Dumping Rush: Why it IS the right thing to do, and not a 1st amendment issue
Submitted by kaflinn on October 9, 2007 - 1:23am.
censorship | first amendment issues | Freedom of Speech | Rush Limbaugh | Call to Action | Civil Liberties | Current Events | Democratic politics | Human Rights | Iran | Iraq | Middle East | National Security | Veterans & Military | Wesley Clark
Over the past week or so, I've run into a number of people very upset about Wes' campaign to get Rush Limbaugh dumped from Armed Forces Radio. Most are Clark supporters, and most are upset enough about this to consider no longer supporting Wes because of it. I've probably had this debate with about 20 people so far, and there is a common, understandable, theme. Their objection to this campaign is that, however much they detest Limbaugh and what he's doing, going to Congress to have him removed amounts to a breech of Limbaugh's first amendment rights/freedom of the press and censorship. So, it seemed like a good idea to write a blog about this, and try to add some points unique to this particular issue because it involves members of the armed forces and Armed Forces Radio Service, that many who are upset about this may not be taking into consideration. Here goes...
Actually, firing Rush Limbaugh (no matter who does it) violates neither his first amendment, nor does it constitute censorship, because he's isn't protected by that when he commits libel and defamation. Calling members of the armed services "phony soldiers" because they disagree with him constitutes libel and defamation. I'm also not too sure one can be a victim of censorship for being removed from one, of many, networks, in part, for openly censoring members of his audience on the network removing him. That would be a little like saying convicting me of murder is a violation of my first amendment rights. I was engaging in my right to freedom of expression when I went on my killing spree.(ok - yeah, that's a little extremem, but you get the idea.)
As I read, and re-read Wes' emails asking us to send a letter to Congress to ask them to remove Limbaugh, this is how I interpret what he's asking, what he wants, and perhaps why he wants it and why he's the one spearheading it. This is my opinion/interpretation, of course. So, Wes? If i'm wrong on any of this - jump in and correct it please!
I can't see where Wes is advocating Limbaugh be removed from the airwaves, unilateraly. He's advocating he be fired (removed) - as one of the two conservative radio talk show hosts broadcast as representative of the conservative part of the American population. Sean Hannity is the other. There are also two liberal radio talk show hosts who are broadcast as counterpoints: Ed Schultz and Alan Colmes.
The idea behind airing two conservative and two liberal political talk radio shows is, obviously, to give service members and their families as balanced a 'touch of home' as possible, in that particular arena.
However, when talk radio moves from open debate between a show's host and its callers, to a host doing little more than spouting his specific viewpoint, then berating, insulting and libeling anyone who disagrees with his viewpoint in any degree, then that host no longer fulfills the purpose for which he/she was chosen to be broadcast and should be replaced by someone who does.
Wes isn't asking Congress to stifle free speech, quite the contrary - he's asking them to remove a host who stifle's free speech under the guise of patriotism, and insults and disrespects the very people whose morale he's supposed to help lift.
Below are a couple of quotes from the FAQ's of AFN, and the History:
1. Q: Why does AFN air political-talk radio programs? 2. History: On May 26, 1942, the War Department officially established AFRS with the mission of providing programming, shortwave service and broadcast equipment for U.S. military locations overseas. AFRS was to give servicemembers a "touch of home" and combat "Axis Sally and Tokyo Rose."
Now, granted, as stated above, the AFN makes their choices based on popularity. So, yes, it would be great if his popularity could be reduced to the point he lost his show but that's unlikely to happen if the measurement is how popular he is throughout the US, versus throughout the military and foreign service.
Limbaugh has crossed a major line by calling soldiers, whether active or veteran, "phony" for disagreeing with him primarily. But, he crossed an even bigger line by calling anyone "phony soldier" who has served, and/or are now serving during wartime. For someone who has never served in the Armed Forces, and who weilds the political clout he does, to be allowed to consider himself the arbiter of what makes a soldier "real" or "phoney" is the height of insult to anyone who serves or has served, and their loved ones.
Allowing Limbaugh to call service members "phony" is little different than allowing him to call them cowards. And that's exactly what he's doing. Which brings up point 2. above - one of the primary reasons for the creation of the AFRS (Armed Forces Radio Service), which was to do all possible to counteract the demoralizing influences of Tokyo Rose and Axis Sally. It was to rebuild the morale of troops far from home, not to insult them and call them phony or fake or cowardly if they dared to question or even disagree with the reasons they were fighting.
No one has a greater right to voice dissent than those charged with protecting that right with their very lives - and especially when they already must take care in how they voice that dissent. However, those on active duty are not afforded the same rights they protect and defend for the rest of us. Active duty personel can't openly voice disagreement to their Commander in Chief, "(attack) the war aims of the United States", etc (see Article 134 - Disloyal Statements of the UCMJ. and I might be quoting the wrong article, so if Fred or Jai are reading this hopefully they'll post the correct article.) - to do so can be a court-martialable offense.
