Rush letter fetches $46,000 on ebay

[Texsox]

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/...es-46k-on-ebay/

 

Lots of money heading to charity

[Balta1701]

Still vastly outraised by Steven's Wrist.

[mr_genius]

"I'm going to match the dollar figure, and I have suggested that Sen. Reid and the 40 other Democrats who signed the smear letter … also match the donation," Limbaugh said on his show Monday.

 

 

nicely played, mr.limbaugh

[Jenksismyhero]

I guess I don't understand what the big issue was with Rush's statement. From what I read a called was distinguishing between soldiers who were in Iraq and soldiers who were not, to which Rush replied, "the phony soldiers." It sounds like he was referring to someone in particular who has been campaigning against the war even though they never stepped foot in Iraq (Jesse MacBeth, a war critic who falsely claimed to be an Iraq veteran).

 

Is there really a problem with this? Do we honestly think every soldier in America is "real" in the sense that they've actually seen combat, or are even actively involved in any sort of war effort?

[YASNY]

I guess I don't understand what the big issue was with Rush's statement. From what I read a called was distinguishing between soldiers who were in Iraq and soldiers who were not, to which Rush replied, "the phony soldiers." It sounds like he was referring to someone in particular who has been campaigning against the war even though they never stepped foot in Iraq (Jesse MacBeth, a war critic who falsely claimed to be an Iraq veteran).

 

Is there really a problem with this? Do we honestly think every soldier in America is "real" in the sense that they've actually seen combat, or are even actively involved in any sort of war effort?

 

That's Reid for ya. Then there's Pelosi causing all kinds of s*** with the Turkey-Armenian thing. Hell that was 3 generations ago, but it's by God important that it is brought up now!

[EvilMonkey]

That's Reid for ya. Then there's Pelosi causing all kinds of s*** with the Turkey-Armenian thing. Hell that was 3 generations ago, but it's by God important that it is brought up now!

Of all the stupid things they have done, THAT is the one that i can't fathom. WFT does it matter now, other than it will piss off someone moderately on our side now? Oh wait, did i just answer my question? Seriously, WTF?

[BigSqwert]

Of all the stupid things they have done, THAT is the one that i can't fathom. WFT does it matter now, other than it will piss off someone moderately on our side now? Oh wait, did i just answer my question? Seriously, WTF?

Gotta love lobbyists. I see no other way something like this gets brought up.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Of all the stupid things they have done, THAT is the one that i can't fathom. WFT does it matter now, other than it will piss off someone moderately on our side now? Oh wait, did i just answer my question? Seriously, WTF?

I can definitely see and do acknowledge the political power play that is being made in bringing up the Armenian genocide now to be acknowledged as such. However, the United States was not a party to the Genocide Convention as a signatory until the Reagan administration -- and only then it was done as a backlash to deflect criticism of Reagan's Bitburg visit.

 

The US would be the 23rd nation to recognize the Armenian genocide -- so the US would hardly be breaking new ground here.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide

 

Plus, and not to invoke Godwin's Law here, but Hitler was much more emboldened for the Holocaust by famously declaring "Who remembers the annihilation of the Armenians?" The supporter of the genocide convention in me is saddened that the recognition of the Armenian Genocide is coming as what pretty much appears to be a tawdry, political maneuver. However, I am pleased that recognition of a genocide will likely be coming -- and it may carry some weight that the world's superpower deems it a genocide, even if the vote is non-binding.

 

As for Rush, his initial commentary seemed to be geared towards soldiers who came home and became anti-war activists after their experiences. It was nice for a man of his size and stature that he had the wiggle room to get his foot out of his mouth.

[mr_genius]

I can definitely see and do acknowledge the political power play that is being made in bringing up the Armenian genocide now to be acknowledged as such. However, the United States was not a party to the Genocide Convention as a signatory until the Reagan administration -- and only then it was done as a backlash to deflect criticism of Reagan's Bitburg visit.

 

The US would be the 23rd nation to recognize the Armenian genocide -- so the US would hardly be breaking new ground here.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide

 

Plus, and not to invoke Godwin's Law here, but Hitler was much more emboldened for the Holocaust by famously declaring "Who remembers the annihilation of the Armenians?" The supporter of the genocide convention in me is saddened that the recognition of the Armenian Genocide is coming as what pretty much appears to be a tawdry, political maneuver. However, I am pleased that recognition of a genocide will likely be coming -- and it may carry some weight that the world's superpower deems it a genocide, even if the vote is non-binding.

 

As for Rush, his initial commentary seemed to be geared towards soldiers who came home and became anti-war activists after their experiences. It was nice for a man of his size and stature that he had the wiggle room to get his foot out of his mouth.

