NewsBusters editor Brent Baker has done a superb job reporting on the smear job against Bill O'Reilly from the liberal group Media Matters. Fox News's John Gibson does an awesome job at tearing them apart. If you haven't heard the audio from his show yet... you should definitely take a listen.
Quoting Gibson:
This thing about Rush is really crystal clear. You can see how they lie. In this case, they said Rush said something, posted an audio recording of it and an audio transcript and cut it off at the precise moment where the next thing he said proved them wrong. Heres how it went down. I'll play this bit and you can hear what Media Matters posted of what Rush said and then I'll play you what he said next....the words that came next. The words that came right after they cut it off....and you will see...here...because this is radio...you will hear the live admission by this Soros backed group called Media Matters.
You just have to hear it....the part they cut out.
He goes on to play audio of Rush discussing Jesse MacBeth and how he is a phony and how Rush was discussing "phony solidiers" as just that...liars like Jessie MacBeth. It's a total liberal bias smear.
More Gibson:
...what Media Matters does is, by editing, makes Rush Limbaugh sound awful, leaves out the part where its clear what precisely he's talking about..not just people who he is categorizing, for convienience, as phoney soldiers, but adjudicated...imprisoned phoney soldiers. Media Matters left that out. That is a lie.
But it gets even better as Mark Levin tears in and questions their status as a non-partisan group. It sounds alot like the same arguement on the ACLU being non-partisan and getting tax payer dollars. Completely biased.
—John Stephenson is editor of Stop The ACLU.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Kudos to Rush's quick thinking
September 30, 2007 - 06:42 ET by ding7777producer. Not only did s/he realize the mistake Rush with the "phoney soilders" comment, but then it only took him/her 2 minutes to find something so Rush could cover his azz; too bad Rush showed he wasn't prepared for it:
no, ding, it wasn't just a
September 30, 2007 - 07:12 ET by motherbeltno, ding, it wasn't just a couple of minutes. It was the next day that he refuted it.
He specifically said the misquote went out the previous afternoon, and he had already been denounced on the floor of the Senate.
Did all that happen in two minutes while his producer was digging up the update?
Or did you not bother to listen to the whole thing, and just go to Media Matters to find out what [I] said -Limbaugh
motherbelt,
September 30, 2007 - 07:18 ET by ding7777Maybe you should go back and listen to the complete audio or transcript because Rush's
comes about 2 minutes after his "phoney soilder" comment. And shows he is totally unprepared for the old "Morning Update"
Mybe YOU should go listen
September 30, 2007 - 08:28 ET by motherbeltMybe YOU should go listen and read again, ding. There is NO
I gotta -- let me see -- got something -- here is a "Morning Update" that we did recently talking about fake soldiers.
And gee, the fact that there was some intervening conversation between the phony soldiers comment and the "morning update" thing means......what, exactly? Just that he and the caller were still conversing, and he finished the call before he did his explanation.
The part that MM says was edited out was immaterial to the final point; it was a discussion of WMD, the surge, etc., not about "phony soldiers."
Here is the transcript at the end of the call:
RUSH:
It's frustrating and maddening, and why they must be kept in the minority. I
want to thank you, Mike, for calling. I appreciate it very
much. Here is a
Morning Update that we did recently.....
No break. No stuttering. Oh, and by the way, before you say it was edited....I c/p'd that part of the transcript from MediaMatters.org
It doesn't matter,
September 30, 2007 - 08:43 ET by NewsbusterbrownIt doesn't matter, Motherbelt. Ding is a propagandist and facts only get in his way. Fortunately, Rush hasn't even been scratched by this nonsense.
Mother, mother, mother,
September 30, 2007 - 10:43 ET by MikeBMother, mother, mother, don't you get it? Ding isn't interested in the truth when he is out spreading Truth. You could sit him down and make him listen to the entire Rush Limbaugh show for both days, you could make him read the transcript for the entire show for both days, and because the facts conflict with his Truth, he will deny the facts. You are wasting bandwidth trying to reason with him.
"A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx." Ronald Reagan
Gosh, Mike, I didn't
September 30, 2007 - 11:32 ET by motherbeltGosh, Mike, I didn't realize I sounded like I was trying to reason with him. My bad. I was trying to slap some sense into him.
