old Texas liberal!

To express the sense of the Senate that General David H. Petraeus, Commanding General, Multi-National Force-Iraq, deserves the full support of the Senate and strongly condemn personal attacks on the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all members of the United States Armed Forces.

House Resolution 644, Sept 20]Reaffirming the commitment of the House of Representatives to respecting the independent and professional reputation of General David H. Petraeus and all members of the United States Armed Forces serving in good standing in the defense of the United States.

Summary: Rush Limbaugh has called the MoveOn.org "General Petraeus or General Betray Us?" advertisement "contemptible" and "indecent," but months earlier, on his radio show, he told his audience that he had a new name for Senator Chuck Hagel: "Senator Betrayus." Though Limbaugh has taken exception to accusations that he has attacked the patriotism of his political opponents, the "Senator Betrayus" remark is one of several instances in which Limbaugh has done so.

During the September 26 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh called service members who advocate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq "phony soldiers." He made the comment while discussing with a caller a conversation he had with a previous caller, "Mike from Chicago," who said he "used to be military," and "believe[s] that we should pull out of Iraq." Limbaugh told the second caller, whom he identified as "Mike, this one from Olympia, Washington," that "[t]here's a lot" that people who favor U.S. withdrawal "don't understand" and that when asked why the United States should pull out, their only answer is, " 'Well, we just gotta bring the troops home.' ... 'Save the -- keeps the troops safe' or whatever," adding, "[I]t's not possible, intellectually, to follow these people." "Mike" from Olympia replied, "No, it's not, 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." Limbaugh interjected, "The phony soldiers." The caller, who had earlier said, "I am a serving American military, in the Army," agreed, replying, "The phony soldiers."

Summary: In response to Media Matters' documentation of his recent description of service members who advocate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq as "phony soldiers," Rush Limbaugh claimed that he had not been talking "about the anti-war movement generally," but rather "about one soldier ... Jesse MacBeth." Limbaugh then purported to air the "entire" segment in question. In fact, the clip he aired omitted a full 1 minute and 35 seconds of discussion that occurred between Limbaugh's original "phony soldiers" comment and his subsequent reference to MacBeth.

3. Is Limbaugh being honest in his attempt to clarify the remarks of September 26?
Wow. WOW! Why don't you try debating honestly? How about linking to Limbaugh's site instead of, or at least in addition to, Media Matters?

On Monday, 24 September, the network’s Charlie Gibson introduced a segment reported by Brian Ross regarding a number of “phony veterans” now under investigation for falsely claiming to have served in wartime. One of those mentioned in the story is none other than Jesse MacBeth, the same fake soldier referenced by Rush during the program in question.

This story was aired 2 days before Rush talked about phony soldiers and Jesse MacBeth on his show.

So if the Democrats want to condemn Rush, they need to add ABC and Brian Ross in as well.

To express the sense of the Senate that General David H. Petraeus, Commanding General, Multi-National Force-Iraq, deserves the full support of the Senate and strongly condemn personal attacks on the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all members of the United States Armed Forces.

House Resolution 644, Sept 20]Reaffirming the commitment of the House of Representatives to respecting the independent and professional reputation of General David H. Petraeus and all members of the United States Armed Forces serving in good standing in the defense of the United States.

But why are you holding Rush to the same standards as to say the New York Times? Do you think rush is a journalist?

"On Friday, many Democrats joined me in drafting a letter to the Chief Executive Officer of Clear Channel, Mark Mays that we will send out this week. Here is what we wrote:

"Dear Mr. Mays,

"At the time we sign this letter, 3,801 American soldiers have been killed in Iraq, and another 27,936 have been wounded. 160,000 others awoke this morning on foreign sand, far from home, to face the danger and uncertainty of another day at war.

"Although Americans of goodwill debate the merits of this war, we can all agree that those who serve with such great courage deserve our deepest respect and gratitude. That is why Rush Limbaugh’s recent characterization of troops who oppose the war as “phony soldiers” is such an outrage.

"Our troops are fighting and dying to bring to others the freedoms that many take for granted. It is unconscionable that Mr. Limbaugh would criticize them for exercising the fundamentally American right to free speech. Mr. Limbaugh has made outrageous remarks before, but this affront to our soldiers is beyond the pale.

"‘The military, like any community within the United States, includes members both for and against the war. Senior generals, such as General John Batiste and Paul Eaton, have come out against the war while others have publicly supported it. A December 2006 poll conducted by the Military Times found just 35 percent of service members approved of President Bush’s handling of the war in Iraq, compared to 42 percent who disapproved. From this figure alone, it is clear that Mr. Limbaugh’s insult is directed at thousands of American service members.