 

again with the Reagan stuff lol

 

Oh, this issue was brought up during the Clinton admin, however Clinton asked Dennis Hastert to put it off to the side to help foreign relations. The GOP speaker complied with this request. Pelosi is only going along with it to hurt foreign relations and make things more difficult for president and possibly troops and commanders in Iraq. It really is a scumbag move.

Edited October 17, 2007 by mr_genius

[Rex Kickass]

I guess I don't understand what the big issue was with Rush's statement. From what I read a called was distinguishing between soldiers who were in Iraq and soldiers who were not, to which Rush replied, "the phony soldiers." It sounds like he was referring to someone in particular who has been campaigning against the war even though they never stepped foot in Iraq (Jesse MacBeth, a war critic who falsely claimed to be an Iraq veteran).

 

Is there really a problem with this? Do we honestly think every soldier in America is "real" in the sense that they've actually seen combat, or are even actively involved in any sort of war effort?

 

It's bulls*** to make this argument that Rush is doing anything outrageous here. He said something stupid. Which pretty much happens on any day that ends in Y.

 

But this is the same person who referred to Paul Hackett (Dem Congress and Senate candidate) as having gone to Iraq to "pad his resume." This game is old hat for Rush Limbaugh.

 

Kudos to Limbaugh though, for raising a lot of money for charity off of a bulls*** move on the part of the Senate Democrats.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

As for Rush, his initial commentary seemed to be geared towards soldiers who came home and became anti-war activists after their experiences. It was nice for a man of his size and stature that he had the wiggle room to get his foot out of his mouth.

 

 

Wrong again.

 

 

He was referring to that anti-war activist who claimed he had participated in "war crimes" in Iraq when he had actually been in uniform for a few weeks and never set one foot in Iraq. Not to mention the fact that he defrauded the government out of thousands of dollars in VA benefits. This, of course, has been twisted out of context by leftists like you in a vain attempt to make the man look bad. This is nothing more than an attempted snow job by the leftist media "watchdog" Media Matters, who are basically throwing s*** up against a wall and seeing what sticks. 41 leftist Senators bought this nonsense hook, line, and sinker and now they look like fools for doing so.

 

If you're so f***ing worried about those who smear soldiers you should direct your comments to slime like this Jessie MacBeth or this Private Beauchamp. Both of these people told lies about "war crimes" they "witnessed" in Iraq and smeared everyone in uniform in so doing. Where is all your outrage about men like John Kerry, who lied about "war crimes" he "witnessed" while in Vietnam in front of the United States Senate himself and brought a bunch of fake soldiers, men who had never even been in uniform, to do the same?

 

Truth of the matter is that leftists like you don't give 2 s***s if American Troops get smeared in the media. You think we're all a bunch of baby killing, mercenary, war criminals anyway. All you're interested in is using the sacrifices we make to further your own leftist, anti-war agenda.

 

Do me a favor, save your fake sympathy for someone else. We don't want it.

[Texsox]

Congrats, you receive an A in spin today.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Wrong again.

He was referring to that anti-war activist who claimed he had participated in "war crimes" in Iraq when he had actually been in uniform for a few weeks and never set one foot in Iraq. Not to mention the fact that he defrauded the government out of thousands of dollars in VA benefits. This, of course, has been twisted out of context by leftists like you in a vain attempt to make the man look bad. This is nothing more than an attempted snow job by the leftist media "watchdog" Media Matters, who are basically throwing s*** up against a wall and seeing what sticks. 41 leftist Senators bought this nonsense hook, line, and sinker and now they look like fools for doing so.

 

If you're so f***ing worried about those who smear soldiers you should direct your comments to slime like this Jessie MacBeth or this Private Beauchamp. Both of these people told lies about "war crimes" they "witnessed" in Iraq and smeared everyone in uniform in so doing. Where is all your outrage about men like John Kerry, who lied about "war crimes" he "witnessed" while in Vietnam in front of the United States Senate himself and brought a bunch of fake soldiers, men who had never even been in uniform, to do the same?

 

Truth of the matter is that leftists like you don't give 2 s***s if American Troops get smeared in the media. You think we're all a bunch of baby killing, mercenary, war criminals anyway. All you're interested in is using the sacrifices we make to further your own leftist, anti-war agenda.

 

Do me a favor, save your fake sympathy for someone else. We don't want it.

Thanks for the personal attack there, Nuke. I'll be sure to let the mods know.

