In an uncommon bout of journalistic self-control, the New York Times had thus far ignored the phony controversy over Rush Limbaugh's "phony soldiers" comment on his radio show last Wednesday, remarks wrenched out of context by the far-left Media Matters.
But on Wednesday, congressional reporter Carl Hulse used an action by some liberals in Congress yesterday as an excuse to bring it into the Times news pages in his "Congressional Memo," "Limbaugh Latest Target In War of Condemnation."
"Having abandoned for now their effort to force President Bush to withdraw troops from Iraq, Democrats are not giving ground against a lesser nemesis: Rush Limbaugh.
"With the help of liberal advocacy groups, the Democrats in Congress are turning Mr. Limbaugh's insinuation that members of the military who question the Iraq war are 'phony soldiers' into the latest war of words over the war."
That Limbaugh actually made such an "insinuation" on his talk show is far from settled fact -- and a fair reading of his comments in full strongly suggests the opposite -- that Limbaugh, as he says, was referring to truly "phony soldiers" and former anti-war movement heroes like Jesse MacBeth, who claimed to witness atrocities in Iraq but in fact quit the army before completing basic training.
"A resolution introduced by 20 Democrats urges the House to condemn the 'unwarranted slur' made by Mr. Limbaugh, though it does not condemn the broadcaster himself.
"Their push, not coincidentally, comes after House and Senate Republicans maneuvered some Democrats into voting to condemn an advertisement by MoveOn.org in The New York Times last month that referred to Gen. David H. Petraeus as 'General Betray Us.'
Before taking a small swipe at Democrats, Hulse indulged in the old, comforting liberal cliché that the GOP has a history of drumming up phony controversies:
"Republicans used to be considered superior at drumming up a quick controversy over some actual or perceived Democratic outrage. But Democrats and sympathetic advocacy groups are catching up fast. And the political exchanges are being amplified by the reach and power of the Internet and the repetition of the 24-hour news cycle.
….
"The broadcaster has accused critics of distorting remarks he made last Wednesday when a caller said the news media liked to focus on antiwar views raised by soldiers. Mr. Limbaugh then said, to the caller's approval: 'The phony soldiers.'
"After the liberal media watchdog organization Media Matters sounded the alarm about his comments, Mr. Limbaugh said on subsequent shows that he was talking about only one discredited man who claimed to be a wounded veteran. 'I was not talking about antiwar, active duty troops,' he insisted.
"Yet analysts for Media Matters noted that Mr. Limbaugh's first reference to the discredited man came nearly two minutes after his plural reference to phony soldiers. That group and like-minded Democrats have refused to back off. More than 40 Democratic senators signed a letter sent Tuesday to the company that syndicates the radio show, asking that Mr. Limbaugh's remarks be repudiated."
Hulse ignored Limbaugh's full explanation, including the talk show host noting he was referencing a segment on "phony heroes" which had aired two days before on ABC News. Times reporter Hulse didn't even use the name of Jesse MacBeth, the phony soldier who claimed to serve in Iraq but never completed basic training, as if afraid such an admission would lend credence to Limbaugh's explanation.
—Clay Waters is the director of Times Watch, an MRC project tracking the New York Times.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Mopping Up
October 3, 2007 - 15:56 ET by mattm"Media Matters noted that Mr. Limbaugh's first reference to the discredited man came nearly two minutes after his plural reference to phony soldiers" WRONG! Rush mentioned this the DAY BEFORE on the morning update!!!
"Democrats are not giving ground against a lesser nemesis: Rush Limbaugh." This "lesser nemesis" is wiping the floor with these losers!
Carl Hulse alleges: ""With
October 3, 2007 - 15:59 ET by TECarl Hulse alleges: ""With the help of liberal advocacy groups, the Democrats in Congress are turning Mr. Limbaugh's insinuation that members of the military who question the Iraq war are 'phony soldiers' ...."
"Mr. Limbaugh's insinuation that members of the military who question the Iraq war are 'phony soldiers'"? "Mr. Limbaugh's insinuation" according to whom? Carl Hulse, of course. Of course, Hulse provided no evidence to support his unsubstantiated allegation. It's nothing new for Hulse to have written a press release for his favorite people. Today, it's a press release written by Hulse for Media Matters, but just a few days ago, Hulse wrote a press release for Henry Waxman.
"With the help of liberal
October 3, 2007 - 16:05 ET by MassConservative"With the help of liberal advocacy groups,..."
