On Rush Limbaugh’s “phony soldiers” quip

We all know Rush is a big fat idiot. See this amazing and heartbreaking post if you need further confirmation. In fact, even if you don’t, read it anyway. Devastating.

______________

Richard Burger is the author of Behind the Red Door: Sex in China, an exploration of China's sexual revolution and its clash with traditional Chinese values.

The Discussion: 29 Comments

Rush Limbaugh was refering to 1 Phony Soldier. That is all!!! Anyone who says anything different did not listen to his show.

September 30, 2007 @ 2:17 pm | Comment

This is a fake controversy designed to distract from serious consideration of the larger issues, and you are buying into his agenda by discussing this.

September 30, 2007 @ 2:47 pm | Comment

One phony soldier – maybe. One general who betrayed us by distorting the truth. In the case of the general it’s a sin for the media to criticize him – we are traitors and are apitting on the troops. Realy, that’s what they say. Call a soldier phony because he doesn’t support this depraved war and that’s perfectly fine. Anyway, did you read the guy’s post? Forget about Limbaugh if you want, just read it to see what our soldiers are going through – soldiers who meet Rush’s criterion for being phony.

September 30, 2007 @ 5:48 pm | Comment

Well, I’d remind you that it’s your precious Democrat-controlled senate, not right-wing loonies, that condemned the Moveon.org ad.

Yes, I read the article. The article frames the discussion in terms of “support the troops”. Oh, how brave they are. Look, one guy got his leg shot off,and he’s reenlisting. What selfless brave soldiers. Here’s a guy digging a grave while Iraqis stand around smoking cigarettes. And his buddies are dying all around him.
This is crude agitprop, nothing more. The guy’s in the military, you can be sure they vetted this post.

Framing the discussion in that manner has the effect of closing serious discussion of what the hell these people are doing in Iraq in the first place. And that’s probably what Rush wants.

September 30, 2007 @ 9:35 pm | Comment

another liberal blog designed with false information. Its sad how liars start believing their own lies after awhile

September 30, 2007 @ 9:38 pm | Comment

Before you anti war liberals condem Rush for his statements maybe you should actually go to his website and READ what he actually said in its full context. After that, maybe you will not drink the left’s kool-aid so quickly!

September 30, 2007 @ 10:28 pm | Comment

Wow, my site is flypaper for nutters! I heard what Rush said. We have come to different conclusions, apparently. But I sure know whenever a “liberal” says anything at all that you can pounce on, or if a “liberal” even wears a head scarf at a Muslim holy site, you guys come out roaring with rage, foaming at the mouth, both fists swinging. Now, two wrongs don’t make a right (though in this case, of course, I’m not wrong at all), but it’s kind of fun to see that as the Dems start to learn from the Rethugs how to get their messages out (an area where the Dems have been pitifully ineffective until recently) the right throws a tantrum Hey, its a sign of respect; they’re simply adopting your own tactics, though at least the messages they are pumping out are true, sincere, noble and right. Or at least they are a lot less slimy than the likes of O’Reilly and Malkin & Co.

September 30, 2007 @ 10:54 pm | Comment

Rush Limbaugh was refering to 1 Phony Soldier. That is all!!! Anyone who says anything different did not listen to his show.

LOL. It’s fascinating, after so many years of Rush’s lies, that anyone still thinks this spin is the truth.

Michael

September 30, 2007 @ 11:50 pm | Comment

I’m not familiar with US politics. But Richard my friend you must have done something right; it seems the pro-war neocon faction has bookmarked your blog for defensive assault. You should take that as a compliment.

I have a question for those Rush fans who are stomping their feet in defiance here: did you actually read the blog that Richard links to? Don’t you think that a frontline soldier has a right to call Rush a hypocrite, regardless of which anti-war veteran Rush had insulted? A better option for a chickenhawk, as always, is to shut the f–k up, don’t you agree?

October 1, 2007 @ 12:24 am | Comment

The commie duck eh… this defines you liberals perfectly… Rush is right! Thats why he is where he is and you are where you are. lol If you believe half your lies, no wonder you are doomed to repeat your same B.S. every time. LOOOOOOOOOSERS!! LOOOOOOOOOOSERS!!
Better go to the charmin and ask for your astrological reading!

October 1, 2007 @ 4:11 am | Comment

Personally, I have no respect for a big fat gringo who have to fly to Dominican Republic to get laid i.e. Rush Limbaugh. Even worse, Rush Limbaugh is a conservative preaching family value? He is not only an idiot, he is evil!!Curious? Search cat69 in google :) . Trust me evil (since I have been called that and neocon before) knows evil the most.

October 1, 2007 @ 4:48 am | Comment

I shake my head in wonder at Rush’s Dittohead defenders.

The Army of Dude post is great.

October 1, 2007 @ 10:38 am | Comment

Funny words comming from a three time divorced, drug addicted, fat, stupid, draft dodging coward. I rather be liberal who stayed married to the same woman for 28 years, isn’t a drug freak, served his country for four years in the military, than that half wit you chump ditto heads worship. By the way you big mouth chickens, line up, sign up, or shut up. With such a brave bunch of big mouths like you, how is that we are short of troops. That’s what I thought, you yellow elephant cowards. You talk big as long as it isn’t your fat yellow asses on the line. Once Fat Ass Limbaugh serves a day in the service then he has earned the right to call another soldier a phoney. He hid like a little bitch. Live it with it you so called CONservatives.