 

Who said I didn't condemn soldiers who lied? Wrong is wrong no matter who does it or says it. Just because some other guys did or said something wrong does not make what Rush said about soldiers from Vote Vets and other organizations that have become critics of the US handling of the situation of the war in Iraq. Rush acted like a jackoff and weaseled his way out of it. If you want sympathy then don't look towards listeners of Rush Limbaugh for support -- just go check out some of the mail they've sent off to representatives from Vote Vets and other veterans' organizations because they dared to claim that Rush's comments could be divisive towards soldiers who think the Iraq policy is a failure.

[NorthSideSox72]

Let's take this down a notch, lest we have to close the thread and/or do anything else ugly.

 

Nuke, I don't see anyone here saying anything negative whatsoever about you or any other soldiers fighting for our country in Iraq. I understand that being in a war zone, you will be particularly sensitive to some out there in the general public who are not so kind. I share your ire towards those folks. But please do not take it out on the posters here, who have done nothing but support you as a soldier.

 

Everyone else, please, let's remember these are talking heads trying to fire up their respective bases. Looks like it worked. Except everyone who has posted in this thread is smarter than that. Can we keep it clean from here on out please? If not, the thread will be closed and further action may be taken.

 

[Texsox]

I have never understood why waving a little flag and cheering as soldiers are sent into harm's way, no matter the reason, is supporting the troops while those that say, wait a minute, I don't think this is worth dying for, does not.

 

I support the Troops first from a perspective that all human life has value. If we are going to send our young men and women into harms way, it better be a damn good reason, and just because the President says so, isn't good reason. I understand that there are times that violence has to be met with violence and would support sending Troops in those cases. I'll even pick up a silly little flag and wave it if it will make the soldiers feel better. But when I think our soldiers are dying needlessly, I will support them by working to bring them home and out of harms way. Whether they want to stay and engage the enemy not. I guess there are plenty of parallels to the death penalty, the ACLU, and comparative human values.

 

And finally I treasure our freedom of speech and believe it should extend to soldiers. It's a shame when politicians and entertainers smear vets for profit and gain. Amazing the double standards out there. Where was Rush to defend Kerry?

[YASNY]

I have never understood why waving a little flag and cheering as soldiers are sent into harm's way, no matter the reason, is supporting the troops while those that say, wait a minute, I don't think this is worth dying for, does not.

 

I support the Troops first from a perspective that all human life has value. If we are going to send our young men and women into harms way, it better be a damn good reason, and just because the President says so, isn't good reason. I understand that there are times that violence has to be met with violence and would support sending Troops in those cases. I'll even pick up a silly little flag and wave it if it will make the soldiers feel better. But when I think our soldiers are dying needlessly, I will support them by working to bring them home and out of harms way. Whether they want to stay and engage the enemy not. I guess there are plenty of parallels to the death penalty, the ACLU, and comparative human values.

 

And finally I treasure our freedom of speech and believe it should extend to soldiers. It's a shame when politicians and entertainers smear vets for profit and gain. Amazing the double standards out there. Where was Rush to defend Kerry?

 

I agree with your basis here. But then again, Rush did call a spade a spade when he called this guy a phony soldier. Pointing out that someone is lying about witnessing war crimes is hardly the same as waving little flags. Whether or not they are dying needlessly, they don't need leftist assholes making up bulls*** and going to the media about them. And as for Kerry, he doesn't need Rush to defend him. He has Jane Fonda in his camp.

[Rex Kickass]

I agree with your basis here. But then again, Rush did call a spade a spade when he called this guy a phony soldier. Pointing out that someone is lying about witnessing war crimes is hardly the same as waving little flags. Whether or not they are dying needlessly, they don't need leftist assholes making up bulls*** and going to the media about them. And as for Kerry, he doesn't need Rush to defend him. He has Jane Fonda in his camp.

 

You're right. They don't need anyone making up bulls***. And for every made up story that you find from the left, you can find made up stories, ginned statistics, or complete and total spin on the right too.

 

Let's be honest. Rush Limbaugh meant more than that one person when he said phony soldiers. He meant any critic of the Iraq war who served. Your service doesn't matter to Rush if he can score a cheap point off you on the air. Because he's in the business of making entertainment, not getting people elected. And right now, that includes making fun of war protesters.

[Texsox]

My last comments were more in response to Nuke's post regarding leftists. And I did not mean to disparage all the lapel pin wearers out there. Using Kap for an example. He has examined "why" and come to the conclusion that we should be in for the long haul, that the troops are needed in Iraq today, tomorrow, and probably for a while. I respect his position and his waving (metaphorically) the flag is wonderful. However, someone who believes supporting the troops is never questioning why we are there, never questioning what is being done, never questioning the leadership, is rather hollow.

 

And, I'll point it out and save someone the typing. The opposite occurs on the other side when people decide the war is wrong without looking at why.