So - how do active duty personel get redress for Limbaugh's statements? They can't exactly call in to the show, announce their name and rank, tell Rush they are on active duty in Iraq or Afghanistan, then tell him they think we need to start leaving Iraq, and that he's an asshole for calling them 'phony soldiers" for believing we should start leaving. We civilians can do that. But soldiers can't.
How can active dudty personel even petition to have him removed for what he's saying, without possibly being labeled as openly dissenting the war aims of the U.S.? It's a real tightrope, and falling off it costs people their careers and possibly their freedom for a while.
What about getting a lot of retired military and vets to lobby the DoD to have him removed? Ok - that might work, but there probably aren't enough to make it happen.
What if we civilians lobby the DoD? Probably won't work. The DoD is subject to Civilian Authority - that's big "C", big "A", as in Congress and the President, not little "c" as in us. So for us to exert our will on the DoD, we must first exert it on our Congress members to do the right thing, and get them to tell the DoD to fire Rush. Probably this would be in the form of a congressional resolution, probably non-binding but with enough pressure to get the job done. It is not the same as passing a law to remove Rush from the air. It's firing him for failing to perform the primamry function of his job, as it applies to AFRS - provide a 'touch of home' as a means to inform and lift morale, and for libeling and defaming members of the Armed Forces.
Wes isn't asking Congress to remove Limbaugh's right to free speech - he is heard on thousands of radio stations across the planet and has every right to his opinion. But he does not have the right to libel anyone for any reason, least of all because they might dare disagree with him. For that, he should be fired, and Wes is right to ask that, and we are right to help him ask that.
I don't think it would be at all difficult to make a case for defamation, but I'm not an attorney.
"Our public servants work for us - we don't work for them. We have an obligation, as citizens of this country, to always remember that - and to never let them forget it." - DeadMessengers
Definition provides: 'about another person, which causes that person to suffer harm.'
There are debates about whether or not he referred to 'another person,' so a finding of YES on that is questionable; 'harm' might be embarrasment, but probably nothing demonstrably concrete, like lost job.
Since Wes' concern relates to effect on entire world of soldiers, I think, its not relevant for his purpose, I suspect, to discuss the one 'person.'
There are probably other problems with it, 'legally,' but I haven't checked.
PS, I am a lawyer, but please don't hold it against me. What I've done here is off the top of my head.
the definition I linked from Nolo is:
defamation
A false statement that injures someone's reputation and exposes him to public contempt, hatred, ridicule, or condemnation. If the false statement is published in print or through broadcast media, such as radio or TV, it is called libel. If it is only spoken, it is called slander.
"Our public servants work for us - we don't work for them. We have an obligation, as citizens of this country, to always remember that - and to never let them forget it." - DeadMessengers
The right to free speech does not mean that the Constitution protects every MANNER of experssion. You can express any idea, but you cannot express it however you choose.
That is the crux of the matter with me. Rush can say that people who are opposed to the war are wrong. He can say that those people are helping undermine the mission and therefore helping the enemy. But he cannot call them names and slime their person-hoods, especially on the taxpayer's dollar.
Finally, the taxpayers, through Congress, has a right to demand certain standards of decorum. The UCMJ allows for punishment for "conduct unbecoming an officer." There should be a similar punishment for "conduct unbecoming an entertainer."
Just my two cents. Great blog, Kelly.
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark -- Don't settle for less.
Make America All It Can Be!
Deadmessengers.com, but not sure if I should at Kos. Any thoughts on that??
"Our public servants work for us - we don't work for them. We have an obligation, as citizens of this country, to always remember that - and to never let them forget it." - DeadMessengers
I know that answer, actually. Armadillos have nothing on your ability to take it!
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark -- Don't settle for less.
Make America All It Can Be!
Do I or don't I cross post this at Kos? Show a yes vote by rating this comment 4 stars. No votes get no rating at all (don't ding me, lol)
"Our public servants work for us - we don't work for them. We have an obligation, as citizens of this country, to always remember that - and to never let them forget it." - DeadMessengers
but I wouldn't bother taking it to KOs. As Stan asked, how thick is your skin?
I'll read it now with the view that you'll be 'representing' Wes' interest before a bunch of folks. Clarkies? OH MY!
OT- DEFAMATION includes both libel and slander. Libel is in written form, slander is spoken.
"Rush can say that people who are opposed to the war are wrong. He can say that those people are helping undermine the mission and therefore helping the enemy.
Actually, he can't. At least, he can't state it in the way you wrote above, and necessarily win if challenged.