Of course, they left out the key note "started by Hillary Clinton".
"There are scandals that need to be addressed. Republicans address them, Democrats re-elect them." - Tom Delay
Tom Harkin's hypocrisy...
October 3, 2007 - 16:13 ET by watchful eyesHarkin's statements about Rush on the Senate floor really tick me off. This is a "phony soldier" himself who claimed he flew combat missions over North Vietman during the Vietman War when he was running for president in 1992. He was never in a combat situation. He was safely deployed in Japan and Cuba instead. "Harkin said of his service as a Navy pilot: “One year was in Vietnam. I was flying F-4s and F-8s on combat air patrols and photo-reconnaissance support missions”. " From :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Harkin#Presidential_candidate_in_1992_election
What a lying hypocrit!
The fact that they have
October 3, 2007 - 16:20 ET by Chris NormanThe fact that they have Rush and us, who are defending him, analyzing words, time frames, etc. is a victory for them. The longer this goes on, the more dirty points they score. These phony controversies are insidious that way.
compare and contrast
October 3, 2007 - 16:34 ET by RousseCompare and contrast Don Imus and Rush Limbaugh
1. The audio/video of Imus's " ... nappy-haired ..." radio comment was replayed ad nauseam so we all could hear it, and we didn't need a newscaster to tell us what Imus said.
2. The audio/video of Rush's " ... phony soldiers ..." radio comment HAS NOT been replayed because then everyone would know exactly what Rush said, and that it IS NOT what the MSM has been saying.
The MSM doesn 't want to tell the truth.
This is humorous
October 3, 2007 - 16:45 ET by tnculpWhat does that matter? Does Media Matters know of some timer that determines what constitutes context? I'm don't understand how letting the caller make their point, and debating those points then going back to the main point to expand on it PROVES that he was denigrating actual soldiers.
On top of that, how are they inferring that he was calling soldiers that disagree with the war "phony?" The part that seals the deal for me that Rush WAS talking about the string of phonies, (the MSM seems to have no idea who these people are...yeah right) is that the caller said "out of the blue" which implies that this is something different from the norm.
We hear regularly from some vets who disagree with the war. That's nothing new. What was new, were these criminals coming out claiming war crimes by our troops.
Ok, i'm preaching to the choir, but this is really amazing how this phony controversary could get a hold if they actually listened to the whole conversation. But of course we're talking about people that apparently think that 2 minutes does not constitute context. That's stretching the bounds of reality (for the those of us the real world)!
Though now that I think about it, that's about right, because these loons have the attention span of a horsefly, and the integrity of a sober Ted Kennedy.
He actually referenced the
October 3, 2007 - 16:57 ET by Free ThinkerHe actually referenced the phony soldier the day before therefore blowing away the argument they are scrambling to create with the timing. The NYT also failed to mention who the "analysts" are for media matters. I will list a few below from Byron York's piece on National Review Online:
In addition to its ties to major Democratic donors and to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, Media Matters is a deeply politicized organization down to its lowest levels. In the past few days, it has posted eleven stories on the Limbaugh matter. Those postings were written by, among others, Julie Millican, a veteran of the Kerry campaign, MoveOn.org, and the Democratic turnout organization America Coming Together; Sarah Pavlus, formerly of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee; Andrew Ironside, who worked for the Howard Dean campaign; Adam Shah, a lawyer who worked for the Alliance for Justice, the organization best known for opposing President Bush’s judicial nominees; Jeremy Schulman, a former spokesman for Colorado Democratic congressional candidate Dave Thomas; and Matthew Gertz, former deputy campaign manager for Connecticut Democratic congressional candidate Diane Farrell, as well as intern for New York Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer.
Yep, more credible reporting from the liberal elites favorite fish wrap.
"Phony" was already in earlier usage
October 3, 2007 - 17:20 ET by RJ....both by ABC and by Rush himself, and the word referenced people who pretended to be something in the military that they weren't.
Add to that the fact that, up to that point, Rush had not been discussing returning vets who come back from the war and disagree with it.
Only the stupid, the liars, or those who don't care could now claim that Rush was suddenly talking about returning vets when he used the word "phony."
Heck, even Leon, our #1 resident Troll tried to jump on this the first day but quickly backed off when he realized it was a loser.....
Make a deal George Bush, Compromise.
