Big Daddy’s Pink stormtroopers, Liberal Fascists dispensing some love to the Berserkeley Proles…

“General” Gay Keith, the Clinton plant, was not a Brigadier General, but a reservist.

So we have another one to add to the list.

Jimmy Massey

Jesse MacBeth

Scott Beauchamp

Gay Keith Kerr

Kerr, according to Townhall’s Jonathan Garthwaite (see great videos here), is actually a member of Hillary Clinton’s Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transexual Americans For Hillary Steering Committee. He’s also part of a film production crew trying overturn the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy.

From Brigadier General Bill Becker, United States Air Force, (Retired)

Gay keith spent his years as a reservist, solely in the state of California military bureacracy. His BIO IS PUBLISHED in the gay organization dedicated to voiding the “Don’t ask don’t tell” policy.

For details, you must note that Kerr was retired from the inactive Army Reserves in the grade of Colonel. With the exception of a few years served on active duty as a Lieutenant, his entire service was in the reserves in California. He was placed in retired reserve status with the California National Guard Reserves and promoted to Brigadier General in that federally unrecognized status.

This is considered an “honorary” title similar to the PHD awarded by Universities as honorarium. We would never refer to such awardees as “doctor”. It is also noteworthy that he was a graduate of UC BERKELEY and served as an instructor in academia. He has no combat experience during his 43 years of “service” and it is a disgrace for him to be associated by the media with the active duty military!!!!

Thanks for listening to the voice of wrath of this old military aviator.

BRIGADIER GENERAL BILL BECKER UNITED STATES AIR FORCE, RETIRED COMBAT VETERAN WWII, KOREA, VIETNAM

As Rush Limbaugh said, the left trots out frauds and phony soldiers….

X Posted at CB 

What a revelation.

The maxi-mea culpa runs more than 10 pages and thousands and thousands of words (self-pitying, rationalizing, messenger-blaming), but this is the belated bottom line: The Beauchamp stories are bullcrap.

bwahahaha! Couldn’t have said it better myself, but reasonable people, other than Meatbrain and people of his ilk, already suspected as much.

From Sweetness and Light comes The Frauds of War 

Go see the picture there of “Private Scott Thomas Beauchamp and his wife Elspeth [sic] Reeve, a TNR staffer, on a secret mission deep inside Cambodia, Christmas Day, 1968.”

John Kerry: Unfit, period.

Jean-Francois Kerry and the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth are at it again.

In October 2003, Kerry chose to make his disputed Vietnam war record as a Swift Boat “hero” the centerpiece of his campaign for the presidency. In doing so, he also called attention to his undisputed provision of “aid and comfort” to the enemy in time of war.

In response, a large contingent of Vietnam vets who also served on Swift Boats—some who served with Kerry, some who served in the same area as Kerry, and some who were Kerry’s former commanding officers (Grant Hibbard and George Elliott)—challenged Kerry’s record in a series of televised ads, and a book, Unfit for Command.

In all, more than 250 Swiftees, including Kerry’s entire chain of command, are on record as questioning his fitness to serve as Commander in Chief. Conversely, only three of Kerry’s 23 fellow officers-in-charge from Coastal Division 11 support him.

The Swiftees claimed that Kerry was “unfit to serve” because of his “willful distortion of the conduct” of American servicemen in Vietnam, and the “withholding and/or distortion of material facts” regarding his own service.

“The ads were produced to expose the braggart Kerry’s incautious claims about his service during the Vietnam War,” notes American Spectator editor R. Emmett Tyrrell. “That would be the war Kerry participated in briefly before coming home and traducing his fellow comrades in arms with vicious lies and distortions before the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee.”

The Swiftees’ challenge also highlighted Kerry’s participation with the radical “New Soldier” movement, but Kerry arrogantly brushed off the challenge—and his presidential aspirations were dashed.

Two weeks ago, billionaire entrepreneur T. Boone Pickens, who had funded part of the 2004 SBVT ad campaign, renewed the challenge by offering $1,000,000 to anyone who could disprove any of the accusations made by the Swiftees in that ad campaign.

That was the setup.

In a letter to Mr. Pickens, Kerry responded, “While I am prepared to show the so-called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth lied on allegation after allegation, you have generously offered to pay one million dollars for just one thing that can be proven false. I am prepared to prove the lie beyond any reasonable doubt.”

Pickens countered Kerry: “In order to disprove the accuracy of the Swift Boat ads, I will ultimately need you to provide the following: 1) The journal you maintained during your service in Vietnam. 2) Your military record, specifically your service records for the years 1971-1978, and copies of all movies and tapes made during your service. When you have done so, if you can then prove anything in the ads was materially untrue, I will gladly award $1 million.”

That is the trap.

Of course, Kerry’s response has gotten plenty of media play in more than 300 articles sporting headlines like “Kerry Takes Vows to Disprove Swift Boat Claims,” and even Leftmedia editorials proclaiming, “Bravo, finally, for John Kerry. Beyond any doubt he served this country bravely…”

But no evidence refuting the Swiftees’ claims has been forthcoming, nor will it be. Kerry is banking on MSM credit for accepting the Pickens challenge without ever showing up.

Kerry is now ducking the challenge, claiming that Pickens’s request for bona fide documentation constitutes “selectively backing away from your original challenge, retreat, a new bet, and changing the subject.” In other words, if Pickens won’t just accept Kerry’s word as fact, Kerry will not accept the challenge.

The debate about Kerry’s “hero” status, including questions such as why his Silver Star has three different citations (none of which account for the degree of valor commensurate with the award), will likely never be adequately resolved. In fact, Kerry’s refusal to release his DoD Standard Form 180 and DD214, accounting for all his military citations, records and discharge from the military, has fueled the debate.

Kerry requested an SF-180 back in 2005, and the Department of Defense quickly obliged, so why all the obfuscation—why not simply release the entirety of his records? Perhaps, because those records would create more questions than they answer?

Kerry did provide some of his records to his hagiographer, Douglas Brinkley, and then claimed he could not release those records to the media because of an exclusive agreement with Brinkley. However, even Brinkley says that their agreement stipulates only that quotations from those records cite his book, not that Kerry was prohibited from releasing them otherwise.

The dispute about Kerry’s Vietnam conduct and citations notwithstanding, the real issue is not Kerry’s service record, but his traitorous actions between 1971 to 1978, when he was discharged from the Navy—which is why Pickens asked for Kerry’s service records for those years.

Was Kerry’s discharge revised in accordance with Jimmy Carter’s Executive Order 4483, which provided radical protestors and draft dodgers blanket pardons? Is that why his discharge was subject to review by a “board of officers” in accordance with Title 10, U.S. Code Section 1162 and 1163, which pertains to grounds for involuntary separation from military service?

Here is a sure bet: Kerry will not produce those records because he knows Pickens will use them to document our case against Kerry for treason, as outlined in the Petition to Investigate and Indict John F. Kerry for acts of treason.

Kerry provided “aid and comfort” to the North Vietnamese enemy during the Vietnam War, meeting in Paris with NVA communists while he was a commissioned Navy officer.

He has supported Communist dictators in Nicaragua and Cuba, and, more recently, his flip-flopping on Iraq and claim that those serving there are “stuck in Iraq” because they are too ignorant to do anything else have served to stiffen our enemies’ resolve.

At best, Kerry, by his own account of his actions and protests, violated the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the Geneva Conventions and the U.S. Code while serving as a Navy officer.

Most notable among his infractions would be the aforementioned meeting with North Vietnamese negotiators in 1970 and 1971, in which he willingly placed himself in violation of Article Three, Section Three of the U.S. Constitution, which defines treason as “giving aid and comfort” to the enemy in time of warfare.

The pertinent language states: “No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President… having previously taken an oath… to support the Constitution of the United States, [who has] engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”

It is likely that no action will be taken on the Petition to Investigate and Indict John F. Kerry for acts of treason while Kerry is a sitting senator, but if Pickens is able to obtain Kerry’s records and document his meetings with North Vietnamese principals, Kerry could be prosecuted for violations of Article Three, Section Three, and disqualified from any future campaign for national office.

Like Pickens, The Patriot is committed to holding Mr. Kerry accountable for his actions, as there is no statute of limitations for acts of treason. Indeed, we are all committed to serving Kerry with an irrevocable dishonorable discharge from public office.

Now, then, Mr. Kerry, about that million-dollar challenge from Mr. Pickens: We’re still waiting…

Quote of the week

“Good luck Boone, trying to get those military records. Kerry promised to release them [1,034] days ago, and an anxious nation (except for a few select reporters) still holds its breath.” —The Wall Street Journal’s James Taranto, who has kept track of the days since Kerry first promised to release his full military records to Tim Russert on NBC’s “Meet the Press”

On cross-examination

“Kerry has no way of knowing where this issue will go next, and unless he wants to take a chance of ending his mediocre political career, he should let sleeping dogs lie… Kerry is really hoping that the general malaise about him and this issue will allow him to ‘counterpunch’ without really having to produce any evidence. He is hoping that, in the public’s current antipathy for him, he will be able to ‘clear the record’ through the mere ‘acceptance’ of the T. Boone Pickens challenge alone, whether or not he ever takes any action moving forward… Kerry will produce no new evidence, but the MSM will gladly recall this effort as the ‘counter-attack that cleared his record’.” —Michael McBride, USMC (Ret.)

The BIG lie

“Mr. Pickens, I would be more than happy to travel to Dallas to meet with you in a mutually agreed upon public forum. I look forward to setting up a visit at the earliest possible, mutually convenient time.” —Jean-Francois Kerry, ostensibly accepting Boone Pickens’s $1,000,000 challenge. We suppose this meeting hinges on the meaning of the word “mutually.”

My friend Andre here on ConClub, who is slightly to the left of me, decided to use Rush Limbaugh in a recent post as a comparative example to the lunatic ravings of John Elliott regarding the Randi Rhodes incident. No matter that Elliott created a fantasy out of whole cloth, and you have to take a leap of faith to believe the charge against Rush. I certainly do not want to spend my time being Mr. Limbaugh’s apologist. I just want to respond in depth to Andre’s comment…

Um, PG, Just for the record, George Soros is not involved with Media Matters in any way.

Would that it was true my friend, would that it was true! Not only does media matter, but money does too my friend; don’t ya think?

Some people may swallow the argument about OSI and how any funds given were “earmarked” for propaganda machines other than Media Matters, and the Progressives are welcome to. I choose to use common sense. Sorry guys, being full of it when it comes to plain facts is not a difference of opinion, it’s a question of reality. Mr. Soros funds the organizations that fund Media Matters. Progressives believe PNAC is a conspiracy, but not the Soros -OSI- Tides Foundation – Media Matters chain. Earmarks, yeah the mob likes that term too when they laundry their “fungible” money. What do those Progressives say about how to see how evil capitalism works? Is it follow the money? Yes I think it is!

Just for fun, how much money has PNAC funneled though companies for propaganda purposes? OH, sorry, none. They write papers, articles and books that they sign their names to. They have a magazine and a web site where their views have bylines at the top. Soros and his friends on the other hand, like to move in the shadows. Their philosophy is known more for what it is against, than what it is for. It is known for its negitive attacks and not for its positive contributions.

If one does not yet see a connection then may I mention The Center for American Progress, the Democracy Alliance or our good friends at Moveon.org. You want it both ways huh? There is a vast right wing consiracy, but Soros’ money has no strings. Look, if Bill O’Reilly can figure this out, why cant you? It is politics folks! Get dinner “first” this time, because it is happening again. They take you for granted.

I am not not against Soros because he spends his money this way, it is his right to do so, no I am against him because he is simply an evil man. Dont take my word for it, take his…

From a 60 Minutes interview with Soros on December 20, 1998:

KROFT: (You) went out, in fact, and helped in the confiscation of property from the Jews.

Mr. SOROS: Yes. That’s right. Yes.

KROFT: I mean, that sounds like an experience that would send lots of people to the psychiatric couch for many, many years. Was it difficult?

Mr. SOROS: Not at all. Not at all. Maybe as a child you don’t see the connection. But it created no problem at all. (Note: Mr. Soros was not a child in 1944. Teenagers are well aware of moral rules.)

KROFT: No feeling of guilt?

Mr. SOROS: No.

KROFT: For example that, ‘I’m Jewish and here I am, watching these people go. I could just as easily be there. I should be there.’ None of that?

Mr. SOROS: Well, of course I could be on the other side or I could be the one from whom the thing is being taken away. But there was no sense that I shouldn’t be there, because that was — well, actually, in a funny way, it’s just like in markets, that if I weren’t there, of course, I wasn’t doing it, but somebody else would be taking it away anyhow. And whether I was there or not, I was only a spectator, the property was being taken away. So I had no role in taking away that property. So I had no sense of guilt.”

Oh to have as much free time as a United States senator or member of the house of representatives. First was their taking the time to pass a resolution condemning a newspaper ad by moveon.org and actually discussing and debating the issue on the tax payer’s dime. Now, professors Harry Reid and Tom Harkin are spending a good deal of time trying to discredit Rush Limbaugh and some comments that he made on his show during actual floor time.
From Neil Boortz, “This whole mess starts with a clown by the name of Jesse Macbeth. Macbeth became very popular with the media earlier this year when he started telling stories about all of the hideous crimes he saw our soldiers commit while he was serving in Afghanistan and Iraq as an Army ranger.”
You can hear Rush’s words here along with his defense: http://youtube.com/watch?v=rm84gOXkZaY. He actually replays the original dialogue with a caller talking about former soldiers claiming the evils of war and the wicked actions of US troops despite the fact that these “soldiers” were never where they said they were, never saw what they said they saw, and were in fact “phony” soldiers; they never even served actively in the military.
If you would prefer to read the transcript, check it out here: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_092807/content/01125106.guest.html
As the senators attack Limbaugh, you can read a Department of Justice memorandum addressing the phony soldier phenomenon and doling out fines and imprisonment for forgeries and deception by the criminals. Not that he needs any attention, but one of the main soldiers in question is Jesse MacBeth: http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/waw/press/2007/sep/operationstolenvalor.html. Under a DOJ memo entitled Operation Stolen Valor, specifically 8 individuals are mentioned by name with the details of their crimes outlined. MacBeth, claiming to see heinous attacks on civilians and others , never even left the United States with the army and was discharged one month after he joined. What a phony!
This episode with phony soldiers is not a recent event! It has been addressed a number of times with articles written by Michelle Malkin on August 8th: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/08/winter_soldier_syndrome.html. There was an article in the Seattle Times addressing this MacBeth character and the phony soldiers written September 21st: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/332642_fakevet22.html. The Associated Press released information about the incident on September 21st. Hot Air! exposed the situation and verdict as well: http://hotair.com/archives/2007/09/21/jesse-macbeth-i-admit-it-im-a-filthy-liar/. Because she is such a stud, you can find the actual forged forms by MacBeth posted May 26, 2006: http://hotair.com/archives/2006/05/26/jesse-macbeth-posts-his-discharge-form/.
As you can see, despite attempts to attack and discredit Rush, the facts are what they are and one has to wantonly ignore these facts in order to believe these politicians. Just read the transcript in context to see what really took place.
To further add fire to the flame, a couple of GOP members in the house of representatives have put forth a resolution today “commending Rush Limbaugh and his support of our troops.” Unfortunately, it is sponsored by Jack Kingston of Georgia, the same guy that took our money and time to put forth a resolution congratulating the Florida Gators for winning the National Championship last year. Thanks for your hard work Jack! http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1905024/posts.
As luck would have it, there are actually quotes and records of Hillary Clinton speaking of her support of Media Matters; the group that “watches” conservative news sources and talk radio hosts to hold them accountable for their comments and views. In fact, she not only supports their efforts, but boasts of helping to form this group among others: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbzC6-N9mwM (the relevant material begins around 2:20). “Institutions that I helped to start and support…” she says. Way to put another nail in your coffin Mrs. Clinton. There is no way that a Mrs. Clinton front group would be going after the “vast right-wing conspiracy” would there be?

So moveon.org can blast an American General with a full page add, yet can’t take the heat if someone counterattacks, go figure!! More here.

More “Phony” Soldiers!!
Here (Gore LIED??) and here.

The Commies are coming!!
“ It is getting increasingly difficult to distinguish between the agenda of the Democratic Party and the agenda of the Communist Party. Joelle Fishman, chairwoman of the Political Action Committee, CPUSA, says:”
Read Henry Lamb at WND.

What a weird month in the political circus–first the outrageous “Betray Us” ad, which the New York Times’ own public editor now says was below the belt, and now Rush (To Judgment) Limbaugh’s “phony soldiers” comment.

Please. If men and women who have served and risked their lives in combat conclude that the war has been horribly botched and perhaps lost, they’ve earned the right to stand up and say so. I may disagree with some of their conclusions, but I’d rather hear from them than Limbaugh.

  As everyone knows by now, Rush Limbaugh has come under fire by Democrats on the senate floor because he called a man who falsified and embellished his military service a phony soldier. Now comes word that the military is actually investigating over sixty soldiers who have falsified their military record. In other words the military is investigating over sixty phony soldiers.

Macbeth, 23, gained the most attention of those Sullivan has prosecuted, in part because he became a hero of the anti-Iraq war movement. He claimed to have witnessed his fellow American soldiers commit atrocities in Iraq, when in fact he was never there.

  Talking to a caller to his program, Rush specifically was talking about Macbeth when he used the term phony soldier. The left has spun his comments to persuade the American people that Rush was saying that any soldier that served in Iraq and opposes the war is a phony soldier.

  The only reason I keep bringing this issue up is that I believe that the Democrats are trying to use this trumped up controversy to re-instate the fairness doctrine in an attempt to silence those that oppose them. This issue, to me, is larger than just Rush Limbaugh. This is a fight we must win or forever lose the freedom of conservative speech. When did words become criminal? The left will slowly but surely stamp out the voice of the opposition if we don’t STOP THIS NOW. If we don’t stop this now, we will wake up one morning without any forum to voice our opinions and we will wonder what the hell happened.

Sorry, I don’t normally resort to ad hominem attacks but the bullshit that spews out of Rush Limbaugh’s mouth just pushes me beyond the bounds of decency. In his most recent outrage, he referred to American troops—including returning veterans—who oppose or openly criticize the Iraq war as “phony soldiers.” Naturally, the right wing’s most vociferous minions are coalescing in a cacophonous show of support (of Limbaugh) and denunciation (of his detractors). But regardless of what Limbaugh meant by his “phony soldiers” comment, one thing is clear: No statement is too inflammatory, too insensitive, or too hypocritical for this man when it comes to pushing the conservative line.

This isn’t, after all, the first time Rush Limbaugh has gotten in trouble for callously pandering to conservative elements in our society. In fact, extreme insensitivity has been the hallmark of his career. In 2003, as one of the hosts of ESPN’s NFL Sunday Countdown, he was forced to resign after making a racially insensitive remark about Donovan McNabb, star quarterback for the Philadelphia Eagles. Limbaugh—who will never be as good at anything in his entire life as McNabb is at quarterbacking—had the nerve to say, on the air, that McNabb had recieved more credit than he deserved for his team’s successes because sympathetic media outlets were “very desirous that a black quarterback do well.” I guess in Rush’s fat eyes, it’s not actually possible for a black quarterback to be good enough to merit McNabb’s accolades.

Racial insensitivity is par for the course for Rush Limbaugh so his remarks on ESPN should have come as no surprise to anyone familiar with his show. But Limbaugh deserves accolades of his own when it comes to brazen hypocrisy. As a longtime advocate of the lock-them-up-and-throw-away-the-key school of anti-drug law enforcement, Limbaugh’s own arrest and conviction on prescription drug abuse charges did come as a shock to many. It also gave yours truly a great deal of schadenfreude. Of course, it would have been too good to be true for the courts to lock him up and throw away the key, but I nonetheless let my imagination wander to a blissful fantasy world in which justice was actually done. In the real world, however, Limbaugh was out in no time and, after a stint in rehab, back on the air.

Not in the least humbled by his arrest—and exposure as a hypocrite of the first order—Limbaugh immediately went back to his trademark brand of inflammatory and biased broadcasting. During the 2004 presidential elections, Limbaugh was in the forefront of the campaign to cast a shadow over John Kerry’s military service, parrotting the exaggerated and outrightly false claims of groups like Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. This episode shows the size of Rush’s cojones (hint: cojones is not Spanish for gut) because he himself had never served in the military. When his nation needed him to put his life on the line, Rush Limbaugh managed to get a deferment because of a pilonidal cyst, a minor condition that can be easily repaired with an out-patient surgical procedure.

The “phony soldiers” remark is rightly generating a strong negative reaction precisely because Limbaugh, himself a draft-dodger (a term he liberally used when lambasting President Bill Clinton), now has the gall to refer to soldiers who oppose the war as “phony.” This man has never answered the call to serve his country and has never worn a military uniform. In fact, the only uniform Limbaugh has ever worn is that of a “a wiener salesman for the KC Royals baseball franchise.” Yet he now has the audacity to disparage these soldiers who have put their lives on the line and now have the courage—after having personally witnessed the fiasco in Iraq—to call for an end to the war. Only in a media climate totally dominated by right-wing pundits can someone like Rush Limbaugh actually believe he can get away with this sort of thing. Hopefully this will be the last time he does.

Because of this man’s track record, I don’t understand why there is so much argument about what he meant? We can pick apart his words and try to psychoanalyze him ’til we’re blue in the face but one thing is clear: He fully intended to disparage those soldiers who are critical of the war. Limbaugh has been a supporter of this war from the start, and has staunchly supported whatever line the Bush Administration has taken. When the Abu Ghraib scandal blew up, Limbaugh defended the soldiers who tortured and humiliated their Iraqi prisoners, saying on his show that they were just “blowing off steam.” After an active-duty soldier questioned then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld about their lack of body armor, Rush Limbaugh called for that soldier to be busted for “borderline insubordination.” From day one, Limbaugh has done whatever he can to support the continuation of this war, and he will continue to do so.

It should therefore come as no surprise that he has now taken to insulting soldiers who have lost faith in this war. The man is a conservative ideologue, pure and simple. I can only hope that something good comes of this scandal. I hope that those Americans who continue to support this war will begin to question the sincerity of conservatives’ support-the-troops rhetoric. Maybe they will finally begin to understand that continuing to send American soldiers to die in Iraq while opposing the speedy return to their homes and families of those troops already there is not a show of support. It’s actually the opposite.

FULL DISCLOSURE: Long, long ago, I used to listen to Rush Limbaugh regularly and I actually thought this fat piece of excrement made some good points. God, how blind I was back then! It must have been the OxyContin.

Harry Reid seems to want to go out of his way to make inaccurate statements (I’m being kind here, because I am supposed to encourage people to be respectful). However, he is an example of the unstatesmenlike statesmen that populate Capitol Hill.

He publicly accuses Rush Limbaugh of insulting our fighting men and women as being “phony soldiers” if they oppose the war in Iraq. I don’t know who he has for a staff but someone should have given him better advice. What Rush did is to repeat what had already been featured on ABC in an investigative story on “Phony Soldiers.” The focus of the ABC story and Rush’s comments was a guy named Jesse MacBeth, who had claimed to be an Army Ranger and had made a series of complaints about how our soldiers were acting. He slandered the men and women who are risking their lives for the cause of freedom, Iraqi freedom if not ours. He is a phony! We have had people like this after every conflict. A friend of mine calls them “heros” who claim things that they never did, people who want the glory and the spotlight, but not the hardship and deprivation that goes with it, not to mention the physical risks true soldiers take.

Harry Reid, do your homework! Now that you must realize that you are wrong, be accountable! Call a news conference that accept the responsibility for your slander and for not having your facts straight. And while you’re at it, Harry, study the Army values, one of which is Integrity!

I’ve had the flu recently, so I’m not in top form right now. However, the Blackwater mess has me up in arms. Why do we need a team of mercenaries–excuse me, security forces–in Iraw? Isn’t the military supposed to be doing this? My thought here is if the troops are spread too thinly to handle all of their obligations, SCALE BACK THE MISSION! It is another sign we are in over our heads. It is also another sign of cronyism.There are a lot of companies doing very well for themselves out of the illegal war in Iraq, which seems to be coming soon to Iran. I odn’t think the US should be overthrowing governments so that select companies can prosper at the expense of the citizens of the invaded country. Call me old-fashioned that way.

And Rush Limbaugh. WTF??? Phony soldiers?? I look at his fat ass sitting in his chair and think that he’s really got  a lot of nerve. He’s never served in the military. I don’t think he knows what a good soldier is; his judgment seems to derive from seeing that they’re waving the flag hard enough. And then to blame the mess on “Drive-By media”. Seriously, I just about had a relapse of the flu. If he were any kind of a man, he’d take responsibility for his words instead of trying to shift the blame. If he rolls over, I bet we’d see an enormous yellow stripe on his belly. His words and behavior insult anybody who’s worn a military uniform and can think for him or herself.

And why veto the SCHIP? Kids depend on that for access to medical care. Some states have enough money to keep it going for a while longer, but this is just indefensible. These kids have done nothing wrong, but they are being punished by the President because he can’t get along with the Congress. You’ll note he signed the veto in private. Who wants the pen he used for that?

I’ve kept quiet about the phony “Phony Soldier” attack against Rush because others are exposing the Dem’s idiocy much better than I could and, up until about five minutes, I didn’t feel I had anything even marginally original to add.  What occurred to me five minutes ago, however, was the old saw about “know your audience,” and I thought that I’d pass this one on.

The Democrats understand that Rush fans know that this is all a scurrilous and false attack against Rush.  I don’t doubt that members of the military also know that this is a scurrilous and false attack against Rush, because they can’t be ignorant of the fact that Rush, not Harkin or Reid, or any other Democrat, has been their faithful friend.  So it isn’t going to play before that audience.

The Democrats also know that their base loathes Rush and thinks he’s Satan incarnate.  They hate him because he’s a conservative, and the conservatives are fascist war mongers.  The base, then, is going to know that this whole “scandal” is a fake, but they’re not going to care.  They just like seeing the attack.  But you don’t gain any additional political traction by peddling obvious lies to your base.

So the intended target must be the people who don’t care one way or another about Rush (non-fanatic Democrats, casual Republicans, and Independents).  But not caring about Rush is not the same as not knowing about Rush. Everybody in America, unless they’ve spent the last years under rocks, knows of Rush, and knows that he’s the King of the Conservatives.  And if they know that much, they also have figured out that, subject to a few RINO exceptions, the Conservatives are the party that pretty much unreservedly supports the military — as opposed to the Democrats, who are traditionally very anti-military.  So it seems likely that this audience, hearing about this “controversy,” might be the one group that thinks “something’s not right here.”  And if the members of his audience care even a little about this curious inversion of normalcy, they’ll investigate and discover that the Democratic Congress is lying through its teeth.  And really, that’s not good for the Democrats.

So tell me again, what audience are the Democrats playing to?

Mr. Clark is how he should be addressed since he has brought dishonor upon the uniform that he once proudly wore when he was in the military, now his main intent is to earn blood money based on lies and his version of history.  Mr. Clark had the chance to set the record straight today on an early morning show and admit that there are men who are passing themselves as vets of the Iraq war when in fact they have never even set foot outside of American soil, it is intent of these phony soldiers to promote hatred and lies about the military and the real reason as to why the United States is over in Iraq.

Today Mr. Clark had to parse his words very carefully so that he could not be taken out of context so that his lies will not be subjected to the light of day.  Mr. Clark should be ashamed of his actions and admit the truth that he supports these phony soldiers that the Democratic party is putting out their to spread lies in general, Mr. Clark would rather see another 500,000 people die at the hands of tyranny, as what happened when the United States left Vietnam.   Mr Clark do the Country a favor and fade away, and don’t bother our ears with your lies that you spew like a volcano.

