Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
VIDEO-New Vote Vets Ad: The Real Phony Is Rush Limbaugh
crooksandliars.com — Another powerful ad from Vote Vets, and they really let Limbaugh have it. Rush can ’t help himself as he continues his attacks on our troops and veterans, accusing Ohio Democrat and Iraq veteran Paul Hackett of joining the military to pad his resume.
populist- 495 diggs
- digg it
- vatosplace, on 10/10/2007, -18/+25The real phony went 4f for anal cysts... you guessed it... Rush Limbaugh.
- JDenigma, on 10/10/2007, -9/+20Apparently the sycophantic dittoheads are trolling through this thread because you've been getting buried for making that comment though it's true.
Oh, and for that matter I used to listen to Rush back in the day and was a fan of his. Not anymore though as I can't stand the guy and see through his religious like loyalty to the republican party. The guy is intellectually dishonest. Now I'm no republican anymore. Instead I'm an extreme libertarian bordering on being an anarchist.
Rush is a classic case of a chicken hawk. Meanwhile those who have seen war up close and personal like Colin Powell are more calm and level headed in how they approach something as serious as war because unlike Rush, they have actually seen the consequences. - shupy, on 10/10/2007, -3/+11Yes, that is the real problem. This war was planned and run by civilians. Bush just removed any military leaders that didn't agree with him. There was a time when Rush would take an opposing side to any issue. Sometimes conservative, sometimes liberal. He was an arguer. However he found there was more response from the extremist right wing, so that became his audience. He followed the money.
- ButterBuddha, on 10/10/2007, -5/+7Anal cysts?? I guess getting pounded in the ass is part of how you are initiated into the Chicken-hawk Republic Party
- Stevanoski, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5If the term "chickenhawk" is meant to imply that you cannot have an opinion on war unless you have been to war, then doesn't the term "chickendove" also have the same implications?
- JDenigma, on 10/10/2007, -9/+20Apparently the sycophantic dittoheads are trolling through this thread because you've been getting buried for making that comment though it's true.
- tomaburque, on 10/10/2007, -10/+11What you refer to as "anal cysts" are actually Pilonidal cysts:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilonidal_cyst
http://www.worldwidewounds.com/2003/december/Mille ...
Click the second link and scroll down and look at the pictures and of what Rush's ass may look like and then you'll understand why he is so angry.- mushoo, on 10/10/2007, -5/+12So if he had the problem surgically removed he'd be healed in ten weeks. He could have enlisted after that, oh but wait, the war would have been over by then. I mean, the thing only lasted 16 years.
- Martlet, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4You, sir, have absolutely zero idea the steps and requirements for enlisting in the military. Look it up. You can't just "clear things up" then enlist. If it had worked like that, my stint as a recruiter would have been much easier.
- JDenigma, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1I tell you what, Rush would have had no problem enlisting in the military today given the loosened, lax standards they have out of desperation for recruits. lol
- Martlet, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2You spend too much time reading moveon. Some branches hit their goals in July of this year, and have done away with many bonuses. It's much harder to get in the military now, than it was years ago. It's amazing the ignorance some of you spew. Educate yourself before you type.
- JDenigma, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1I tell you what, Rush would have had no problem enlisting in the military today given the loosened, lax standards they have out of desperation for recruits. lol
- Martlet, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4You, sir, have absolutely zero idea the steps and requirements for enlisting in the military. Look it up. You can't just "clear things up" then enlist. If it had worked like that, my stint as a recruiter would have been much easier.
- shupy, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6Not to mention that many men managed to have the condition and still served in the military.
- mushoo, on 10/10/2007, -5/+12So if he had the problem surgically removed he'd be healed in ten weeks. He could have enlisted after that, oh but wait, the war would have been over by then. I mean, the thing only lasted 16 years.
- appleann1, on 10/10/2007, -31/+17Tell me again, what side hates the troops?
http://hotair.com/archives/2007/09/28/murtha-will- ...
"A federal judge refused Friday to dismiss a defamation case against Rep. John P. Murtha and ordered the Pennsylvania Democrat to give a sworn deposition in the case.
A Marine Corps sergeant is suing the 16-term congressman for alleging “cold-blooded murder and war crimes” by unnamed soldiers in connection with the deaths of Iraqi civilians in the town of Haditha."