"Active and retired members of our armed forces have a unique perspective on the war and offer a valuable contribution to our national debate. In August, seven soldiers wrote an op-ed expressing their concern with the current strategy in Iraq. Tragically, since then, two of those seven soldiers have made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq.

"Thousands of active troops and veterans were subjected to Mr. Limbaugh’s unpatriotic and indefensible comments on your broadcast. We trust you will agree that not a single one of our sons, daughters, neighbors and friends serving overseas is a “phony soldier.” We call on you to publicly repudiate these comments that call into question their service and sacrifice and to ask Mr. Limbaugh to apologize for his comments.’ "

And now Harry Reid proves the US Government really has NOTHING better to do with their time.

But we already knew that from MoveOn's censure. Ooh, ooh, let me guess: Democrats are gonna be accused of bullying Clear Channel for writing another letter!

I hope Limbaugh sues Media Matters for libel (the allegation that he's lying by changing the transcript) and MM counter-sues. One way or the other the truth will come out. I'll bet on Limbaugh changing the show's transcript and his broadcaster losing his license for failing to uphold the public trust.

The New York Times is a US news paper that purports to Print All The News That's Fit.

The New York Times is held in some esteem by many people as reliable, fair news source.

RESOLUTION

Reaffirming the commitment of the House of Representatives to respecting the independent and professional reputation of General David H.
Petraeus and all members of the United States Armed Forces serving in good standing in the defense of the United States.

Whereas General David H. Petraeus was confirmed by a unanimous vote of 81-0 in the Senate on January 26, 2007, to be the Commander of the Multi-National Forces--Iraq;

Whereas General David H. Petraeus assumed command of the Multi-National Forces--Iraq on February 10, 2007;

Whereas General David H. Petraeus previously served in Operation Iraqi Freedom as the Commander of the Multi-National Security Transition

Command--Iraq, as the Commander of the NATO Training Mission--Iraq, and as Commander of the 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault) during the first year of combat operations in Iraq;

Whereas General David H. Petraeus has received numerous awards and distinctions during his career, including the Defense Distinguished Service Medal, two awards of the Distinguished Service Medal, two awards of the Defense Superior Service Medal, four awards of the Legion of Merit, the Bronze Star Medal for valor, the State Department Superior Honor Award, the NATO Meritorious Service Medal, and the Gold Award of the Iraqi Order of the Date Palm; and

Whereas the leadership of the majority party in both the House of Representatives and the Senate implored the American people and Members of Congress early in January 2007 to listen to the generals on the ground: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives--

(1) recognizes the service of General David H. Petraeus, as well as all other members of the Armed Forces serving in good standing, in the defense of the United States and the personal sacrifices made by General Petraeus and his family, and other members of the Armed Forces and their families, to serve with distinction and honor;

(2) commits to judge the merits of the sworn testimony of General David H. Petraeus without prejudice or personal bias, including refraining from unwarranted personal attacks;

(3) condemns in the strongest possible terms the personal attacks made by the advocacy group MoveOn.org impugning the integrity and professionalism of General David H. Petraeus;

(4) honors all members of the Armed Forces and civilian personnel serving in harm's way, as well as their families; and

(5) pledges to move forward on all policy debate regarding the war in Iraq with the solemn respect and the commitment to intellectual integrity that the sacrifices of these members of the Armed Forces and civilian personnel deserve.

The MoveOn family of organizations brings real Americans back into the political process. With over 3.3 million members across America – from carpenters to stay-at-home moms to business leaders – we work together to realize the progressive promise of our country. MoveOn is a service – a way for busy but concerned citizens to find their political voice in a system dominated by big money and big media.

BTW was MoveOn.org's ad Censured? Or Condemned?

Definitions of censure on the Web:
• harsh criticism or disapproval
• reprimand: rebuke formally

Definitions of condemn on the Web:
• express strong disapproval of

I thought about making a thread on this but decided this thread would work as well as new one:

The Democrats have GOT to STOP trying to fight like Republicans, they absolutely suck at it.

Trying to paint the drug addled Rush Limbaugh as against the Troops somehow is so pathetically lame and far off the mark that the Dems promoting this look like bleeping idiots. Rush maybe be a Viagra eating, whore using, pill popping bloated sack of wind BUT he's CLEARLY, UNMISTAKABLY Pro Troop commentator! You'd have to be bone stupid to think otherwise. No amount of semantical Tom-Foolery is going to make Rush Limbaugh a USMil detractor. If there was a shred of integrity to the claims being made about this issue the Dems would be saying He's against the troops because he wants them to stay in Iraq and die. However, this is a reactionary Tit-For-Tat measure that will ultimately look the Democrats look very shallow.

