Right starts pushing back against Limbaugh’s ‘phony soldiers’ flap

September 28, 2007

If you’re just joining us, Media Matters reported yesterday that far-right radio host Rush Limbaugh dismissed U.S. troops who support a withdrawal policy in Iraq as “phony soldiers.” Veterans’ groups and sevearl leading Democrats, including the DNC and the DCCC, blasted Limbaugh for the comment, and urged Republicans to repudiate it.

A variety of conservatives have apparently come up with a defense — Limbaugh shouldn’t have said those exact words, but it doesn’t matter because he was taken out of context.

Here’s the Weekly Standard’s Brian Faughnan, for example.

Limbaugh’s offhand comment was poorly chosen. It’s clear that there are ‘real soldiers’–real by anyone’s criteria–who oppose the war in Iraq and they’re entitled to their views. But much like the recently manufactured controversies over Bill O’Reilly’s comments, and President Bush’s comment about Saddam having killed “all the Mandelas,” the left is trying to pull a fast-one by taking Rush’s statement out of context.

The argument, not surprisingly, is slowly catching on with some conservative bloggers.

So, is there anything to this? I don’t think so. Let’s go to the tape and consider the context in more detail.

Limbaugh had just finished arguing with a caller from Chicago who said he is an anti-war Republican who served in the military. Limbaugh said that was impossible — Republicans aren’t genuine unless they support Bush’s Iraq policy. As for the caller’s claim about military service, Limbaugh said, “Right. Right. Right, I know. And I, by the way, used to walk on the moon!” Limbaugh’s argument wasn’t subtle — the caller couldn’t have worn the uniform because he supports withdrawal.

The next caller also identified himself as currently serving in the military, and criticized those who disagree with Bush’s policy. We pick it up there….

LIMBAUGH: There’s a lot more than that that they don’t understand. They can’t even — if — the next guy that calls here, I’m gonna ask him: Why should we pull — what is the imperative for pulling out? What’s in it for the United States to pull out? They can’t — I don’t think they have an answer for that other than, “Well, we just gotta bring the troops home.”

CALLER 2: Yeah, and, you know what —

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 2: The phony soldiers. If you talk to a real soldier, they are proud to serve. They want to be over in Iraq. They understand their sacrifice, and they’re willing to sacrifice for their country.

LIMBAUGH: They joined to be in Iraq. They joined —

CALLER 2: A lot of them — the new kids, yeah.

LIMBAUGH: Well, you know where you’re going these days, the last four years, if you signed up. The odds are you’re going there or Afghanistan or somewhere.

CALLER 2: Exactly, sir.

Today, the argument is that Limbaugh was being literal — “phony soldiers” are, in fact, actual frauds, as in the case of Jesse Macbeth.

I think the context is clear — the troops are signing up because they want to be deployed to Iraq. If you serve and disagree with the Iraq policy, then you must be a “phony.” (Indeed, there’s a precedent on this. In June, Limbaugh labeled John Kerry a “phony.” It wasn’t literal — Limbaugh wasn’t saying Kerry didn’t wear the uniform — but rather, it was the noun Limbaugh chose to describe veterans who dare to disagree with Bush’s policy.)

For what it’s worth, the story is just now starting to pick up steam. A reporter asked White House Press Secretary Dana Perino about Limbaugh’s comment, and she subtly distanced herself from it.

Stay tuned.

The audio is here.

Listen for yourself. Was poor old Rush taken out of context?

Not even close.

  • Yes … Rush was totally taken out of context … until you read the transcript. Then not so much.

    The next excuse will be that he was just joking. You know Rush, that big kidder who makes up songs like “Barack the Magic Negro” and mocks people with Parkinson’s disease.

    Oh, and Faughnan shows that he doesn’t even understand the concept of taking something “out of context” by mentioning Falafel Boy — O’Reilly CLEARLY made a racist remark no matter how one tries to spin it.

    Just another example of IOKIYAR …

  • So I guess the synonym for soldier is dittohead …. hmm, where have I heard that expression before?