This is where use of language can save one or hang one. Rush can say he thinks people who are opposed to the war are wrong. He can say he thinks that those people are helping undermine the mission and therefore helping the enemy. The moment he uses the word "thinks" or "believes" then it's his opinion and he's off the hook and covered by the 1st amendment.
What he can't do is make those comments as declarative statements - unless he can back them up with evidence - because that implies he know what he's saying is fact and he is imparting those facts to his audience.
The moment he declared soldiers who want to end the war were "phony soldiers", he screwed himself. It's a declarative statement implying fact - not an opinion.
Opinion is covered by the 1st amendment/Freedom of the Press. Everyone has the right to have what some might consider stupid, moronic, revolting, uncouth, slimey, fill-in-the-blank-here opinions. But when one makes declarative statements against another that are false and broadcasts those statements across the airwaves, it's libel and possibly defamation too.
"Our public servants work for us - we don't work for them. We have an obligation, as citizens of this country, to always remember that - and to never let them forget it." - DeadMessengers
eom
"Our public servants work for us - we don't work for them. We have an obligation, as citizens of this country, to always remember that - and to never let them forget it." - DeadMessengers
If you gave me a test and asked me to identify the parts of speech, I'd likely fail.
But I'm pretty fair at usage, lol.
"Our public servants work for us - we don't work for them. We have an obligation, as citizens of this country, to always remember that - and to never let them forget it." - DeadMessengers
oh, I was just playing Gracie...
not that I don't feel you have the capability,
that was a very good think post...just that I can't begin to imagine
;)
What would you do...for a Klondike Bar?
Gee...I thought I was you and you were I. Shows what I know!
I HAVE enjoyed the discussions on the nuances in the legal definitions of defamation, libel, and slander.
I realized some time ago that the practice of law is realy an exercise in crafting and using precise, clear, and unambiguous language, and to that extent, it's right down my alley.
The Grammar Snob
delete 'allow' him to say blah blah; sounds heavy-handed/punitive to me.
A couple little edits>
'Wes isn't asking Congress to remove Limbaugh's right to free speech - he is heard on thousands of radio stations across the planet and has every right to his opinion.
But he does not have the right to defame anyone for any reason, least of all because they might dare disagree with him. For that, he should simply not be permitted to appear on AFR. Wes is right to ask that, and we are right to help him ask that.'
Because numerous people are giving you a hard time, I'd like to see a paragraph or 2 distinguishing defamation from first amendment. I'm tired now, so will sleep on it.
THANKS for your hard work!
On the distinction part...I think I linked them, if you click the first three links in the post, it should bring them up.
Ist Amendment/Freedom of the Press:
Main article: Freedom of the press
Freedom of the press, like freedom of speech, is subject to restrictions on bases such as defamation law. Restrictions, however, have been struck down if they are aimed at the political message or content of newspapers.
In Branzburg v. Hayes (1972), the Court placed limits on the ability of the Press to refuse a subpoena from a Grand Jury based on claims of Freedom of the Press. The issue decided in the case was whether a reporter could refuse to "appear and testify before state and Federal grand juries" basing the refusal on the contention that such appearance and testimony "abridges the freedom of speech and press guaranteed by the First Amendment." The 5-4 decision was that such a protection was not provided by the First Amendment.
Defamation
A false statement that injures someone's reputation and exposes him to public contempt, hatred, ridicule, or condemnation. If the false statement is published in print or through broadcast media, such as radio or TV, it is called libel. If it is only spoken, it is called slander.
See Topic: Rights & Disputes
http://www.nolo.com/definition.cfm/term/E0563767-C3CE-42B0-90107F29AF588A6C
"Our public servants work for us - we don't work for them. We have an obligation, as citizens of this country, to always remember that - and to never let them forget it." - DeadMessengers
That's why I 'slept on it!'
I see your links; glad to see you found Branzburg.
I'm gonna work on a paragraph that says simply and clearly something like, 'I think defamation of character is not an issue here; if it were, the person he defamed could sue Rush for damages for the harm he did to his/her reputation, and its value.
'As to Rush's first amendment rights, bla bla bla.'
Later! Thanks!
Rush Limbaugh's trash and hate speech is the equivalent of political pornography in my opinion which should be regulated by law, especially the quote about "phony soldiers" which went way over the line:
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/12727
Phony Soldier?
Submitted by Wes Clark on September 28, 2007 - 11:11am.
Pornography is legal and is protected under free speech BUT it is heavily restricted under the law due to being very inappropriate for certain audiences!
The same is also true about people like Howard Stern who are on pay television now because they cannot survive on regular television without getting heavily fined and getting into legal trouble!
I would also apply that same principle to the language and sex scenes that can be seen on certain pay cable channels such as HBO, Cinemax, and Showtime BUT cannot be shown on regular television channels due to that it is considered inappropriate for certain audiences!