 

But the knee jerk reaction of anyone who is against the war is also against the soldiers is false. Perhaps Nuke's view of citizens is because Nuke's employer demands total loyalty and he has no choice but to follow orders. He has to believe in his mission to be effective. I believe once again it is the check and balance, the fact we have civilians who are free to protest, free to vote for candidates that are in line with our views that has kept us out of some unjust, immoral, unethical conflicts. It has also kept us out of some places we probably should have been, but that is a different thread.

 

By valuing our soldiers enough to say, this is not worth losing American lives, we support them far more than some flag waving rightly who is afraid to question, who finds it easier to stack body bags than question the government's actions.

[NorthSideSox72]

I get a good chuckle every time I hear the term "leftist". Its so absurd. I think I'll give up using the terms GOP or Republican, and go with Rightist.

 

[Texsox]

I get a good chuckle every time I hear the term "leftist". Its so absurd. I think I'll give up using the terms GOP or Republican, and go with Rightist.

 

It is funny. I especially find it funny coming from Nuke. I picture him yelling names and sticking his tongue out while in full gear.

[EvilMonkey]

Rush Limbaugh meant more than that one person when he said phony soldiers. He meant any critic of the Iraq war who served.

It is nice to know that you can read minds. What he meant can only truely be known by him, and since everyone who heard it took something different from him, your 'opinion' is just that. i took it as him meaning the soldiers who make crap up, of which there have been several. If things are so bad, why do they feel the need to make s*** up? They need mental help, because clearly they have a problem.

[EvilMonkey]

However, someone who believes supporting the troops is never questioning why we are there, never questioning what is being done, never questioning the leadership, is rather hollow.

Tex, it is not the questioning that is the problem. It is the methods of questioning that are sometimes used. Groups of protestors defacing a recruiting station and calling them murderers is not going about it the right way. And before you go off ono one of your extremes, I know not everyone does that. But like radical Islam, a very vocal and demonstrative minority gets all the headlines and causes the problems.

[Texsox]

[Rex Kickass]

It is nice to know that you can read minds. What he meant can only truely be known by him, and since everyone who heard it took something different from him, your 'opinion' is just that. i took it as him meaning the soldiers who make crap up, of which there have been several. If things are so bad, why do they feel the need to make s*** up? They need mental help, because clearly they have a problem.

 

Because he regularly insults Democrats who have served. He compared the guy who did the Vote Vets ad to a suicide bomber.

 

And I don't know why things are so bad that people feel the need to make s*** up. It's infuriating to me because it cheapens the argument. There are plenty of people who agree that things are so bad. But lying and hiding the truth isn't exclusive to either side either.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

My last comments were more in response to Nuke's post regarding leftists. And I did not mean to disparage all the lapel pin wearers out there. Using Kap for an example. He has examined "why" and come to the conclusion that we should be in for the long haul, that the troops are needed in Iraq today, tomorrow, and probably for a while. I respect his position and his waving (metaphorically) the flag is wonderful. However, someone who believes supporting the troops is never questioning why we are there, never questioning what is being done, never questioning the leadership, is rather hollow.

 

And, I'll point it out and save someone the typing. The opposite occurs on the other side when people decide the war is wrong without looking at why.

 

But the knee jerk reaction of anyone who is against the war is also against the soldiers is false. Perhaps Nuke's view of citizens is because Nuke's employer demands total loyalty and he has no choice but to follow orders. He has to believe in his mission to be effective. I believe once again it is the check and balance, the fact we have civilians who are free to protest, free to vote for candidates that are in line with our views that has kept us out of some unjust, immoral, unethical conflicts. It has also kept us out of some places we probably should have been, but that is a different thread.

 

By valuing our soldiers enough to say, this is not worth losing American lives, we support them far more than some flag waving rightly who is afraid to question, who finds it easier to stack body bags than question the government's actions.

 

 

One of the beautiful things of a volunteer Army is that people join of their own free will and if they don't agree with what we're doing they can opt to finish their time in service and walk away. I believe in the mission we're involved in over here as a whole, but I'm certainly critical of a lot of the way it's being executed.

 

Back on task here. I have a great deal of respect for those who have actually served over here that are opposed to the war. I would never disparage anyone who has served in combat that is anti-war as if anyone is entitled to their opinion about this matter, they are. The people that do bother me are all these militant anti-war people who have never set foot over here going around in the media claiming that they speak for us. Organizations like this move on.org and the like who say they are looking out for us with their views, then turn around and try to smear Gen Petraeus in the media are what I'm talking about. They, and those who are that far on the left are cut from the same cloth as those who spent the 60's and 70's spitting on returning Vietnam Vets and calling them baby killers. The only reason these 2 faced bastardsr claim to be looking out for our welfare is that these days its fashionable to support the troops.