October 1, 2007 @ 10:57 am | Comment

Funny words comming from a three time divorced, drug addicted, fat, stupid, draft dodging coward. I rather be liberal who stayed married to the same woman for 28 years, isn’t a drug freak, served his country for four years in the military, than that half wit you chump ditto heads worship. By the way you big mouth chickens, line up, sign up, or shut up. With such a brave bunch of big mouths like you, how is that we are short of troops. That’s what I thought, you yellow elephant cowards. You talk big as long as it isn’t your fat yellow asses on the line. Once Fat Ass Limbaugh serves a day in the service then he has earned the right to call another soldier a phoney. He hid like a little bitch. Live it with it you so called CONservatives.

October 1, 2007 @ 10:58 am | Comment

Excuse me? where was it again that commando rush served?

October 1, 2007 @ 11:32 am | Comment

Rush Limbaugh is Larry Craigs Bitch.

October 1, 2007 @ 11:36 am | Comment

Thanks Fat Cat, thanks Lisa. Limbaugh has proved his badness many, many times (remember the Michael J. Fox imitation?). Scandalous, that the nutters still will defend his every word.

October 1, 2007 @ 1:20 pm | Comment

Well, I at least found some satisfaction in Friedman’s column in the NYTimes today:
“Give me your tired, your poor and your fingerprints.”

October 1, 2007 @ 2:54 pm | Comment

Richard, Your distortions of conservative viewpoints just make you look silly. Why don’t you stick to your blog’s supposed purpose?

October 1, 2007 @ 2:57 pm | Comment

“Conservative viewpoints”? Whose conservative viewpoints are you referring to? GWB’s viewpoint or Ron Paul’s? What makes you think that Rush Limbaugh represents “Conservative viewpoints”? Are you sure that Thomas Fleming and Paul Gottfried will agree with you?

If you are honest, you’ll admit that even those who call themselves “conservatives” in the US can’t agree on what “conservative viewpoints” represent. So who are you kidding when you accuse Richard of distorting conservative viewpoints? Is there such a thing as “conservative viewpoints” to distort?

October 1, 2007 @ 3:35 pm | Comment

If there’s anyone “distorting” here, it’s Limbaugh, who edited his own transcripts of the incident and uses a follow-up show to “prove” he didn’t mean to impugn American soldiers who don’t agree with this war.

The cognitive dissonance necessary to continue supporting this flaming Nazi gasbag is astounding.

October 1, 2007 @ 4:36 pm | Comment

I’ll leave it with Fat Cat’s response to the claim that Richard ‘distorts’ “conservative viewpoints.” As to his “blog’s supposed purpose”, I’ve been an avid visitor for, what, four or five years and this is the kind of entry that typifies this site, as the recent attack by Malkin supporters attests to. ‘Truth speaking to power’- isn’t that its ultimate purpose?

October 2, 2007 @ 10:28 am | Comment

Thanks Keir. Not that they’ll listen….

October 2, 2007 @ 1:15 pm | Comment

The guy Rush was talking about claimed to be an Army Ranger, but actually washed out of basic training. By “phony soldier,” Rush persumably meant someone who lies about their military record. (This is my first attempt to post to a banned site from inside China, so I hope it comes through.)

October 5, 2007 @ 9:53 am | Comment

No, Peter, I am afraid you’re incorrect. RL censored his own transcripts to make it look that way and also played a later episode of his show. If you read the full transcript, it’s obvious that he refers to soldiers who are against the war.

His latest is calling a wounded combat vet the equivalent of a suicide bomber.

October 6, 2007 @ 9:27 am | Comment

The only phony person is himself!

October 9, 2007 @ 12:59 am | Comment

Whatever way you spin it, the audio is there if you want to hear it:

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.

He was NOT talking about McBeth or whoever, he was talking about the dissenters, the votevets.org, the soldiers who wrote the op-ed in the NYT, 3 of which were dead already at the time of his disgusting remarks.
Keep sticking out for this pig if you wish.

October 9, 2007 @ 4:01 am | Comment

中华肿瘤网

October 9, 2007 @ 12:34 pm | Comment

[url=http://www.aizhengw.com/aizheng/zhongliu/291723.htm]肺癌[/url][url=http://www.aizhengw.com/aizheng/zhongliu/291522.htm]胃癌[/url][url=http://www.aizhengw.com/aizheng/zhongliu/291714.htm]肝癌[/url][url=http://www.aizhengw.com/aizheng/zhongliu/281617.htm]食道癌[/url][url=http://www.aizhengw.com/aizheng/zhongliu/291553.htm]直肠癌[/url][url=http://www.aizhengw.com/aizheng/zhongliu/291707.htm]结肠癌[/url][url=http://www.aizhengw.com/aizheng/zhongliu/291824.htm]乳腺癌[/url][url=http://www.aizhengw.com/aizheng/zhongliu/291835.htm]宫颈癌[/url][url=http://www.aizhengw.com/aizheng/zhongliu/012053.htm]贲门癌[/url][url=http://www.aizhengw.com/aizheng/zhongliu/291955.htm]皮肤癌[/url][url=http://www.aizhengw.com/aizheng/zhongliu/011718.htm]胰腺癌[/url][url=http://www.aizhengw.com/aizheng/zhongliu/291839.htm]甲状腺癌[/url][url=http://www.aizhengw.com/aizheng/zhongliu/291937.htm]前列腺癌[/url][url=http://www.aizhengw.com/aizheng/zhongliu/291833.htm]鼻咽癌[/url][url=http://www.aizhengw.com/aizheng/zhongliu/291837.htm]脑瘤[/url][url=http://www.aizhengw.com/aizheng/zhongliu/012045.htm]卵巢癌[/url]

October 9, 2007 @ 5:47 pm | Comment

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.