Please look at this link to see what Keith Olbermann quoted about Rush Limbaugh:
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/11762
Keith Olbermann asks good questions about Imus leading to the Fairness Doctrine!
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on April 13, 2007 - 4:35pm.
Here is even more documentation in addition to what Keith Olbermann gave about Rush Limbaugh and the racist/insulting comments that he made to people which definitely parallels Imus, pornography, and inappropriate language in my opinion:
1) Rush Limbaugh has a parody song about Obama titled "Barack the Magic Negro" which has the same tune as Puff the Magic Dragon and is very insulting to Obama in my opinion:
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/today.guest.html 2) Rush Limbaugh has audio parodies of Obama comparing him to Osama Bin Laden and mocking his ears: Parody Song: Kennedy Sings Obama Osama 3) Rush Limbaugh calls Obama "Barack Hussein Odumbo" and mocks his ears: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_121406/content/truth_detector.guest.html December 14, 2006 BEGIN TRANSCRIPT 4) Rush Limbaugh makes fun of Sen. Mary Landrieu's appearance by calling her Mary "Baby Fat" Landrieu: September 14, 2006 RUSH: "So here is Senator Mary "Baby Fat" Landrieu, ranting on the Senate floor that she's tired of "boneheaded" Republicans. Rush Limbaugh is such a fool and he has made so many stupid comments at least as bad as if not worse than what Imus did such as "phony soldiers" (which he is NOT the least bit sorry about) that Democrats in my opinion should be able to capitalize on, nationalize, and use Limbaugh's comments against any Neocon GOP candidates who Limbaugh is carrying water for: http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/9373 How Democrats (especially Jim Webb) can use Rush Limbaugh to their advantage! Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on November 1, 2006 - 9:12am. Rush Limbaugh in my opinion should be as radioactive to GOP candidates who he is supporting as Imus was to MSNBC and CBS before he was fired! Limbaugh is entitled to his views (just like how Howard Stern and Imus are) BUT many of the things that he is saying are NOT appropriate for ALL audiences just like how pornography, foul language, and racist comments are not appropriate for all audiences and are legally restricted! Channels that you have to pay for like what Howard Stern is on is where Limbaugh belongs for clearly going over the line, NOT on the public airwaves such as with Armed Forces Radio that tax payers are paying for. Tax payers should no more have to pay for Rush Limbaugh than they should have to pay for Howard Stern in my opinion! That is how I personally view Rush Limbaugh, free speech, and The Fairness Doctrine!
Illustrating Absurdity...
Rev. Sharpton Sings: 
"Barack the Magic Negro (That's What the LA Times Called Him)"
• The Perot Big Ear Institute
Dems Still Squealing Like Stuck Pigs
LANDRIEU: America is tired of the wrong-headed and boneheaded leadership of the Republican Party that has sent six-and-a-half-billion dollars a month to Iraq, where the front line was Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia, that led this country to attack Saddam Hussein when we were attacked by Osama bin Laden..."
& political speech are two slightly different animals. In my view, Rush's show is purely commercial speech. Entertainment, not "news. Comedy/(tragedy) that can be found anywhere (sadly) on the dial. The issue is why we are subsidizing Rush & his corporate ilk, again. And giving them a captive audience.
They are unfortunately guests on taxpayer paid & funded Armed Forces Radio, and they are politicizing the military & creating harm. No one is advocating that Rush be taken off the air, just off the dole.
As well since Rush is purposefully peddling swill & since the rightwing radio shock jocks coordinate their activities with the White House & have had special meetings with the President, that giving them full & free access to Armed Forces taxpayer airwaves, which have a specific mandate, is violating the mandate of Armed Forces Radio. f they are allowed on Armed Forces radio, they should pay for their time like any other advertiser, not have billions of dollars worth of radio airtime meekly handed over.
To me the "free speech" issue is completely off the point. The issue is corporate welfare. Think of the many propaganda scandals that have been subsumed in the many crimes large & small of the Bushies- the columnists who were paid to write this or that, etc.
This issue is up there with Sinclair & rewriting the history of 911, etc.
I don't think that that logic holds up, BlueMoon. Using that logic would keep almost everything off the AFRS, including Alan Colmes and Ed Schultz. Most of the programming on AFRS comes from commercial radio.
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark -- Don't settle for less.
Make America All It Can Be!
If the answer is to take all commerical programming off AFRS, so be it. There is no defense running that kind of swill for free & giving the other side billions of dollars worth of opinion-influencing & opinion-shaping influence.
I don't think taxpayer funded armed forces radio should be Clear Channel's bitch. And I think the first rule of selecting programming allowed to be channeled into our military would be first do no harm. Why should we be subsidizing this again?
Wes was instrumental in getting Ed Schultz on- is he still on? I thought I heard he wasn't but he may still be.