Then we have Kerry, Kennedy, Durbin, etc,etc.
When was the last time one of your radical websites displayed a flag on veterans holidays?- JDenigma, on 10/10/2007, -10/+24appleann
Phony patriotism does not constitute one iota of a difference as to whether someone "hates" the troops or not. Stop playing this game of my team against your team.- appleann1, on 10/10/2007, -17/+11"Phony patriotism"? Sounds like you've got your facts mixed up.
Could you have meant,
John Kerry re: to the troops...."Breaking down doors, terrorizing women and children (forget the filth about Vietnam, too much to get into)
John Murtha re: the troops...cold blooded murderers
Dick Durbin re: the troops, pol pots, Nazis.
Ted Kennedy re: Abu Garib, "we now learn that Saddam's torture chambers reopened under new management: U.S. management."
"Stop playing this game of my team against your team."
Like, "sycophantic dittoheads "
Or "Rush is a classic case of a chicken hawk"
If you have a legitimate criticism of Rush, fine, go for it, but to give any credence to a despicable , lying hate site like Media Matters and their willing enablers like think progress and crooks and liars is dishonest.- JDenigma, on 10/10/2007, -4/+14I don't understand what all those politicians you list have to do with what we're discussing here. It's also not that clear as to what point you're ultimately trying to make. You're sounding so convoluted now. All I'm saying is that you're sadly mistaken if you think alleged "hatred" of the troops is the exclusive domain of the democrats and that this bickering over wars has been one sided throughout this history of the parties. You paint all the democrats with a broad brush just because of the comments of a few and you seem to almost equate dissent with not liking the troops. The door swings both ways.
You can say what you want about media matters and the like, but for the record I'm not even a liberal. I'm sure you assumed that about me.
So, what if some troops do maliciously or perhaps just inadvertently commit some attrocious acts? Does that mean that we should be hands off and not question the military at all and pretend that they're always angelic and clean and pure as the wind driven snow? I understand that given the enormous difficulties of combat during war that terrible things like that will unfortunatley happen, but there are times where there are some individuals in a military who do abuse their position of authority and commit horrible acts. It happens and there is no denying that. Just because a few acts may be questioned doesn't necessarily mean someone is painting all military members with that broad brush. The fact that attrocities like that happen is all the more reason why we should avoid getting into these wars to begin with.
Politicians are politicians. They're all scum and the republicans aren't any more moral towards the troops than the demcrats are. About all politicians will say disgusting and stupid things. They say whatever will benefit them politically. To pretend that it is just one sided is completely disingenuous of you.
- JDenigma, on 10/10/2007, -4/+14I don't understand what all those politicians you list have to do with what we're discussing here. It's also not that clear as to what point you're ultimately trying to make. You're sounding so convoluted now. All I'm saying is that you're sadly mistaken if you think alleged "hatred" of the troops is the exclusive domain of the democrats and that this bickering over wars has been one sided throughout this history of the parties. You paint all the democrats with a broad brush just because of the comments of a few and you seem to almost equate dissent with not liking the troops. The door swings both ways.
- appleann1, on 10/10/2007, -17/+11"Phony patriotism"? Sounds like you've got your facts mixed up.
- iching, on 10/10/2007, -6/+3Billo?
Is that you? - pintomp3, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4gee, i don't know. the side that wants to keep them in a war zone to die?
- kurtwinter, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1You know who else supported the troops, regardless of what they did?
That's right.
***** you and your illegal war, and ***** any soldiers who carry out illegal orders on civilians. May you all burn in your own hell, ***** christian *****.- BedlamX, on 10/10/2007, -1/+217 UN violations makes this a non illegal war... If it were illegal the dem congress would have stopped it by now.
- JDenigma, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1You hypocrite. You republicans bash the U.N. all the time, rightly so, but all of a sudden the U.N. matters to you in this context? Who gives a ***** about the damn U.N. They're irrelevant. That is none of our damn business and is no justification for initiating a war. Gee, I wonder how many U.N. violations our government has violated. Nevermind what our government did to Iraq over the years.
- BedlamX, on 10/10/2007, -1/+217 UN violations makes this a non illegal war... If it were illegal the dem congress would have stopped it by now.