October 3, 2007 - 17:03 ET by Lame CherryAs someone who has served and then buried enough of my family in war dead, I have had it with with Henry Waxman "paying for the war" in making Americans suffer in higher taxes to this bitching by phoney military people or the Cindy Sheehan types ghouling their dead.
Since America is a land of compromise in a Republic as the founders intended, here am I now willing to compromise on Bill Clinton's murderous plan. For those who do not know, Bill Clinton deemed it acceptable that around 100 Americans could be murdered a year in terrorist events without the United States doing more than blowing up janitors in Baghdad.
So my Conservative compromise is this:
Since Democrats do not want any war in Iraq, bring the troops home and simply tell the Muslims if American interests, allies or people are attacked the entire mideast in designated areas will be nuclear bombed.
Part 2, as terrorists need something to do and Democrats want a policy where Americans are attacked, America will find those blue voting liberal zones like New York, DC suburbs, San Francisco etc....; hand out maps to bin Laden and Zawahiri and tell them these Americans like Whoopie Goldberg, Dan Rather, Bill Maher, Henry Waxman all want to be targets, as that is what their anti American policies are..........and the terrorists can attack at will until they reach 100 dead liberals a year.
Of course, the FBI will try and stop the attacks, but the FBI knowing which areas terrorists will hit will have their resources concentrated.
It is a win win situation for all. Liberals get to end the war, get to die by their policy. Terrorists get to attack American cities and die for their policy.........and Americans can live in peace, stop being taxed, stop being over spent and live in a policy they compromised on.
Bill Clinton wanted this.....so let's make a deal George Bush and give Democrats what they and the terrorists want.
*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS
Lame, Inviting terrorist,
October 3, 2007 - 17:35 ET by Night WatchmanLame,
Inviting terrorist, even giving them a plan, to attack New York City is treason.
You are as bad as bin Laden.
Um, watchman, no one takes him seriously
October 3, 2007 - 17:48 ET by RJAlthough I understand that you're probably used to that kind of twisted "logic" on the liberal sites...
What do you mean? I just
October 3, 2007 - 18:00 ET by Night WatchmanWhat do you mean? I just woke up from my nap. Now I have to check all
the doors without triggering the alarms. And Lame guy wants to give bin
Laden the OK to attack NYC.
Just what I said, watchman
October 3, 2007 - 18:07 ET by RJHa. Well, if he has you checking your doors, you may want to cut back on the time you spend with liberals. It's been proven to be bad for your mental health, you know....
Checking the doors is my
October 3, 2007 - 18:56 ET by Night WatchmanChecking the doors is my job, so is naping.
ha. Got it.
October 3, 2007 - 19:19 ET by RJWell, don't let Lame's bin laden comments mess with your nap time.
Anyway, like mrsimele and others here, he doesn't usually answer responses. He just sort of releases his psychedelic musings into the the ether. :^>
The desire is not without
October 3, 2007 - 18:25 ET by BDThe desire is not without some emotional merit. After all it is only human to determine that those who oppose progress in the war on terror should not be the primary recipients of the security made possible by its success...
You must understand when a city such as San Francisco opposes the military, the military members can hardly be expected to not hold an emotional resentment - however minuscule it might be against that particular population.
Anything else would be a superhuman reaction.
Where Were The Democrats on Bill Maher and Al Fanken
October 3, 2007 - 17:06 ET by 186kpsOf course there was NOTHING wrong with what
Limbaug said but I am wondering where Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton,
Demorats, Olbermann and the leftist nutroots were when Bill Maher said
ALL of the people enlisting in the armed services were “low lying fruit”..
While Al Franken, a man running for U.S. Senate laughs and claps
http://youtube.com/w...
Perfect context.
October 3, 2007 - 17:15 ET by Gary HallPerfect context. I suspect libs will argue (one-dimensionally), "but Maher is a comedian." Sure - a comedian who has become a regular on Wolf Blitzer's "news show."
And then, as you noted, there is the Senatorial candidate Al Franken.
(;~> gary
Their hypocricy is really
October 3, 2007 - 17:54 ET by Chris NormanTheir hypocricy is really out of control now. Crying crocodile tears over people they have nothing but disdain for.
Has any democrat condemed
October 3, 2007 - 18:06 ET by AntiMediaHas any democrat condemed Jesse Macbitch?
I'll be damned, call a
October 3, 2007 - 21:19 ET by ConservativeRexI'll be damned, call a phony soldier a "phony soldier" and you get in trouble. Who'd thunk it?