Colmes is absolutely dismissable in terms of parity unfortunately as well his being brought to them courtesy of Fox. We're talking about a huge radio monopoly, Clear Channel & this has more to do with media consolodation than a free speech issue- and certainly an aggressive parasite feeding on the marketplace of ideas, weakening it.
"Pitchfork" Pat Buchanan had a lot of interesting things to say about building this rightwing infrastructure in the movie about Ralph Nader's life- An Unreasonable Man- it is very purposefully constructed. When we met in Little Rock for the National Clark Meet Up this was one of the topics covered in a conference call with George Lakoff if I'm not mistaken.
And "PR" is one of the biggest industries in the world, except that we don't think of it quite correctly & therefore sometimes we fail to perceive it.
The question is has this type of commercial programming outlived its usefulness on AFRS with the availability of new technologies? Is it even remotely serving the purpose for which it was intended & set aside- or has it been co-opted by hatewing radio & commerical speech (of whatever flavor, it doesn't matter)?
If it's commercial, they should pay to play just like any other advertiser. In this instance they are selling a point of view. They are selling a product. They sold us a shitty war. They're selling the very people they preach to down the river with glee as they do so. They meet with the President. This is public information. This IS demonstrably propaganda.
Here's an interesting book - The Braindead Megaphone the guest was on Colbert last night, but I can't locate video of it unfortunately, but depending on where you are you may even catch a re-run today -worth doing if your schedule allows
he is specifically considered, and advertised on AFRS as, one of two political talk show hosts representing the conservative American viewpoint.
"Our public servants work for us - we don't work for them. We have an obligation, as citizens of this country, to always remember that - and to never let them forget it." - DeadMessengers
Commercial Speech is an expression related solely to the economic interest of the speaker and the speaker's audience. It comes from U.S. Supreme Court rulings in the United States. An easier way to define commercial speech is as follows: "Commercial Speech" is speech done on behalf of a company or individual for the intent of making a profit. It is economic in nature and usually has the intent of convincing the audience to partake in a particular action, often purchasing a specific product.
The idea of "Commercial Speech" was first introduced by the Supreme Court when it upheld Valentine v. Chrestensen (1942). In upholding the regulation, the Supreme Court said, "We are … clear that the Constitution imposes … no restraint on government as respects purely commercial advertising."
In a 1978 decision, Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Ass'n, the Court offered this defense:
We have not discarded the "common-sense" distinction between speech proposing a commercial transaction, which occurs in an area traditionally subject to government regulation, and other varieties of speech. To require a parity of constitutional protection for commercial and noncommercial speech alike could invite dilution, simply by a leveling process, of the force of the Amendment's guarantee with respect to the latter kind of speech. Rather than subject the First Amendment to such a devitalization, we instead have afforded commercial speech a limited measure of protection, commensurate with its subordinate position in the scale of First Amendment values, while allowing modes of regulation that might be impermissible in the realm of noncommercial expression.
There's more at the top link
--------
What I am trying to say is that Rush Limbaugh's show is as a whole, literally, a commercial. I mean this quite literally. Here, this explains it wonderfully.
I now understand what you meant, but I have to disagree. granted - it's been a long time since I've listened to a full Rush Limbaugh radio show, and even then it was only under duress, but what he says on his shows doesn't constitute commercial speech.
Commercial speech has long been held to be devoid of opinion. It's advertising speech to sell a product/program/idea/commodity for a price in real dollars - not theoretical ones. The main reason it was not protected for so long was to prevent advertisers from making false claims about their competitiors' products in order to gain the upper hand with consumers. That has undergone many changes, yes, but there are still restrictions on what can be said about a competitor and how it can be said regarding products/services.
Rush is a talk radio host ostensibly talking about society - including, largely, the political parts of it and the military - with his listeners. The only thing commercial about that is that he is paid for his rhetoric, just like any other employee is paid for the work they do.
Unless his entire show is nothing more than him reading ad copy for sponsors, without any editorializing from him, than it isn't commercial speech. Just my opinion of course ;-)
"Our public servants work for us - we don't work for them. We have an obligation, as citizens of this country, to always remember that - and to never let them forget it." - DeadMessengers
but, they meet with the president to work on messaging
they are literally a tool, an organ.
they sold us a war of aggression
PR is a multi-billion if not trillion dollar industry worldwide
that's what the fairness doctrine was meant to address, preventing the news from being exclusively or primarily driven by & for profit
"The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism --ownerships of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power." --Franklin D. Roosevelt
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin
----
Ain't seen liberty character round these partsin awhile- except that Sybil lady ;)
paycheck from Bush, or video of him handing Limbaugh cash after that closed door messaging session, you can hang his ass! Would that it were so simple, I know.