Democrats have to stop trying to fight like Republicans.

BA you are still missing the point. What I'm trying to get at is whether the foolish resolutions passed by the U. S. House and Senate are broad enough to cover statements Limbaugh and others are making. You still haven't answered that question.

Trying to paint the drug addled Rush Limbaugh as against the Troops somehow is so pathetically lame and far off the mark that the Dems promoting this look like bleeping idiots.

Our generals are betraying our soldiers... again.

Our generals in both the Army and Marine Corps have cared more about their precious careers and reputations than their soldiers and Marines under them.

But BoF it doesn't matter... it's happening! They're trying RIGHT NOW to condemn Rush Limbaugh under the same umbrella. We definitely agree the MoveOn thing was pointless and a waste of time.

Media Matters is saying he altered the transcript here.

If Congress hadn't created this horrendous umbrella, then no one would be talking about Rush.

I think Congress has very unwisely opened a “Pandora’s Box.” They need to close it - rescind the resolutions.

No, they need to proceed now with the important debate over Iraq, now that the discreditable attempt to derail it has been safely defused. Only the Democrats are still obsessing over it now, and they need to get over it and "move on".

The omitted portion of the transcript shows nothing damning whatsoever. Even the full transcript still establishes beyond doubt that it was Media Matters that was lying when they accused Limbaugh of calling soldiers who opposed the war "phony soldiers". It's clear from the transcript (and I highly recommend everyone read your link) that he was talking about those who faked their service.

The Democrats have GOT to STOP trying to fight like Republicans, they absolutely suck at it.

Rush maybe be a Viagra eating, whore using, pill popping bloated sack of wind BUT he's CLEARLY, UNMISTAKABLY Pro Troop commentator!

If the context was military imposters why does he include Jack Murtha and Thomas Beauchamp here? Unlike Jesse MacBeth they actually served.

I watched the video and am more convinced than ever that Limbaugh knew he had goofed when he said “phony soldiers” (plural) and in the context of the moment the comment was made, Limbaugh was clearly referencing and agreeing with the caller’s sentiment that all soldiers who come forward and make known their opposition to the war are not “real soldiers” (caller’s words).

We can parse this thing from here to doomsday and not agree because at bottom, we are arguing about Limbaugh’s intent – an admittedly doomed excursion into the realm of mind reading.

Thankfully, Rush rescued me by going even further on his show yesterday. Not only did he include Jesse Macbeth and Scott Beauchamp in his “phony soldier” meme, he also included Jack Murtha in that notorious group for the Congressman’s execrable comments condemning the Haditha Marines before the official report on the incident had even been released.

Why is Murtha’s military career – a career that all can agree was distinguished and honorable – at issue as a result of his statements about Haditha? How can you refer to Murtha as a “phony soldier” when those comments were made long after he left the military?

If the context was military imposters why does he include Jack Murtha and Thomas Beauchamp here? Unlike Jesse MacBeth they actually served.

There was one sponsor and fourteen cosponsors for the measure in the U. S. House of Representatives. All were Republicans.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=hr110-644

I am disappointed that enough Democrats went along with the measure to enable passage.

You do realize that the measure you linked to was the one about MoveOn, right? As for your disappointment at the Democrats for not supporting the Limbaugh resolution, please don't be too hard on them. They only have so many feet to shoot themselves in.

Personally I don't think Congress should be passing resolutions censuring anyone, including Moveon.org, Rush Limbaugh or Brian Ross.

BTW: I know exactly what my link was to. It was in response to a statement BA made. Try reading the whole thread.

You do realize that the measure you linked to was the one about MoveOn, right? As for your disappointment at the Democrats for not supporting the Limbaugh resolution, please don't be too hard on them. They only have so many feet to shoot themselves in.

Actually, the record shows that it was in response to a statement I made. That's why I misinterpreted it, because it didn't seem to follow at all from what I had said. I said that Democrats were the only ones still obsessing over the earlier vote, and your response that Republicans had sponsored the earlier vote. I didn't see what point you were trying to make, and I still don't see it.

For the Record, I posted the entire House Resolution in response to BA in post #15.

So? That had nothing to do with the fact that your reply to me was a complete non sequitur to the point I was making.

But, I realize that you have a lot invested in this "gotcha" game you're playing, so have the last word at it. I'm happy to continue discussing the subject of the thread if you like, but I'm done with this little sideshow.

You do realize that the measure you linked to was the one about MoveOn, right? As for your disappointment at the Democrats for not supporting the Limbaugh resolution, please don't be too hard on them. They only have so many feet to shoot themselves in.