  • I think the Senate and the House should take immediate steps to condemn Rush Limbaugh and his caller. I think we should put on hold the chore of legislative governance until this Congress has done what it’s supposed to be doing: signaling through a non-binding resolution, that this sort of social commentary, which demeans the valor and honor of our God-fearing troops and their president, is inappropriate and unacceptable. And then I think each and every member of congress should appear in every media outlet available and speak about this grievous act. All war reporting should cease. Shirts should be made. There should be an investigation into whether the EIB Network gives Rush Limbaugh any favorable discounts for ad time. Paul Harvey should be hauled before a committee.

    Where’s the outrage, people?! Someone made a negative comment about someone in the military! How can we possibly go on without legislative censure?

  • I find this type of comment to be perfectly in line with the neo-conservative mindset. As my moniker says, I am a disabled vet. I destroyed my knee in Kuwait back in ’90 (God, that makes me sound like some old geezer — “Ah ‘member way back in ’90 when . . .) and was medically discharged after four surgeries. The office I work in has one neo-conservative. He supports Bush whole-heartedly. He is anti-choice, anti-birth control, etc. He thinks, and says so loudly and often, that the war in Iraq is fighting the terrorists there so they won’t follow us here because we were attacked and Iran is killing our troops and ….

    Oddly, he never even considered serving in the military. He says that I was not really in the military as I was in intel, not a combat unit. He says I am not a real disabled veteran because I wasn’t shot. He also says I am not a real veteran because I do not support the troops.

    My reply? I support the troops, not the lie for which they die.

  • It has already been well-established: Neo-con, cowardly dipshit cretins don’t say mean things, their remarks “get misconstrued.”

    If the unwashed librul hippie types would just clean out their ears, they’d hear exactly what the neo-con said and not get offended.

    For myself, I just hope these arseholes never figure out that the spin only makes it worse. Neo-con extinction event ahoy!

  • every single one of the spineless dems who couldn’t wait to vote against moveon should be sponsoring a vote to denounce limbaugh.

    but they are spineless dems, so they won’t….

    as for the rightwingers sudden discovery of “context,” nuts to them: they despise context. they only like propaganda.

  • Yeah, it’s not even close. Limbaugh wasn’t just talking about people who lie about having served when they haven’t, he was most definitely slandering anti-war veterans. He’s making the claim that everyone in the latter group is therefore and necessarily in the former group. That’s the slander, right there. Support the props.

  • Surely Rush should have clarified that he was in fact talking about the actual frauds who have “come up out of the blue and talk(ed) to the media.” Why can’t he clarify this after the fact? It’s not like MoveOn was ever going to change it’s stance.

    Interestingly, the first time I read the transcript the name “Scott Thomas Beauchamp” immediately popped into my head.

  • Where does Limbaugh mention MacBeth in the transcript? Who IS MacBeth, anyway? Is there a full transcript of the whole show? It’s certainly not in any of the portions where this is discussed.

  • Interestingly, the first time I read the transcript the name “Scott Thomas Beauchamp” immediately popped into my head.

    And when I read the transcript, I wondered why the guy needed Viagra on a trip he took with a bunch of guys to a place known for underage prostitution.

    And why he wasn’t in jail for doctor shopping so he could get his OxyContin fix — there are many others who are.

    And why it’s always okay for the GOP to slam the military — active duty or retired — without nary a whisper from the media.

    I could keep going, but I think you get the point …

  • Limbaugh’s defense is that he gets prank phone calls all the time, and he believed the anti-war caller was not really a Republican or in the military.

    I don’t think he thought that, but you can’t prove he didn’t think that, and further, what Rush said may have been correct. I don’t think so, but in theory the caller really might have been a phoney. I don’t think so, but I can’t prove anything.

    This squabble is a distraction anyway.

    By the way- anybody notice that as of today, the Canadian dollar is worth more than the American dollar? Crazy.