Next time I won't be so "reasonable." LOL
Speaking of their status as a nonprofit group...
September 30, 2007 - 07:12 ET by sarcasmoHave they yet commented on Olberloon's gaffe? The question has been out-there for a couple of days...
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
I still can't believe Rush
September 30, 2007 - 07:19 ET by mrsimeleI still can't believe Rush Limbaugh is disrespecting the men and women of the military. I find it even more disturbing that people on this website will stick up for Rush Limbaugh before they will stick up for our brave soldiers in Iraq. The comment that Rush made was crystal clear. He definitely was insulting the soldiers that dare question this misdirected War (occupation).
What a disgrace
I can't believe liberals
September 30, 2007 - 07:59 ET by NewsbusterbrownI still can't believe liberals think they wil gain traction from these lies, but don't let us stop you from wasting your time.
Stepford Wives
September 30, 2007 - 08:52 ET by ThisnThatThese libs all come directly from Stepford Connecticut, except they should be known as Stepford pigs. And instead of being manufactured in secret at the men's club, they are being molded in the form of G. Soros. They are all Zombies, perfect in their mutterings of talking points from such sources as Media Matters and Clinton's fantasy farm, and can not think for themselves at all.
Rush digging down on our Soldier??? What a hoot. Rush would lose 20,000,000 viewers overnight if he ever did that. He doesn't need the libs to try to twist his words here -- if Rush ever did this, it would be suicide for him.
BTW, "Stepford" is used to describe any person, male or female, who submits meekly to authority and/or abuse; or even to describe someone who lives in a robotic, conformist manner without giving offense to anyone. The word "Stepford" can also be used as an adjective denoting servility or blind conformity. This definition is provided for our Liberal friends in an attempt to get them to see their behavior, and somehow, with our help, learn to break free from their constraints.
___________________________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber
Pigs has a good ring for
September 30, 2007 - 12:30 ET by Andrew H.Pigs has a good ring for describing them.
Liberalism is a convenient lie.
Lies
September 30, 2007 - 13:32 ET by Jerry MackI am perplexed that people like Chris M. And Keith O. can look into a camera and lie. What do they think that they are accomplishing? Certainly not credibility! More perplexing is when people here the truth and will not accept it. They are a sad lot.
I still can't believe Rush
September 30, 2007 - 10:16 ET by motherbeltI still can't believe Rush Limbaugh is disrespecting the men and women
of the military. I find it even more disturbing that people on this
website will stick up for Rush Limbaugh before they will stick up for
our brave soldiers in Iraq.
Oh, that's rich. Did you actually type that with a straight face?
The left are the ones that accuse our soldiers of being little more than war criminals: killing innocent civilians, air-raiding villages, going into homes in the middle of the night, terrorizing women and children.....
Now all of a sudden you're concerned about an imagined criticism of "our brave soldiers".
Excuse me, I'm going to be sick.
Have you ever listened to
September 30, 2007 - 08:48 ET by rimskyHave you ever listened to Rush except for the edited snippets that you get from MM? Rush is the last person on earth who would say anything bad about honorable soldiers. The fake soldiers he's talking about are... fake. Some, I would bet, are in the military on a gamble. They joined because they didn't know what else to do with their lives, and the military, unfortunately, became their default. Others have much more sinister reasons for joining.. like the John Kerry sydrome bunch who want to build a resume, or they want some government bene that they know is available just for joining. Whatever it is, the few that make up this category of 'fake soldiers' are dispicable people who have no moral sense and they get by in life on the backs of others. ONCE AND FOR ALL get it through your liberal head, Rush will stand behind ALL honorable soldiers until the day he dies. BTW, so will I and so will all honorable NB'rs.
The plot thickens; the
September 30, 2007 - 11:23 ET by JasonCThe plot thickens; the right now not only gets to decide what constitutes "supporting the troops" (that would be not criticizing the war in any shape or form, btw) but has also arrogated the right to decide which soldiers are "honorable" and which are not; saddling the latter with the sort of stereotype ("they had nothing better to do with their lives") that most conservatives would flip out about if it were stated by a known liberal.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
No, Jason, a court of law
September 30, 2007 - 11:46 ET by motherbeltNo, Jason, a court of law decided that Jesse MacBeth was NOT an honorable soldier...he was not an Army Ranger as he said, and had never been to Iraq. He washed out of basic training. This all came out as he was convicted of falsifying VA papers.