;-)
"Our public servants work for us - we don't work for them. We have an obligation, as citizens of this country, to always remember that - and to never let them forget it." - DeadMessengers
Here is what Rush Limbaugh said about Gen. Clark in this article:
"Wesley Clark is upset about the tone. He's a total moron. He's a total ignoramus and moron."
That is political pornography which should be legally restricted and not be tax payer funded. This is NOT free speech appropriate for all audiences in my opinion:
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_100407/content/01125110.guest.html
General Clark's Orwellian Solution
October 4, 2007
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT 
RUSH: As you know, Wesley Clark yesterday all over television lying through his teeth about me. He was claiming that I have a long history of disrespecting and criticizing uniformed military personnel. So I decided to hit back, call him on the lies, and then ask him again, "How are you sleeping at night, General, knowing you could have done something about the genocide of 800,000 Rwandans?" I'm sleeping very well at night these days, thank you, how are you sleeping? So last night on MSNBC, Tucker Carlson who's doing his best -- along with Scarborough now and then -- to hold up the right end on that network, interviewed Wesley Clark. Our pet name for him here is Ashley Wilkes. Tucker says to him, "Here's part of what you wrote in the Huffington Post. You said this: 'Since Rush Limbaugh won't listen to us, we're going directly to Congress, which can prevent him from disrespecting and censoring the voices of our soldiers.' Now, with all due respect, that's almost Orwellian, General. You're accusing him of censorship and, at the same time, attempting to censor him by taking him off the air?"
CLARK: Well, I think he's crossed the line, Tucker, but the point is you're dealing with a right-wing guy who contributes to a really bad environment of public dialogue in America. Even the three things you quoted about me aren't true. I've answered many times for Rwanda. It's in my book. I've said it many times. I was never a Republican. I never supported George W. Bush. And, yes, I have attacked him. But Rush doesn't care about the facts. That's not the point. The point is the manner of the dialogue.
RUSH: Orwellian is right. You know, people are getting upset with me for calling them Stalinists. Okay, they're socialists. He wants Congress to shut me up because he doesn't like the nature of my dialogue. The simple thing for you to do, General, is don't turn it on. But he says that he never was a Republican. We went to FactCheck.org. Was Wesley Clark a Republican? "He registered as an Independent, says he voted for Nixon and Reagan, then for Clinton and Gore, later praised Bush but now criticizes him. A New Hampshire voter e-mails us to ask, 'I'm considering voting for Clark and I'm still searching his background. I'm concerned about different snippets that I hear about his Republican background. Have you done any articles on this or plan to?'" And here's what FactCheck.org wrote. "Clark has never been registered as a Republican. During his Army service he registered to vote as an Independent, as do many career military officers in his home state of Arkansas." It says he voted for Republican presidents Nixon and Reagan out of concern for national security, but it says later he found Republicans to be shrill and isolationist. So he says he voted for fellow Arkansas resident Bill Clinton and, most recently, for Algore, both Democrats. "Clark changed his voter registration to Democrat only after retiring from the Army in 2000, declaring himself a candidate for his party's nomination late in September 2003. Clark also spoke approvingly of President Bush on two occasions since 2001 and 2002 that were captured on videotape. You can see these for yourself by clicking on the video box on the right. Clark's opponents keep attacking him for his late conversion to the Democrat Party. Kerry's New Hampshire chair Jeanne Shaheen, a former governor of the state, is quoted this week as saying..." this is from January 2004, "--quoted this week as saying, 'The candidate is not a Democrat,'" meaning Wesley Clark.
"Joe Lieberman said January 4th on ABC's This Week, 'I mean this is a man who wasn't a Democrat four months ago and voted for Nixon, Reagan, and Bush.'" I don't think this clears anything up. I say Clark was a Republican, he says he wasn't. This is how Media Matters plays it. If the Drive-By Media treated me like they treat Media Matters, I say he's a Republican, he's a Republican, and that would be the end of the story, and they'd say, "Limbaugh says you are a Republican," and start doing a week-long series of shows on how Wesley Clark lies. Next sound bite from MSNBC. Tucker Carlson said, "I want to know if you're going to apply that same standard of censoring Limbaugh to the rest of public broadcasting in this country, and there's a lot of it. A lot of entities get money from the federal government to put opinions on the air. You think Congress ought to decide what opinions are acceptable and which aren't and yank the unacceptable ones off the air? That's what you seem to be saying."
CLARK: There are standards for propriety in public broadcasting, are there not? I mean there's X-rated, there's R-rated in public broadcasting --
CARLSON: This is a political belief!
CLARK: Wait a minute. Wait a minute. We should be talking about the facts; we should be having a good discourse in America. I don't see why there can't be standards for political discourse. I'd like to see A-rated, B-rated, and C-rated --
CARLSON: I'll tell you why. I'll tell you why.