  • Is it possible to take Rush Limbaugh seriously? He says so many outrageous things that you can never latch onto one exaggeration before another egregious slander has been uttered. Basically it’s not possible to keep up with all his false rhetoric. Don’t he and Ann Coulter belong in the category of demagogues who inflame people who can’t think for themselves?

    How can you argue with people who are completely out of touch with reality? Talk is cheap and Rush constantly proves that. History will prove these right-wing wackos wrong. At least they’ll have a hard time spinning history to reflect positively on the Bush administration and their own foolish beliefs.

    Imagine if Al Gore had won how different the U.S. would be.

  • Here:

    Transcipt

    Scroll down from the above quoted section, and it looks like he is specifically talking about war protesters who claim to be soldiers but are impostors.

  • A reporter asked White House Press Secretary Dana Perino about Limbaugh’s comment, and she subtly distanced herself from it.

    Subtly is right. In fact, she is practically praising by faint damning.

  • I just went to Lush Rimjob’s website to hammer him with some email, and lo and behold, you have to PAY to send email; you have to be part of his fan club or some shit. LOL, what a fake, and so typical of a right wing nut job, unable to bear a different point of view, so he weeds out dissent by making you pay… lol

  • The update is AFTER the show. Was it pretaped? Did it even air? Regardless, the conversation in the transcript does not take place after talking about fake soldiers. The only mention in the show are of serving soldiers who “aren’t Republican” if they think we should withdraw.

  • Do you think they even know what the phrase “out of context” means, or is it just their default response?

  • As Pinky points out it’s quite interesting that the Media Matters (& CB’s copy) transcript cuts this off from the Rush Transcript…

    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.

    END TRANSCRIPT

  • Typical right wing BS. Take one example and inflate it into a blanket condemnation of all critics.

  • JRS — the update was AFTER THE QUOTE IN QUESTION!!!! The update was determined beforehand, possibly even taped beforehand. I knew Rush had a gift for rhetoric, but it’s quite a feat for an update to travel back in time and influence the topic of conversation that aired before it.

    But the subtext of this is that you admit the quote is indefensible. It is wrong to say a soldier is phony if they don’t categorically support Bush, right? A bit hard for Rush to say after berating a soldier, Republican and Rush listener for being a “phony Republican” because on that one issue of withdrawal, they disagreed.

  • “Typical right wing BS. Take one example and inflate it into a blanket condemnation of all critics.”

    I have no problem with that type of the above criticism… But for folks like Media Matters to OMIT and big chunk of the transcript which CLEARLY put the comments in context and then have parrots like CB spin the same tune without releasing the FULL transcript… Give me a break.

    I mean come on CB! Do some homework for a change instead of just linking other liberal sites and ideas!

  • Hey Billy (a liberal disabled vet),

    That’s a fair enough statement, but one could argue that some people are taking Media Matters as a primary source instead of doing the research. That doesn’t look good. Not even providing a link to the primary source just gives ammo to those who make echo chamber claims. Limbaugh says plenty of dumb stuff, one doesn’t need to manufacture a controversy by taking staements way out of context.

  • What was missing from the transcript that exhonerated Rush? Rush spliced in the text of a special update onto the end of the transcript, which unlike the shows are written before hand, and tacks it on the end of a transcript. When did that update occur? Is it on the radio show? It certainly didn’t affect the conversation that preceded it, that doesn’t mention “fake” soldiers anywhere, only ‘phony” soldiers and “phony” Republicans — phony because they don’t agree.

  • The left is very good when using propaganda. I was listening when the comments were made. I heard the whole discussion. Rush was talking about the media using the bogus story of the former solder who was washed out of boot camp after four months, and then made op stories of how he was serving in Iraq committing atrocities with other solders. The so-called solder was making up stuff and the media ran with it. Another “Dan Rather” moment!

    It is obvious to anyone who actually listens the a larger sample of the show, maybe a minute on either side of the segment you give, that you have it wrong, probably on purpose.

    You might be re-enforcing the attitudes of fellow liberals. But to most people you have yet again damaged your credibility. By you I mean the mainstream media and anyone else who is trying to embarrass Republicans with manufactured news.