- JDenigma, on 10/10/2007, -10/+24appleann
- rwvalentine, on 10/10/2007, -29/+10love when dems feign indignation over this stuff
oh right, your the patriotic party, i was cornfused.- nblsavage, on 10/10/2007, -7/+9oh, like you asshats did with the moveon.org ad?
- p0s3r, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3The moveon.org ad wasn't taken out of context then blown out of proportion.
- alacrity2005, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Yes. that's exactly what happened.
- p0s3r, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3The moveon.org ad wasn't taken out of context then blown out of proportion.
- norman619, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3You both are part of the problem. We are in this ***** up situation because idiots like you two dutiful lemmings keeping thinking along party lines and refuse to step back and think for yourselves. You guys always miss the real issue because you constantly take the political bait and ignore the fact that our politicians have sold us out. Who gives a ***** what a radio commentator thinks or does? He doesn't decide policy. He doesn't pass laws. Stop taking the damned bait and start working together to take back our country. Please?
- kurtwinter, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2i love it when you ***** asswipe 9%'ers come on here to troll. You can't even ***** spell! Its YOU'RE you stupid republican *****!
- Stevanoski, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Uh oh, a spelling Nazi.
- nblsavage, on 10/10/2007, -7/+9oh, like you asshats did with the moveon.org ad?
- SamLowrey, on 10/10/2007, -21/+10I was a fan of Rush until I realized he was more interested in Israel than the US. I hope he rots in Hell.
- ngonzales80, on 10/10/2007, -22/+25When I first heard about this, I was also outraged...but then I looked into it. Turns out, like most quotes, this was taken out of context. Here's a link to Rush's website: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/today.guest.html. Watch the 8 minute YouTube video to get the proper context. You'll see that he was not calling anti-war soldiers phony at all. He was referring to one specific soldier named Jesse MacBeth.
If you want to slam Rush, slam him for something he deserves.- epicstruggle, on 10/10/2007, -17/+12We cant have facts surface on digg, you must be burried. /sarc
- cmcagle, on 10/18/2007, -1/+6Yeah, I agree. As an anti-war Iraq veteran (and a Republican), I was pretty angry about this when I saw the MediaMatters story here on Digg. Then I did the responsible thing: I actually listened to the full context of what he said on his radio program. It was clear to me that he was talking specifically about Jesse MacBeth, and the MediaMatters story was, in fact, taken out of context. I would still like for Limbaugh to publicly recognize that there are, in fact, many legitimate veterans of the Iraq war who do not agree with the war policy. At the same time, people need to realize that MediaMatters cherry-picked that quote, took it out of context, and used it in an attempt to smear Limbaugh.
I'm not a "dittohead," I think Limbaugh is only marginally better than Hannity (they're both partisan hacks and are bad for the GOP), but there are better reasons to dislike him than this.
- lOvOl, on 10/10/2007, -16/+21When I was in high school, I used to stay up late to catch Rush Limbaugh's half hour television show after Nightline with David Koppel just about every night. Needless to say, I was late to school a lot.
I liked Rush for a lot of reasons back then, but mostly because I thought Bill Clinton was a fraud and pretty much he was the only guy pointing out the hypocrisy and liberal bias of the mainstream media back then. Of course nowadays the mainstream media has bias all over the political spectrum depending on where you get your news. Wise individuals get their news from a variety of sources because you cannot trust any source 100%.
Today, I don't listen to Rush, not because I don't really dislike him, but because I just don't listen to talk radio at all and I have better things to do with my time. I do think he has lost a lot of credibility on a number of fronts since then, especially with his past drug problems. Also, I think he has lost touch with the newer generation of conservatives which are more critical in their evaluation of the issues and less partisan and probably make up much of the base of Ron Paul's campaign and by Rush pretty much intentionally misrepresenting Ron Paul's positions rather than debating Mr. Paul on the merits of what he has to say, he has pretty much turned off just about anyone under 30 who has conservative leanings.