RUSH: (laughing) I told you, nobody should be allowed to have the kind of fun that I am having today. I doubt this idiot has ever read the Constitution, the First Amendment. I think he's a Rhodes Scholar. (interruption) Would you calm down! This is funny and you're sitting there, Snerdley, you are getting so mad you're turning white. He is livid in there. He wants ratings on political speech and he wants Congress so set up the ratings, just like we have ratings on movies. Political speech, before McCain-Feingold, was the particular speech to be protected in the First Amendment. All speech was, but it was singled out. So he wants ratings. Now, Tucker just rips him apart here in the next bite.
CLARK: He was talking about what Limbaugh said about our soldiers.
CARLSON: No, no. He said Rush Limbaugh is unpatriotic.
CLARK: What we need to do is we need to be rating the whole standard of political discourse in America.
CARLSON: Well, then -- will you call out Harry Reid? Okay --
CLARK: So let's raise it.
CARLSON: I'm asking you to raise it. You say that that was unfair of Reid to say that.
CLARK: Let's have the Congress get into this issue.
CARLSON: Oh, this is just political nonsense.
CLARK: This is not political nonsense.
CARLSON: Yes, it is.
RUSH: Let's have the Congress get into it. We've played audio of some of these sound bites that I have here for you, ladies and gentlemen, about things that Democrats have said. If we had a political speech rating system, how would we rate this from Harry Reid? "Now, I believe myself as secretary of state, the secretary of defense, and you have to make your own decision as to what the president knows. This war is lost, that the surge is not accomplishing anything." Dick Durbin. You remember this. "If I read this to you and didn't tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners on their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their Gulags, some mad regime, Pol Pot or others, that had no concern for human beings. Sadly, that's not the case. This was the action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners." Then you have John Kerry. "Education. You make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq." So Iraq war veterans are stupid. You've heard all these quotes. We have played all of these sound bites. Harry Reid calling me unpatriotic. I replied by calling him a phony patriot. We created a pretty good graphic of that at RushLimbaugh.com. Wesley Clark is upset about the tone. He's a total moron. He's a total ignoramus and moron. To suggest something like this -- look, he's carrying somebody's water out there. Everybody has to get paid these days; everybody has had to do something to earn a living. But, as I say, my fun quotient is way over what I should be allowed each day.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Wesley Clark, what's really scary is this guy was the general at NATO. He ran NATO. Wesley Clark has had over a week now to get himself properly informed on this issue and has not done so. He's either unable to, or is unwilling to, or doesn't care about the truth. When he was running NATO, there was an accident -- you people may not remember this, but, of course, my memory extends way, way back. You may remember that in the early days of the mad bomber of Bosnia's campaign, somebody misaimed, misfired on his orders, probably, and hit the Chinese embassy. It almost became an international incident. Meanwhile, he stands by as 800,000 Rwandans are being slaughtered, his quote, yeah, it happened so fast, it just slipped by, but he ends up misfiring at the Chinese embassy, mistargeting. They said he had an old map.
END TRANSCRIPT
Read the Background Material...
HotAir: Video: Crazed by Rush, Wes Clark Calls for Political Discourse to be Rated
http://hotair.com/archives/2007/10/03/video-crazed-by-rush-wes-clark-calls-for-political-discourse-to-be-rated/
Human Events: Rightometer: Defending Rush
http://www.humanevents.com/rightangle/index.php?p=24981
WSJ: Our Soldiers Like What They Do. They Want Our Respect, Not Pity
http://opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010686
FactCheck.org: Was Wesley Clark a Republican?
http://www.factcheck.org/was_wesley_clark_a_republican.html
Human Events: The False Controversy Over Rush Limbaugh - Rep. Chris Cannon
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=22699
*Note: Links to content outside RushLimbaugh.com usually become inactive over time.
and now did a put up or shut up to Rush ANDDDDDDDD wants him off military air;
Rush has his hands full now; shrill tones - - the guy makes how many millions anyone????
the reward/wage system is so off the wall!
The Dems, according to the NYT today are caving on wiretapping and will be providing cover retroactively for the Communication giants that have been playing ball with Bush by spying on Americans.
Do you really think that cowardly crowd is going to censure Limbaugh and take him off AFR? The same bunch that also went along with censuring MoveOn.org, and the Kyl-Lieb amendment?
Get Real! Hope I'm wrong, but this is a lost cause.
It's certainly why I did for years.
"Our public servants work for us - we don't work for them. We have an obligation, as citizens of this country, to always remember that - and to never let them forget it." - DeadMessengers
divisive and disgusting excuse for a human being in America, his comments can be seen, is some cases, as seriously hurting the country. In other words, treasonous. Many years ago, I heard him defame and make fun of crippled vets; is this comedy? What he did to Dukasis was criminal. He blasts drug addicts; then turns out to be one. Nothing done. (It's ok because he's a republic.) He's been allowed to get away with this crap due to his 1st amendment rights. Wes also has the right to say what he damn well wants AGAINST Rush, as well. Rush doesn't deserve his fame, his money, nor, frankly, membership in the human race.