  • “It is wrong to say a soldier is phony if they don’t categorically support Bush, right?”

    Correct…but based on the FULL transcript it seems the update occured right after the call was completed, thus putting the quote into context with Rush’s frequent prior criticism of the left’s latching onto fraudulent soldier stories.

    I ask you this… why didn’t Media Matters (&CB) link to the FULL transcript???

  • “Today, the argument is that Limbaugh was being literal — “phony soldiers” are, in fact, actual frauds, as in the case of Jesse Macbeth.”

    CB, perhaps the conservative bloggers actually did their homework and read the ENTIRE transcript!

  • The solution to “Rush-ya” Limbaughsky (probably a Putin fan as well, the fat little Stalinist bastage) is simple—condemn the radio stations that broadcast his nonsense. Provide public lists of his advertisers, so people can choose whether or not to patronize those companies.

    Declare your homes, your automobiles, and your places of employment to be “De-Rush-ya-sized Zones.”

    And pay no attention the the snobbish little “gauleiters” of ther blogosphere who want to help Rush-ya out with his spin. The fat little twit labelled soldiers who do not support Bush policy as “phony soldiers.” Period. There is no “out-of-context” with that. Soldiers who disagree with Bush policy; who are in uniform, who see the lack of support while huge sums are diverted to mercenaries and profiteers, and who die in the line of duty are NOT “Jesse MacBeth” soldiers. Rush-ya Limbaughsky further insults these brave men and women with his “save-my-own-fat-a**-at-the-troops’-expense” spin.

    And the “jr” dimwits of the right know that full well. They just lack the “intestinal fortitude” (insert cojones-esque term of your preference here) to acknowledge it.

    Also—for the record—Jesse MacBeth spent 44 days more in uniform that Rush-ya Limbaughsky and Dick Cheney—COMBINED….

  • Steve, I am not a Rush fan.. he is a obese, drug addicted, lying blow hard. That said, if Media Matters (& CB) are all about truth in the Media, why was so much of the transcript omitted? That’s what is pissing me off in this “contoversy”

  • JRS, excuse me if I hesitate to take Rush Limbaugh’s word over MM just yet. This morning update now tacked on at the end of his transcript… first of all, how did it affect the conversation that occurred before? Second, was this pretaped? Certainly, the decide updates beforehand. When did it occur in the broadcast? Did Rush give the update, or someone else?

    Also, he says those are “fake” soldiers. Phony is used to describe soldiers who serve but don’t support the war and Republicans who vote Republican and listen to Rush, but don’t support the war. It’s pretty clear.

    Give me a link to the audio.

  • mike:
    …former soldier who was washed out of boot camp after four months…

    Since when is the US Army’s boot camp longer than the US Marines’?

    The quote from JRS above says he “washed out” of Army boot camp 44 days before completion.

    Sorry, but this claim that the commentary about Jesse MacBeth was conveniently omitted from the original transcript is dubious. Rush is notorious for revising his transcripts after the fact to cover his ass. Part II of RL CYA is to send his minions out to fight on his behalf.

  • To add to my earlier comments…
    I was listening to the program live during the conversation. I heard what was being said long before and after the segment presented here. It is clear that Rush was being taken out of context. I would further speculate that this was done in yet another attempt to manufacture anti-republican propaganda.

  • When it concerns Rush, mike, I think it’s not anti-Republican but anti-Rush. It’s just unfortunate coincidence (for the Republicans) that he’s associated with the Republican party.

    His brand of speech is counterproductive to the political discourse of this country. Rather than foster discussion, his words cut, slander, demean, distort, and divide. It’s a base form of entertainment that intelligent people should refrain from enjoying. I believe most of his listeners are smarter than he is, and are probably capable of doing productive things. Instead, they listen to Rush everyday and nod approvingly.

  • “Sorry, but this claim that the commentary about Jesse MacBeth was conveniently omitted from the original transcript is dubious.”