So who's the "honorable" soldier here?
And it is liberals, not those on the right, who constantly say that the military is filled with poor, uneducated minorities because they can't get a job and therefore are forced to enlist.
The left supports our troops when they are wounded or captured. When they are kicking a$$, they consider them little more than war criminals.
And it is liberals, not
September 30, 2007 - 11:52 ET by JasonCAnd it is liberals, not those on the right, who constantly say that the
military is filled with poor, uneducated minorities because they can't
get a job and therefore are forced to enlist.
See the remark directly above mine for an obvious counter-example.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
That comment is one man's
September 30, 2007 - 22:53 ET by motherbeltThat comment is one man's opinion regarding some enlistees; and it's the opinion of a man with zero influence.
Rep. Charles Rangel, D-NY a congressman who wields a good amount of power, especially among blacks, said the following:
"The disproportionately high representation of the poor and minorities in the enlisted ranks is well-documented,"
Except, it isn't, according to this article by UPI correspondent
Steve Sailer:
Rangel also said the following:
I want to make it abundantly clear: if there’s anyone who believes that these youngsters want to fight, as the Pentagon and some generals have said, you can just forget about it. No young, bright individual wants to fight just because of a bonus and just because of educational benefits. And most all of them come from communities of very, very high unemployment. If a young fella has an option of having a decent career or joining the army to fight in Iraq, you can bet your life that he would not be in Iraq.
In other words, no one with any chance of doing something different would choose to join the army and fight.
So who is denigrating our enlistees in general?
Flat out trolling
September 30, 2007 - 11:17 ET by botgto place your comment in the face of the evidence presented in the article. We look for discussion here. Your continual lies and distortions do however reveal your character. If all you have is denial then seek help it is not a healthy life.
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
Hey, we gotta admit...
September 30, 2007 - 11:23 ET by sarcasmoIt may not be very intelligent, but it worked. He posted his content-free troll a few minutes after my message about putting MediaMatters' feet to the fire regarding Olberloon's gaffe. I got 0 responses, the troll got lots of attention despite the history-impaired dimwittedness of the post, and (most-importantly) so-far MediaMatters is off scot-free despite what looks to both Matthew Sheffield & me like a blatant double-standard. Effective trolling tactic!!
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
sarc
September 30, 2007 - 12:06 ET by botgyes the troll gets responses, but Media Matters does not get off scot-free. The other postulate to the Hegalian tactic (trolling) rather than being synthesis is rejection. Thus if media matters had some points which might have been considered as valid they will not now be considered at all except it be to further discredit. This is the true service that trolls provide.
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
I think they're off still scot-free, botg
September 30, 2007 - 16:24 ET by sarcasmoA google search for "media matters keith olbermann chicken waffle" reveals the top 2 results as NB posts like this one, and the second 2 MediaMatters results don't mention their boy Olberloon at all.
I think they've gotten away with ignoring me (that damn cloak works across sites, apparently) so I'm going to have to continue to say they've gotten away with some interesting lefty-bias here, and it's at least in part due to our little troll. Saying it may not make 'em (or anyone else!) pay attention to me, but it feels good to annoy MediaMatters on matters of mediabias -- they can join the "I hate sarcasmo" club now! :)
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
"I still can't believe Rush
September 30, 2007 - 12:02 ET by MikeB"I still can't believe Rush Limbaugh is disrespecting the men and women of the military." Good. I'm glad you can't believe it, because he did no such thing. If you listen to, or read all of what he said, it is plain he was not talking of the men and women in the military, nor of war veterans who may be opposed to the war, but rather of people like Jesse McBeth who is truly a "phony soldier". Scott Beauchamp is also a phony soldier. True, he is actively serving in the military, but he lied about what was going on, and what he did. Yet it is the Jesse McBeths and Scott Beauchamps that the media trot out as "typical" soldiers without ever doing any fact checking about who they are, or what they are telling the leftmedia. As long as the narrative fits the left's template of "American soldiers are monsters committing atrocities daily, and it's no wonder Muslims hate us so, because we are sinning against the Earth-mother Gaia", they will publish that narrative without any question.