Now with respect to this stuff about the pro-war versus the anti-war nastiness being thrown around by the big mouths of the left and the right, I really think none of them have any credibility whatsoever anymore for two big reasons:
(1) The "pro-war" crowd has to this date never defined a coherent definition on what it means to win the "War On Terror" and has yet to give a strategical explanation for what our long-term plans are with regards to Iraq and the Middle East. The best they can come up with these days is "if we pull out now there will be carnage and mayhem and Al-Qaeda will set up shop there and Iran will carve off southern Iraq as a proxy state". OK fair enough, but define success then and what is our actual strategy to achieve that success. It seems like the closest thing to a strategy that we have right now is similiar to the story of "The Little Dutch Boy" ( http://www.pantheon.org/articles/l/little_dutch_bo ... ). The only problem with this argument of course is that nobody plugged the leak early on after the fall of Saddam Hussein and now Iraq is a ***** storm of monumental proportions where every time we try and plug one leak, another leak shows up somewhere in the dike. In other words, at this point it might be better just to let the dike break and try and evacuate as many people and as much property from the flood plain and then rebuild the dike from scratch. Of course, if you foolishly try and keep preventing the inevitable from occurring, the dike eventually collapses and you not only have to rebuild the dike, you lose a lot of lives and property as well. In other words, we are just losing American lives and treasure to prolong the inevitable.
(2) The "anti-war" crowd has yet to this date defined what our next move will be once we leave Iraq. If we just pull out and let the dike collapse, then what is the next course of action? To date, like the "pro-war" crowd, they have yet to come up with at least a minimal strategy for minimizing the losses from allowing the dike to collapse. I have heard of "phased withdrawal" or "phased redeployment", but these are ambiguous words that are effectively code for "retreat". If we leave, then Iran will move in and the Saudis will be extra pissed off at us for not letting us do their dirty work for them. Though many members of the Saudi government preach that they don't want America in Iraq, in practice they realize that it would be much cheaper to bribe the Americans to stay indefinitely as a buffer between them and Iran. Saudi Arabia is a decadent police state that is reminiscent of the Byzantine Empire, as they have plenty of wealth but few patriotic citizens willing to defend it. For the Saudis, we Americans are their mercenaries and in exchange we get cheap oil and the agreement that the Saudis will continue trading their oil in our monopoly money which is about the only thing keeping our currency afloat. Then there are other factors that the "anti-war" crowd has yet to even contemplate in terms of what our likely course of action will be if we immediately leave Iraq. Then there is the inconvenient truth that Iran and Syria are really just proxy states for Russia and China and if we unilaterally abandon our position in the middle east, they will move in and claim the spoils, just like they have with Venezuela and much of Latin America and Africa. It is funny that the same people who complain are "anti-war" also complain about the genocide in Darfur but fail to realize that Sudan is really just a colony for China these days so America's hands are tied. If the Russians and Chinese gain enough economic influence in the Muslim world, then that would be very bad news to the United States and Europe because our air and naval superiority can only do so much when you don't have troops on the ground in a potential theater of conflict.
Right now, America has no competent and intelligent leadership from either party. They are not willing to tell America the truth, and at the same time their clandestine chess game against the authoritarian regimes of China and Russia for long-term control of fossil fuels in the middle east is failing badly. On top of that, we are bleeding treasure at such an astonishing rate that the other big players for world power out there just have to wait for America to implode rather than worry too much about ever confronting them head on. In the past it was said "an army marches on its stomach". Well these days an army marches on its paychecks and if we eventually go bankrupt from our imprudent fiscal actions, we won't have enough money to pay our soldiers or even maintain our equipment, let alone buy the fuel we need to keep the military a'movin.- pkonink, on 10/10/2007, -5/+6Holy crap, that is a wonderfully articulate and well-thought-out comment. Kudos to you, I hope more sensible people digg you up instead of down. Although I have always thought Rush was a mean-spirited little bastard, but what is past is past - in another 25 years no one will even remember who he is.
- JDenigma, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Well said. I'm impressed. Congratulations for what I think is the best post I've seen in this thread. Well thought out and all.
- strafefire, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Other than the Rush stuff, BEST COMMENT EVER ON DIGG!
- BECoole, on 10/10/2007, -8/+18Wow! I can't believe that Vote Vets is doing this to themselves! Everybody knows that Rush was referring to Jesse Macbeth. This just makes Vote Vets look like a bunch of idiots. Either that, or Vote Vets really is standing up for fraudulent soldiers.
In case you aren't familiar with Jesse Macbeth, he claimed to be a former Army Ranger/Sniper who did tours in Iraq and Afghanistan and is now against the war. Turns out he never made it out of Basic! .- norman619, on 10/10/2007, -3/+11Sad thing is most people don't bother to look too closely at what they read. Verifying the facts is unheard of. They take what the media spoon-feeds to them and take it as gospel. The truth means nothing when everyone believes in the lie.
- smoothmedia, on 10/10/2007, -15/+7Limbaugh also selectively edited his comments when he attempted to pass it off as a "smear" by Media Matters. He left out 1.5 minutes of dialogue that demonstrates that his comments were NOT directly referring to Jesse Macbetth.
http://mediamatters.org/items/rss/200709280013- p0s3r, on 10/10/2007, -9/+11I'd rather believe Rush Limbaugh's take on his words than George Soros's take on Rush's words.
- breadbin, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3I know, facts are troublesome sometimes aren't they?
- p0s3r, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4Mediamatters accusing anyone else of selective editing is outrageous in and of itself.
- sharpfork, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Instead of debating the facts, attack the messenger...
Are you accusing Media Matters of fabricating the 1:30 that Rush removed from the transcript of this show? - p0s3r, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1The edit doesn't prove *****.
Read this:
CALLER: "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 spout to the media."
RUSH: The phony soldiers.
LIKE JESSE MACBETH YOU ***** RETARDS! LIKE JESSE MACBETH!
You couldn't try to be that stupid on purpose.
- sharpfork, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Instead of debating the facts, attack the messenger...
- p0s3r, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4Mediamatters accusing anyone else of selective editing is outrageous in and of itself.
- sharpfork, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Unless you are accusing Media Matters of fabricating 1:30 of Rush's broadcast from that day, you are saying the "truthiness" of the situation Rush is feeding you is what you believe over the truth. I wonder how you felt about Moveon.org and the "betray us" add...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truthiness
- breadbin, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3I know, facts are troublesome sometimes aren't they?
- gryphonauto, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I looked at the "missing" section and his comments weren't referring to all soldiers that oppose the war.
- p0s3r, on 10/10/2007, -9/+11I'd rather believe Rush Limbaugh's take on his words than George Soros's take on Rush's words.
- Noctem, on 10/10/2007, -8/+16Whoa! A dozen vets who want redeployment! Who'da thunk it? I fail to see how this is a 'powerful' attack on Rush, since he was referring specifically to a soldier who is being brought up on charges of falsifying his records. Rush loves this stuff, and you people keep feeding him. You'll never learn, will you? Stop living in a sound byte world and learn about context.
- BECoole, on 10/10/2007, -4/+12Smoothmedia,
You didn't listen to the show, did you?
Be careful where you get your info! You make yourself look far more stupid than you really are! - brianbennett, on 10/10/2007, -5/+13I was hoping it would be common knowledge by now that Rush was taken completely out of context... as usual.
- artface, on 10/10/2007, -2/+14sorry, but if anyone actually listened to the show, which is live, free and available every weekday to anyone with AM reception, this story is a fabrication. the entire thing WAS about the phonys who find celebrity by ling to the media. Any soldier I know would be furious at someone who represents the military falsely. this WAS a comment about them.
I know it's not as fun to have the truth, but it's the truth, none the less - Stevanoski, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Just as Algore did to try and save his daddy's career. Then he never picked up a rifle, just pecked away at a typewriter.
- gryphonauto, on 10/10/2007, -1/+15Whether you like Rush or hate him, stop for a second and look at the full transcript. Rush was taken way out of context; that comment was referring to an actual phony soldier, who made claims like US soldiers were burning bodies and hanging them from the rafters of mosques.
--------------------Here's the missing context -----------------------
Here is a Morning Update that we did recently, talking about fake soldiers. This is a story of who the left props up as heroes. They have their celebrities and one of them was Army Ranger Jesse MacBeth. Now, he was a "corporal." I say in quotes. Twenty-three years old. What made Jesse MacBeth a hero to the anti-war crowd wasn't his Purple Heart; it wasn't his being affiliated with post-traumatic stress disorder from tours in Afghanistan and Iraq. No. What made Jesse MacBeth, Army Ranger, a hero to the left was his courage, in their view, off the battlefield, without regard to consequences. He told the world the abuses he had witnessed in Iraq, American soldiers killing unarmed civilians, hundreds of men, women, even children. In one gruesome account, translated into Arabic and spread widely across the Internet, Army Ranger Jesse MacBeth describes the horrors this way: "We would burn their bodies. We would hang their bodies from the rafters in the mosque."
Now, recently, Jesse MacBeth, poster boy for the anti-war left, had his day in court. And you know what? He was sentenced to five months in jail and three years probation for falsifying a Department of Veterans Affairs claim and his Army discharge record. He was in the Army. Jesse MacBeth was in the Army, folks, briefly. Forty-four days before he washed out of boot camp. Jesse MacBeth isn't an Army Ranger, never was. He isn't a corporal, never was. He never won the Purple Heart, and he was never in combat to witness the horrors he claimed to have seen. You probably haven't even heard about this. And, if you have, you haven't heard much about it. This doesn't fit the narrative and the template in the Drive-By Media and the Democrat Party as to who is a genuine war hero. Don't look for any retractions, by the way. Not from the anti-war left, the anti-military Drive-By Media, or the Arabic websites that spread Jesse MacBeth's lies about our troops, because the truth for the left is fiction that serves their purpose. They have to lie about such atrocities because they can't find any that fit the template of the way they see the US military. In other words, for the American anti-war left, the greatest inconvenience they face is the truth. - pencilneck, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11So when the term "phony soldier" is used, do any of you know what the ***** was being talked about? Did some of us ignore this Digg link:
http://digg.com/tech_news/Is_Social_Media_Being_Us ...
So who is this Jesse Macbeth guy anyway and why is it that he gets a free pass for ***** you crap you wanted to hear? - Stevanoski, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9Note how the progressive/leftist hate to discuss ideas. An earlier post said "...liked it better when there were no consevatives on Digg". They fear ideas. That is why they want the conservative radio shut down. All they can sell is fear, hate and childish name calling.
- lead2thehead, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8Rush's comments are clearly being misrepresented here. He's not saying that soldiers who are anti-war are "phony soldiers". He was talking with a caller (an Iraq war vet) about civilians who pretend to be soldiers to push their anti-war agenda. Here is the conversation in context. He's talking about an Army Ranger who was supposedly upset about all of these atrocities he witnessed in Iraq. It turns out that he was not an Army Ranger, he had never been to Iraq, and had in fact washed out of boot camp.
LIMBAUGH: "Save the -- keep the troops safe" or whatever. I -- it's not possible, intellectually, to follow these people.
CALLER 2: 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: The phony soldiers.
CALLER: Phony soldiers. If you talk to any real soldier and they're proud to serve, they want to be over in Iraq, they understand their sacrifice and they're willing to sacrifice for the country.
RUSH: They joined to be in Iraq.
CALLER: A lot of people.
RUSH: You know where you're going these days, the last four years, if you sign up. The odds are you're going there or Afghanistan, or somewhere.
CALLER: Exactly, sir. My other comment, my original comment, was a retort to Jill about the fact we didn't find any weapons of mass destruction. Actually, we have found weapons of mass destruction in chemical agents that terrorists have been using against us for a while now. I've done two tours in Iraq, I just got back in June, and there are many instances of insurgents not knowing what they're using in their IEDs. They're using mustard artillery rounds, VX artillery rounds in their IEDs. Because they didn't know what they were using, they didn't do it right, and so it didn't really hurt anybody. But those munitions are over there. It's a huge desert. If they bury it somewhere, we're never going to find it.
RUSH: Well, that's a moot point for me right now.
CALLER: Right.
RUSH: The weapons of mass destruction. We gotta get beyond that. We're there. We all know they were there, and Mahmoud even admitted it in one of his speeches here talking about Saddam using the poison mustard gas or whatever it is on his own people. But that's moot. What's more important is all this is taking place now in the midst of the surge working, and all of these anti-war Democrats are getting even more hell-bent on pulling out of there, which means that success on the part of you and your colleagues over there is a great threat to them. 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, talking about fake soldiers. This is a story of who the left props up as heroes. They have their celebrities and one of them was Army Ranger Jesse Macbeth. Now, he was a "corporal." I say in quotes. Twenty-three years old. What made Jesse Macbeth a hero to the anti-war crowd wasn't his Purple Heart; it wasn't his being affiliated with post-traumatic stress disorder from tours in Afghanistan and Iraq. No. What made Jesse Macbeth, Army Ranger, a hero to the left was his courage, in their view, off the battlefield, without regard to consequences. He told the world the abuses he had witnessed in Iraq, American soldiers killing unarmed civilians, hundreds of men, women, even children. In one gruesome account, translated into Arabic and spread widely across the Internet, Army Ranger Jesse Macbeth describes the horrors this way: "We would burn their bodies. We would hang their bodies from the rafters in the mosque."