2. Are the Senate and House resolutions broad enough to condemn people, like Limbaugh, for calling soldiers “phony soldiers” for condemning the war?

The premise of this question is invalid.

To express the sense of the Senate that General David H. Petraeus, Commanding General, Multi-National Force-Iraq, deserves the full support of the Senate and strongly condemn personal attacks on the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all members of the United States Armed Forces.

House Resolution 644, Sept 20]Reaffirming the commitment of the House of Representatives to respecting the independent and professional reputation of General David H. Petraeus and all members of the United States Armed Forces serving in good standing in the defense of the United States.

Pleae explain, since both the Housed and Senate resolutions included all members of the armed forces not just Gen. Petraeus.

My answer to question #3 explained why the premise of question #2 is invalid. In other words, question 2 was a loaded question, like "Have you stopped beating your wife?"

Id' really like to know if anyone else interprets it this way. A premise is not wrong because you - Blackstone - say it is.

I did not agree with either the House or Senate resolutions. Considering their wording, "all" and my wording in the title et al., why is it not appropriate to think the resolutions apply to anyone who criticizes soldiers?

"Have you stopped beating your wife?"

The premise of the question is like the, "Have you stopped beating your wife?" example.

Moveon.org/Democrats are looking really dumb/desperate trying to say Rush doesn't support the military.

A primise is not wrong because you - Blackstone - say it is.

That, however, is how the right works - repeat something over and over and over again, in the same words, until it's commonly accepted.

have the last word at it.

And a premise isn't valid just because you assumed it to be so in a question you decided to ask. That's why this is called a "debate" board. I gave my reasons for shooting down the premise. To repeat: "It's abundantly clear that he was not calling soldiers phony for condemning the war." I elaborated further on that in earlier posts in this thread, right here on this very page. You have yet to even dispute any of it.

There’s an old saying that if it sounds too good to be true it probably isn’t true.

The caller, who is current military, agrees with Limbaugh and uses the term “real” soldiers and Limbaugh rewords it “phony soldiers – plural.

This whole "controversy" has nothing to do with supporting the military. It has everything to do with silencing opposition to the Democrats.

I think that this whole thing with Limbaugh was merely a way for the Democrats to send a message to those in their own party who can possibly condone or vote for a measure censuring moveon - in fact, it wouldn't surprise me a bit if those who suggested doing this were opposed to the general principle of Congress censuring anyone for political speech.

Couple of problems with this thesis. One is that nealy every Democrat in Congress voted, in some way or another, to censure MoveOn's ad. 22 of them voted for the more well-known Republican-sponsored resolution, while most others voted for one sponsored by themselves that avoided mentioning MoveOn by name, but still made it clear that there had been an "unwarranted personal attack" on Petraeus. So it's hard for them to argue that there was something wrong in principle with a censure resolution.

The more serious problem with it, of course, is the disingenuousness behind the Democrats' faux outrage. Media Matters chides Limbaugh for removing irrelevant material from the transcript that they pointed to, but it was they who in their initial report had removed far more relevant material from that very same transcript, where he goes on to say what he means by "phony soldiers" right after getting off the phone with the caller, and cites an example. The most charitable explanation that can be given for the Democrats' behavior is that they're trying to recover from the big bloody nose they got from the whole MoveOn thing, by striking back at the Republicans. But with the new high-profile push to take Limbaugh off Armed Forces Radio (supported by many of the same people who call it "censorship" whenever the administration tries to bring some ideological balance to NPR and PBS), even that explanation seems to be giving them too much credit.

Kind of hard to say this is about silencing opposition to the Democrats if most of them voted for the MoveOn measure...

They really had no choice but to vote for that measure, given how closely involved MoveOn is with them. The whole thing was bad enough for them from a PR standpoint, but would have been disastrous if they failed to condemn it. Furthermore, the MoveOn controversy can't realistically be said to presage any attempt to silence MoveOn, since the federal government has far less control over print media than it does over broadcast media.

It's saying, if you are going to bring up some piece of junk resolution to embarrass us, then by gum we'll do the same to you.

If it had stopped at that one resolution, that might have some plausibility to it (even though the two cases aren't even remotely similar). But it involved considerably more than that, as I went into detail on a couple of posts above when you first posted this theory. I could repeat myself, or you could just go back and read some of it.

If it had stopped at that one resolution, that might have some plausibility to it (even though the two cases aren't even remotely similar). But it involved considerably more than that, as I went into detail on a couple of posts above when you first posted this theory. I could repeat myself, or you could just go back and read some of it.