal murder of US troops.


 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
The point with these things is that we can spend all day talking about what so and so said, and what he or she meant, but who cares? I certainly don’t want to see a Senate resolution condemning Limbaugh’s remarks, but for consistency, that’s what should happen. In any case, people should have the courage to condemn those with whom they generally agree — whether it’s Democrats and MoveOn.org or Republicans and Rush Limbaugh.
Actually, what’s interesting is how persistent you have pursued such a stupid point. You’ve integrated stupid over time.

 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
In any case, people should have the courage to condemn those with whom they generally agree
It would help if I generally agreed with Rush, personally I can’t stand to listen to him because I generally find him to be a blow hard.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Since you FlatEarthers appear to be unconvinced (what a shock!), let me make it as simple as possible:
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: 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.
Now I know you all can read. So what is Limbaugh saying? Democrats want to get out Iraq and want the U.S. to lose the Iraq War. Rebublicans don’t. The first caller couldn’t possibly be a Republican because he wants the U.S. leave Iraq. Next caller responds to the first caller by saying what these people don’t understand, is if we pull out of Iraq right now . . To which Limbaugh replies: There’s a lot more than that that they don’t understand. . . It’s not possible intellectually to follow these people. Immediately after that:
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.
Get it? Real soldiers want to be in Iraq. Phony soldiers (and Democrats) don’t. Clear enough? But maybe: It depends upon what the meaning of is is. Huh?

Listen, you all have a nice weekend and be careful not to drive off the Earth.
 
Written By: David Shaughnessy
URL: http://
Listen, you all have a nice weekend and be careful not to drive off the Earth.
Well, if that happened then we would be in the alternate dimension you seem to post from. But there is lttle danger of that so don’t worry your pretty little head over it (and I do mean pretty little).

As to global warming, how come your pal Gore is afraid of debating so called "settled science"
 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
Listen, you all have a nice weekend and be careful not to drive off the Earth.


Well, no danger of that now, I presume there will be a smoke smudge from the wreck where your car landed to warn me I’m fast approaching the edge.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
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.
Get it? Real soldiers want to be in Iraq. Phony soldiers (and Democrats) don’t. Clear enough? But maybe: It depends upon what the meaning of is is. Huh?
That was the caller that opined that ’real soldiers’ wanted to be in Iraq (want to disagree with the caller, fine, I’m in your corner, otherwise your comprehension of the discussion is still flawed...).
Even then, neither of them have said ’all soldiers’ join go go to Iraq. Rush says, essentially "you ought to be able to guess where you might go if you join now", the caller has previously agreed that a lot of people joined to go to Iraq, meaning even HE understands not everyone joined to go there!

Other than Rush using the words "Phony Soldiers" you still have nothing.

On this basis we can now safely claim YOU said
Democrats want to get out Iraq and want the U.S. to lose the Iraq War. Rebublicans don’t.
I mean, there it is, in print, right where the pixels are, posted for the internet reading world to see.

DavidShaughnessy says Democrats want to get out Iraq and want the U.S. to lose the Iraq War. Rebublicans don’t.
It’s clear, anyone who can read can see it.

Context, what a concept.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
DavidShaughnessy says Democrats want to get out Iraq and want the U.S. to lose the Iraq War.
Well that’s clear from the legislation they keep on trying to pass that would lose the war for us, and they think keep their fingerprints off of the loss.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://tomdperkins.blogspot.com/
"Gibbs said he’s free to talk with TNR or any members of the press, but has, by choice has decided not to talk with any of them."

He must be smarter than I thought.

************************

" Seriously, they probably figure that unless the government makes explicit their methodology of investigation or unless people talk to them (there are ways to suggest people not to talk without actually forcing them or making a rule), they have nothing to say."

Why, exactly, does TNR’s investigation depend on the Army’s? Somehow I was under the impression that it was up to TNR to independantly confirm and factcheck their own story.

************************

"I don’t see how the transcript changes anything. He said what he said. Phony soldiers."

Sure he said the words, but he was rephrasing the caller’s comment. This is not unusual. It is a rhetorical device used often by Limbaugh, Moyers, or any other interviewer. There is no indication that he was expressing his own opinion. At most you could say thqt it is unclear whether or not he was expressing his own opinion, but that ain’t very catchy, is it?

***

 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
Interesting how ’our hero’ Bill Clinton was just on TV claiming the "feigned" outrage from the right was a classic bait and switch. (I’m sure Senator McCain worked real hard feigning that partisan face.)

And now we have a political affiliation with a long history of maligning the military, proclaiming with audacious temerity that we shouldn’t pay too much attention to their own caustic attitudes because if you listen to certain segments, with certain biases, and certain desired outcomes... well lookie here at that military hating Rush. Bait and switch indeed - and from the master (Clinton) and his taskmaster (Soros) themselves.

So David S. et al, what really blows me away is that, much like the Gonzalez affair, many here would be allies in denouncing certain righties... if you weren’t so bent on inventing these petty outrages.
 
Written By: bains
URL: http://
Yesterday I went to Hong Kong and bought some phony Gucci bags.

Now, according to David, I would not be referring to knock-offs, but maligning the genuine Gucci product.

The word PHONY has a meaning. Why try to make it something else?

Just like the left tried to do with "Betray" they want it to mean something else now...
 
Written By: Harun
URL: http://
"When I use a word, it means just what I want it to mean, nothing more or less."

"It’s a question of who is to be master, that’s all."

Lewis Carroll didn’t know he was writing a tactical manual for Leftards like David S. and the rare Erb.

 
Written By: SDN
URL: http://
Hey, looks like there definitely is something to the phony soldiers remarks. Thousands?
 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
"When I use a word, it means just what I want it to mean, nothing more or less."
Post modern garbage. Foucaults’s nothing has a meaning beyond the observer rap.
 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
Professor Erb kept professing that he was awaiting TNR’s response (I’m too lazy to look up the comment)and that their response was delayed due to the Army stonewalling on releasing the results of their investigation. Well, now that the Army has commented on it on the record, has stated that TNR and Beauchamp will be able to commumicate, what is the prof’s response

I’m amused that somehow McQ thinks that his word as a blogger is good enough to make TNR think they need to reply! Seriously, they probably figure that unless the government makes explicit their methodology of investigation or unless people talk to them (there are ways to suggest people not to talk without actually forcing them or making a rule), they have nothing to say.

Professor, this is why you piss me off.
It’s your own lack of reading comprehension that pisses you off. I said a long time ago that I accepted the military’s conclusion. In this post I am explaining how TNR is viewing it (note the phrase ’they probably figure...’). IOW, I’m explaining what I think the people at TNR are taking into account in terms of whether they think this is worth a response.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
"Post modern garbage. Foucaults’s nothing has a meaning beyond the observer rap."

???????

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice’s_Adventures_in_Wonderland
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider