Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (765768)	10/7/2007 11:22:18 PM
From: pompsander	Respond to of 769667

So, you are equating a United States Senator (even one you disagree with and have no respect for) with an self-described entertainer with talent "on loan from God"? You believe they are somehow equals. So, if Rush challenges a United States Senator, the Senator must respond...and grant Mr. Limbaugh all the rights and privleges due an elected representative, such as speaking from the floor of the Senate. Yes, of course..... Rush Limbaugh will never debate anyone. He has been requested to debate on a neutral site dozens of times. He never accepts. Even idiots like Al Franken (and he is an idiot) have issue the challenges and Rush never accepts. Rush won't invite the guy from Votevets.org on his show.....why? Because he is waiting for Harry Reid? votevets.org

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (765768)	10/8/2007 12:33:55 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

You appear to be dodging the point I raised... if you actually want a 'fair fight' as you said, then wouldn't that REQUIRE a neutral site Peter? Asked and not answered: Message 23943521

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (765768)	10/8/2007 12:39:43 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Rush Limbaugh's 'Phony' outrage By Michael Mccord October 07, 2007 6:00 AM seacoastonline.com His supporters take Limb to task Rush Limbaugh has his critics and defenders. MCT file photo Much to my surprise, I became the target of some local and not so local Rush Limbaugh fans who jumped to his defense and put words to e-mail when I correctly quoted his "phony soldiers" sneer in last week's column. Let me repeat: My sin was correctly quoting Limbaugh's slam against Iraq war veterans who have turned against the Iraq war they fought in. I used the quote as an illustrative lead in a column focused on my interviews with Army Capt. Joshua Denton, a recently returned Iraq war veteran who believes we should withdraw as soon as possible and let the Iraqis sort things out for themselves. In other words, Limbaugh was cited briefly and correctly and used as an example of how some war supporters have used the war as a political bludgeon — mostly because they have run out of rational reasons to support a war that the American public at large has turned against. Well, one would have thought that I had drenched the Pope in Satanic water. From New York, I received this piece of fan mail: "Come on now. I know, and you know, Limbaugh was talking about a phony soldier named Jesse Macbeth. If he's a blowhard for talking about phony soldiers, what is someone who prints phony stories. Well, what are you?" And then from Mike Urgo of Somersworth (you can see his full letter below) came this critique: "You even lead the Opinion section with a lie-filled diatribe against Rush Limbaugh based solely on information from a left-wing hate group, Media Matters. Maybe you should do some research before you take quotes out of context from dubious sources ... if you would have called him or even went to his Web site, you would get the facts, but that wouldn't fit the story line." And then from Sue Polidura of Portsmouth: "I just want to clarify that the story was misrepresented and does not accurately convey comments made by Rush Limbaugh in his radio show. The story that you obviously mistook for fact originated in the blog Media Matters for America, an offshoot of Moveon.Org, specializing in smearing people with whom they disagree by posting comments out of contest on their Web site. ... Is there any wonder that people have lost confidence in the impartiality of the media? All of them were deceived by the story because it fit their template so they didn't bother to check the facts and neither did you." These were three of seven very critical messages about my alleged abuse of Limbaugh's words and intent. In response to all these thoughtful critics, I will stand by my reporting because I did check the facts. I did my research on the "phony soldiers" comment, and found that Limbaugh was desperate not to admit he'd been caught saying what he did and then trying to hide it. Despite what some on the defensive right might think, I try to stay away from "lie-filled diatribes," and however much I consider Limbaugh a clown and a blowhard, I certainly don't need to go out of my way to either misquote him or make stuff up. Limbaugh graciously supplies all the rhetorical ammunition a critic could ever need. Even though I had little doubt that blowhard Rush said what he did, I went to check it out myself to confirm it. So here's a quick lesson in journalistic standards. Even though in a column I'm giving opinions, I strive to make them informed opinions. To Mr. Urgo and Ms. Polidura, I did indeed find the original story from Media Matters, though calling them a "left-wing hate group" is a little strong (it was actually founded by a former conservative journalist). And yes, I did go to Limbaugh's site and see and listen to the transcript. Guess what I found? Limbaugh does indeed claim he was speaking about the imposter soldier and you know what, he did. But alas, Limbaugh neglected to mention that he edited his own show of Sept. 26 — but Media Matters taped the March 26 show and had the goods in the form of the missing "phony soldiers" segment. In terms of chronology, he referred to the imposter Jesse MacBeth AFTER he referred to GIs who had turned against the war as phony soldiers while talking to another caller. Limbaugh selectively edited out that sequence of Sept. 26 when he went on the air Sept. 28 to attack Media Matters and claimed to replay the entire segment in question. You can go to this site (www.mediamatters.com) and hear the clips in question and judge for yourself. I'm puzzled by this: How can anyone be surprised at this given Limbaugh's venom toward anyone, serving or not, who disagrees with him on Iraq? He's slimed two decorated Vietnam War combat veterans — Republican Sen. Chuck Haegel of Nebraska and Democrat Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania — for daring to think the Iraq war has been a disaster of historical proportions and trying to change the course of madness. His legacy of endlessly trumping up the Swift Boat lies against John Kerry in 2004 speaks for his dedication to a cult-like truth only he has access to. A few days after the "phony soldiers," Limbaugh was at it again, this time going after a retired Iraq war veteran who'd suffered traumatic injuries while serving and criticized Limbaugh in an ad calling on him to meet face to face with Iraq war vets calling for an end to the war. On the air after he thanked Staff Sgt. Brian McGough for his service, Limbaugh played avenging victim, saying McGough has been "strapping those lies" told about him on his belt and was wading into the people. Though Limbaugh has denied it, you couldn't miss the suicide bomber metaphor if you tried. Sue Polidura said that it's important to know "how ardently Rush Limbaugh supports our soldiers and has done so for almost twenty years." I would suggest that Limbaugh, whom television commentator Keith Olbermann rightfully calls "comedian Rush Limbaugh," practices a highly selective form of support for the troops — patriots when they support him and traitors when they disagree. As columnist Joe Conason noted about the whole pathetic affair, "Only in a media environment where conservatives have long felt exempt from scrutiny would Limbaugh still feel free to mock the military service of those who disagree with him. He is, after all, a certified chicken-hawk who cheered on the Vietnam War as it ground up tens of thousands of young Americans, but saw no reason why he should serve." The interesting aspect of my rather insignificant and periphery part in this affair is how my critics had hardly anything at all to say about what Joshua Denton shared with me. They might have learned something about patriotism, Limbaugh-style. "It's insulting" he said about much of the "support the troops" mantra used by politicians and war supporters. Which may be the larger point of the attack on me and the Iraq war debate in general: remain entertained by sideshows and avoid the real issue. Political columnist Michael McCord is the opinion page editor of Seacoast Sunday and the Portsmouth Herald. You can also read his N.H. primary blog at thenewhampshireprimary.com. He can be reached at mmccord@seacoastonline.com.