    No Focal, it is ommitted from the MM (& CB’s) transcript.. still is.

  • To add to my earlier comments…
    I was listening to the program live during the conversation. I heard what was being said long before and after the segment presented here. It is clear that Rush was being taken out of context.

    I also listened to the program (not by choice — a co-worker listens to the damn thing within earshot and I my iPod is getting fixed) and did not, in any way, see it that way.

    Granted, I admit I give Rush zero benefit of the doubt. But your assertion is wrong that this has been taken out of context. I heard the whole thing and my very first thought was, “What are the chance to the media spending two weeks on this?”

    As we’ve seen time and time and time again, not very good.

    I would further speculate that this was done in yet another attempt to manufacture anti-republican propaganda.

    Oh dear god …

    Republicans have a special gift for manufacturing outrage over things that, in reality, are one-tenth as bad as what they do. It’s almost savant like.

    It’d be comical if it weren’t so pathetic. No wonder why people are leaving the GOP like rats off a sinking ship.

  • Pingback: Rush Limbaugh And Dittoheads Try Unsuccessfully To Spin His Anti-Troop Comment

  • “LIMBAUGH: Well, who are these Republicans? I can think of Chuck Hagel, and I can think of Gordon Smith, two Republican senators, but they don’t want to lose the war like the Democrats do. I can’t think of—who are the Republicans in the anti-war movement?”

    “CALLER 1: See, I—I’ve used to be military, OK? And I am a Republican. ”
    …
    “LIMBAUGH: And I, by the way, used to walk on the moon!”

    I guess he was talking to J Mabeth. Certainly Rush speak to a REAL soldier that way.

  • 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.
    The deaths became known in May 2006 when Murtha, who opposes the Iraq war, said at a Capitol Hill news conference that a Pentagon war

  • The right-wing bloggers (hotair / rightwingnews) are presenting the “out-of-context” excuse and then providing the context that suits them. If you listen to his comments, he’s CLEARLY referring to caller #1 (who’s a republican and ex-soldier who is against the war, but who Rush mocks with “you can’t be a republican” and “ya, and I walked on the moon”). To claim that he was talking about some other soldiers (whatever their merits) is just a lie meant to cover up his comments.

  • Still, no one has answered the question why the entire transcript was not supplied by Media Matters (or CB)!

  • he “washed out” of Army boot camp 44 days before completion.

    There is no “boot camp” in the Army.
    The Army has “basic training”, followed by “Advanced Individual Training (AIT)”.

    Or, if you go to Infantry School (like me), you have OSUT (One Station Unit Training).

    Just trying to clarify.

    And if Rush meant this MacBeth character, why didn’t he mention him by name as an example of a phony soldier? When was the transcript updated? When this whole issue took off?

  • If anything, Limbaugh’s more literal use of the phrase “phony soldiers” makes him look worse, not better. He used that phrase to describe those soldiers who a caller characterized as coming “out of the blue” to “talk to the media;” in other words, the actual military status of anyone claiming to be a soldier who fits this description, according to Limbaugh, should automatically be seen as suspect. They should automatically be viewed as potential Jesse Macbeths. Limbaugh’s “defense”, in my opinion, is no defense at all.

  • Pingback: Chuck Adkins › Editorial: Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly and the Liberal Witch Hunt

  • > why the entire transcript was not supplied by Media Matters

    I’m so confused by this objection. MM is not a full transcript reprint service. They provided the context, namely the transcript from a bit before the offending quote to a bit after, without deletions. Where’s the deception here?

    con·text /ˈkɒntɛkst/
    –noun
    1. the parts of a written or spoken statement that precede or follow a specific word or passage, usually influencing its meaning or effect: You have misinterpreted my remark because you took it out of context.
    2. the set of circumstances or facts that surround a particular event, situation, etc.
    3. Mycology. the fleshy fibrous body of the pileus in mushrooms.

    (Speaking of fleshy fibrous bodies… how’s Rush doing? :-))

  • Pingback: The Crossed Pond » For the Record...

    • Comments are closed.