The whole Rush Limbaugh debacle Options

[Hartmann]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/03/washingt...;ref=washington

The broadcaster has accused critics of distorting remarks he made last Wednesday when a caller said the news media liked to focus on antiwar views raised by soldiers. Mr. Limbaugh then said, to the caller’s approval: “The phony soldiers.”

After the liberal media watchdog organization Media Matters sounded the alarm about his comments, Mr. Limbaugh said on subsequent shows that he was talking about only one discredited man who claimed to be a wounded veteran. “I was not talking about antiwar, active duty troops,” he insisted.

Yet analysts for Media Matters noted that Mr. Limbaugh’s first reference to the discredited man came nearly two minutes after his plural reference to phony soldiers. That group and like-minded Democrats have refused to back off. More than 40 Democratic senators signed a letter sent Tuesday to the company that syndicates the radio show, asking that Mr. Limbaugh’s remarks be repudiated.

Now, I've listened to the segment in question and don't see the problem. Media Matters is mad that it took him 1.15 minutes to clarify his point? Hell, Dan Rather still hasn't admitted that what he did was wrong.

What really gets me is Harry Reid and a few other senators ganging up saying that Rush is an idiot and a liar (which in this case is completely wrong). Rush didn't lie at all, he simply took a minute to completely explain his point and make a reference to the person in question. There were no lies or misspeaking.

I am not a huge Rush fan but I think this is being blown out of proportion and a deliberate attempt to continue the General Betray Us campaign.

[theIncredibleEdi...]

Rush is an idiot...he needs to take some more oxycontin and die already.

And yes, this is a weak attempt by the Democrats to do what the Republicans did with the MoveOn.org ad.

[Hartmann]

And yes, this is a weak attempt by the Democrats to do what the Republicans did with the MoveOn.org ad.

?

I don't understand what the Republicans did? The Republicans simply pointed out that it was unfair to attack General Petraeus since he could not adequately defend himself being active military. The Betray Us ad was stupid and a lie. What Rush said was not stupid and was not a lie, so how are the two comparable?

[theIncredibleEdi...]

?

I don't understand what the Republicans did? The Republicans simply pointed out that it was unfair to attack General Petraeus since he could not adequately defend himself being active military. The Betray Us ad was stupid and a lie. What Rush said was not stupid and was not a lie, so how are the two comparable?

The republicans used the Moveon.org ad as a stalling tactic instead of focusing on REAL issues. They didnt just address it and move on, they focused on it for an absurd amount of time. And they're just mad that anyone would challenge a military figure. MoveOn views Petraeus as someone who is doing the Bush administration's bidding. And in all honesty, I think if he wasn't bending to their will to some dergree, they would just replace him with someone else who would.

And I have listened to Limbaugh...I maintain my stance that he is an idiot.

[Hartmann]

The republicans used the Moveon.org ad as a stalling tactic instead of focusing on REAL issues. They didnt just address it and move on, they focused on it for an absurd amount of time. And they're just mad that anyone would challenge a military figure. MoveOn views Petraeus as someone who is doing the Bush administration's bidding. And in all honesty, I think if he wasn't bending to their will to some dergree, they would just replace him with someone else who would.

And I have listened to Limbaugh...I maintain my stance that he is an idiot.

Actually, the news media made it a big deal, not the Republicans. Some Republican congressmen came forward and said that it was reprehensible but that was about it.

If you think Petraeus is just doing the bidding of the administration then I think you need to reanalyze his testimony. He flat out said, we are making progress but it is not the greatest progress we have seen. Challenging a military figure is one thing (think the challenging going on during Vietnam, it got us nowhere), but this was an attack on character, not on fact. There is a difference.

There was a senator (can't think of the name) that made a statement as far as Rush is concerned that was something to the effect of "Guess he's back on drugs", which is a statement based on fact but with nothing to back it up. If I was a prominent figure in the public's eye and said something about O'bama (someone who admitted to using drugs) that was similar to what that senator said, people would have a fit.

This is the real issue, the democrats would rather attack the character of someone rather than the actual issue at hand. They would rather call Petraeus a traitor than to actually look at his history and his report and come out with a detailed summary of problems they see with it.