Mr. Clark is the greater evil along with Mrs Clinton, and any other person who promotes defeat in the war on terrorism

Limbaugh owes this vet and soldiers like him an apology.

But don’t waste your time waiting. Has Limbaugh ever apologized for anything he has ever said or done? One of the characteristics of many addicts is denial — denial of personal responsibility.

Regardless of one’s position on the Iraq War, someone who has made the sacrifice of serving our country deserves our thanks and respect. They have mine.

For more on this controversy, read this from Fox News.

Req: A, N, S

This much nearly everyone can agree on — Rush Limbaugh made a remark about “phony soldiers” on his Sept. 26 nationally syndicated radio broadcast. Beyond that, it depends on where you get your information.

Limbaugh has been facing a firestorm of controversy this week, with detractors claiming in one form or another that “Rush Limbaugh, on his show said that those troops who come home and want to get America out of the middle of the religious civil war in Iraq are ‘phony soldiers.’”

Most articles, notably the Associated Press version, used the following context for the partial quote at the heart of this story:

“MIKE FROM OLYMPIA, WASH.”: They like to pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and talk to the media.

LIMBAUGH: The phony soldiers.

A more full context would have included the complete lead-in quote from the caller:

“MIKE FROM OLYMPIA, WASH.”: And what’s really funny is they never talk to real soldiers. They like to pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and talk to the media.

The added context more precisely indicates what the caller was implying.

Even more illustrative would have been reports that took into account the context of Limbaugh’s exchange with the previous caller, “Mike from Chicago,” who advocated withdrawing troops from Iraq.

When that caller said he was a Republican:

LIMBAUGH: Mike, you can’t possibly be a Republican.

Limbaugh appeared to be suggesting that the caller was merely posing as a Republican, one might infer, in order to get on the show and/or to have the credibility that comes with criticizing one’s own group. The host also expressed cynicism when the caller said he “used to be military”:

LIMBAUGH: Right, I know, and I, by the way, used to walk on the moon.

Limbaugh closed the exchange by repeating his disbelief in the caller’s authenticity:

LIMBAUGH: 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.

He then immediately cut to “Mike from Olympia.”

The inclusion of the earlier context clearly indicates that in talking with “Mike from Olympia” the talk show host was expressing his belief that some people who claimed to be soldiers pushing for a military withdrawal, such as the previous caller, were not actual soldiers.

It is a stretch to suggest that Limbaugh was saying “all those who claim to be soldiers criticizing the war are not actual soldiers but individuals merely pretending to be soldiers.” It is a blatant mischaracterization to claim that the talk show host was directly impugning actual soldiers who voice criticism of the Iraq War.

That did not stop some media outlets from following up on a release from the liberal group Media Matters, titled: “Limbaugh: Service members who support U.S. withdrawal are ‘phony soldiers.’”

MSNBC, in particular, drew the ire of the conservative group Newsbusters, which lambasted the news organization in a release titled “Show after show, MSNBC smears Limbaugh with ‘phony soldiers.’”

Democratic leaders have gone after Limbaugh as well — particularly Sen. Harry Reid, who said in a letter to Clear Channel Communication that “Rush Limbaugh’s recent characterization of troops who oppose the war as “phony soldiers” is such an outrage.” He further stated that Limbaugh’s actions were “beyond the pale.”

Most major newspapers have thus far largely avoided the issue, allowing the various television networks to have the story to themselves. However, Reid’s actions may prompt the newspapers to delve into it as well.

A good newspaper article would do two things with this mess: 1) it would use the complete context to illustrate what Limbaugh was actually saying; and 2) it would track down “Mike from Chicago” to see if he really is a military veteran as he said. If he is, and particularly if he is an Iraq War veteran, then Limbaugh at the very least owes him an apology for suggesting otherwise. If he is not, then it is Senator Reid and others who owe Limbaugh an apology.