Now, recently, Jesse Macbeth, poster boy for the anti-war left, had his day in court. And you know what? He was sentenced to five months in jail and three years probation for falsifying a Department of Veterans Affairs claim and his Army discharge record. He was in the Army. Jesse Macbeth was in the Army, folks, briefly. Forty-four days before he washed out of boot camp. Jesse Macbeth isn't an Army Ranger, never was. He isn't a corporal, never was. He never won the Purple Heart, and he was never in combat to witness the horrors he claimed to have seen. You probably haven't even heard about this. And, if you have, you haven't heard much about it. This doesn't fit the narrative and the template in the Drive-By Media and the Democrat Party as to who is a genuine war hero. Don't look for any retractions, by the way. Not from the anti-war left, the anti-military Drive-By Media, or the Arabic websites that spread Jesse Macbeth's lies about our troops, because the truth for the left is fiction that serves their purpose. They have to lie about such atrocities because they can't find any that fit the template of the way they see the US military. In other words, for the American anti-war left, the greatest inconvenience they face is the truth. - synarchy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9Buried as yet more ***** defense of media matters crap that has already been proven a LIE.
- proliance, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8The real problem here (at Digg) is that too many people get their information from a second hand source which is twisted by the blogger/ author/teenage wannabe hack. If your point is that "Rush Limbaugh said this..." or "Hillary Clinton said that...", then link it to the ORIGINAL source. Don't provide a link where someone has cut and pasted several quotes together but leave out the quote that make it all fit together. Rush was speaking about one person, and one person only. His name is Jesse Macbeth, a liar and a criminal. Look him up. This is not a Conservative or Liberal rant. It works both ways. If Ron Paul gives a speech at a day care and says he thinks kids are great, do you want the anti-Paul blogs to say "Ron Paul says he likes little boys. Do we need a pedophile in the White House?" The real problem here is that the mass media like the NY Times are the ones spreading crap like this. And there is no one to stop them.
- ff1959, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1The listening audience eventually figures out that Mr. Limbaugh (like Mr. Hannity), is an entertainer, almost an actor. He does not believe those things he says.
- BuboTitan, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Buried for 1) Being inaccurate, 2) Being a duplicate, 3) and because I'm fed up with seeing the same web site, crooks&liars, on Digg every day. Give some other web sites a chance.
- MacLiberal, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1While Slush Limboob is a disusting piece of filth what neither side here want so say is that the overrated US army is getting it's pathetic ass kicked in Iraq by poor people armed only with basic rifles.
- AggieFalcon01, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2cell-phone triggered IEDs are hardly basic rifles, dude ...
- Niacin, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Rush Limbaugh is a bigoted puppet that poisons the airwaves, no doubt. But this particular statement was taken completely out of context. He was actually talking about *real phony soldiers* that protested the war. They had false documents and stories, never served in any military branch, and claimed seeing atrocities in Iraq when they'd never *been* there.
- BattMatt, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3If this story is invalid (Mr. Limbaugh was taken out of context), why did it have about 360 diggs around the time I read it?
We're supposed to be preventing this kind of crap from ever reaching digg's front page. So where are y'all? I'm burying this for inaccuracy....PLEASE follow my example. - scoob20, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Digging a story won't make it accurate. The anti-war movement should be embarassed for proping up proven phoney soldiers like Jesse MacBeth. Its a disgrace.
- hittnrun, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2These liberals don't care about the truth. Funny how they accuse everyone else of lying.
- crosshairs, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Harry Reid, "The surge has failed, the war is lost"
There is NO question who clearly doesn't support our troops. Liberal democrats like Reid and Harkin make me sick.
Reid is a Phony Patriot.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=20347 - therinohunter, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Pathetic, go ahead and take your pokes at a non-story trumped up by the left, it just illuminates your stupidity
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by