"A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx." Ronald Reagan
Too much protest?
September 30, 2007 - 13:54 ET by acumenMethinks Miserablemere already knows all of that Mike B. The feigned shock was a bit over the top.
Further, I consider it to be an honor to be "even more disturbing" to Miserablemere and all the other moonbats that idolize those that choose to stick a finger in our face while uttering blatant lies. These miserables can only either be incredibly gullible or filled with so much hate that the truth has become irrelevant. Either way I hope such unethical leftists will always consider those who reject capitulation to tyrants and thugs "disturbing". In no way would I want to be associated with such abhorent failures. Thanks for making my day Miserablemere.
As far as these supposedly "non-partisan" Soros puppets taking advantage of our tax codes to spew their venomous distortions, I offer two words to combat such inequality - Fair Tax.
acumen i wrote this on another thread but it fits
September 30, 2007 - 14:02 ET by botgPart one of lib-speak is to achieve a result (the ends<result> justify the means<lib-speak>) the only thing to be remembered is the result and the actual lib-speak is not of consequence. Thus to hold a lib to account for his actual words is unfair of you. Was he not acting to achieve a righteous goal? That's all that matters: 'motives': which are always good for libs and always bad for conservatives. Part two of basic lib-speak is that these 'motives' can be used to prove the lib position. If you try to complain that the 'motives' are made up crap well then see part one of lib-speak.
so just stop being hateful.
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
LOL - my bad botg
September 30, 2007 - 15:42 ET by acumenIt's hard to keep up when the left keeps changing the rules. One minute they're telling me the troops are lying to Congress, next minute their defending them...I can't keep up. It's almost like the left is selecting which troops they wish to believe. But I know that can't be right because that's what their accusing Rush of doing.
I'm so ashamed...I feel like a phony lib. As penance, I'm off to rehab at the local sports bar to root for only PC NFL teams to score in the first half and root for non-PC NFL teams to score in the second half.
acu LOL back atcha
September 30, 2007 - 15:52 ET by botgas you wrote:
Further, I consider it to be an honor to be "even more disturbing" to Miserablemere
and one of my tags (courtesy of eyecare) is:
Yes, you are even more annoying than Blonde. the EYE
mrsimele... You need to
September 30, 2007 - 13:39 ET by Clear thinkermrsimele...
You need to actually listen to the whole story, know the background, and NOT take what is said out of context. Anotherwords, be more like a Conservative!
Get Email updates from Fred http://socialnet.imwithfred.com/email_alert_july_26.html
left just getting warmed up
September 30, 2007 - 09:17 ET by lose_newsThis is nothing. Wait until after the primaries. This and a whole host of lies will the main tactic to deal with the truth about themselves. The left will pour it on really hard because they are acknowledging the rise of the alternative media WHICH THEY CANNOT STOP AND ARE AFRAID OF!
no the left is not just
September 30, 2007 - 14:35 ET by PKno the left is not just getting warmed up.
at every national election you see this same line of extreme political posturing before the conventions. it will reach a peak during the platform committee meetings and as soon as the convention is over the candidates will violently swing towards the center.
the candidate will be decided upon about a month before the convention (especially in the democrats case) but we will hear the same old bromides about how "we need to have an open convention" by the losers and or the backers of certain oddball causes.
the behind the scene dogfights will be over who the speakers are on the opening night and for how long they will be allowed to speak. this is where the parties "reach out" to the people that will vote for them anyway.
in acutality the parties have to have the appearance of controversy to feed the msm as they get a big pot of money from the television time and they really need those 4-5-6 hour commercials for their people.
if and when ms hillary wins the nomination i would wager a cup of coffee that shortly there after we will see her kissing babies on a military post.
99&44/100% of the military vote. thats why the mail vote fight in florida was such an important thing to both parties. jacksonville has something like 80,000 uniforms and dependants living there and at any time about 20% of them are overseas and vote by mail ballot.
C
ACLU and Media Maters tax status
September 30, 2007 - 10:36 ET by ThalpyThe ACLU and Media Matters ( and many others for that matter) do not meet the criteria for 501(c)(3) status under federal law. IRS literature states,"It may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates." Take away the tax-exempt status of many of these groups and they would go away. Its past time to bring legal action against them OR the IRS for non-enforcement.