The opening blog states the some people won't support Wes because of his comments. That's the perfect example of exactly what's wrong with the Dem party; no courage to stand up for what is right. Sort of like don't stop that guy from drowning your kid because it might offend his freedom of expression.
It's time for a new tea party.
Why, I'll never know.
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark -- Don't settle for less.
Make America All It Can Be!
Freedom of the press
Main article: Freedom of the press
Freedom of the press, like freedom of speech, is subject to restrictions on bases such as defamation law. Restrictions, however, have been struck down if they are aimed at the political message or content of newspapers.
The protection ends when he violates the law with libel and/or defamation.
"Our public servants work for us - we don't work for them. We have an obligation, as citizens of this country, to always remember that - and to never let them forget it." - DeadMessengers
Lawsuits have been won on them. Why do you think the General isn't using those words in his campaign to have Rush removed from AFRadio? Because they fall deaf on the ears of Congress?
There is no law?
And common decency is in short supply...
for lack of demand.
Who got Imus fired and how? maybe his listeners had a tad higher standard for decency than Rush's...imagine that.
What would you do...for a Klondike Bar?
Sybil. I didn't think of it the first couple of times I heard the clip - I was a little too blinded by anger...and fantasizing the delivery of punishment Limbaugh deserves...to be thinking too clearly, lol.
I suspect he wants to bring it to Congress because ultimately, they are the Civilian Authority to whom the DoD must abide. Going to the DoD first, probably wouldn't get him anywhere with this, especially in the current climate.It's possible going to the DoD first, could make matters worse, though that's just a guess.
In Imus' case, as I heard it, he was fired because advertisers started pulling their spots in protest and other affiliates refused to carry his show. I imagine CBS was also gravely concerned - as they should have been - if they didn't fire Imus for what he said, they risked facing a multi-million dollar lawsuit over it. And they'd have more than likely lost.
"Our public servants work for us - we don't work for them. We have an obligation, as citizens of this country, to always remember that - and to never let them forget it." - DeadMessengers
I was blindly outraged and filled with
"righteous indignation" too K
nearly as much, but not quite, as those self-aggrandizing Republican senators on the floor of the senate when the MoveOn ad was brought to their attention
(hard to achieve that level of moral outrage)
Anyway I was just curious since I hadn't heard Wes use the word, even "slanderous" but no doubt he has a good reason for his phrasing.
What would you do...for a Klondike Bar?
ESPN got rid of him. It's been done before.
me too LJM
but I don't think anyone who listens to him on radio is going to insist that it be done like they did with Imus
What would you do...for a Klondike Bar?
Wes has 34,000 signatures on his petition
StandByRush has 19,000.
eom
"Our public servants work for us - we don't work for them. We have an obligation, as citizens of this country, to always remember that - and to never let them forget it." - DeadMessengers
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_100507/content/01125106.guest.html
VoteVets Spokesman Admits Their Attack Is Not About What Rush Said
October 5, 2007
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Have you seen this Fox News poll? Nearly one in five Democrats say the world will be better off if the United States loses the war. One in five -- so like 20% -- of the Democrats. What was the other one, 35% of Democrats think that Bush knew about 9/11, now we have 20% of Democrats think we'd be better off if we lost, the world would be better off if we lose the war. Does this surprise anybody? Another way to look at this, though, is it means four out of five Democrats don't think that, so where the hell are they? Where the hell are they, and what are they saying? Mark Twain had a quote. I got this from National Review Online on The Corner.
Mark Twain: "In the beginning of a change, the patriot is a brave and scarce man, hated and scorned. When the cause succeeds however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot." One out of five Democrats. By the way, 73% overall think it's better if we win. That's still a scary low number, 73%, about three-fourths of the country, think that we'd be better off if we win. All right, I want to go to the audio sound bites. Last night on the Rusty Humphries Show, which airs nine to midnight Eastern time, he had as his guest the vice chair of VoteVets.org, which is the group running these ads and getting this phony soldier smear ginned up, and I've got two bites here. The guy's name is Brandon Friedman, and Rusty Humphries says, "Why are you doing this, honestly? What is your reasoning behind this?"
FRIEDMAN: The problem I have with Rush Limbaugh is that he enables policy makers who have gotten our country into a lot of trouble. We're in a lot of trouble. I mean, we've got some serious problems with Islamic extremism globally, and we can't address those problems correctly --
HUMPHRIES: Why?
FRIEDMAN: -- because we're bogged down in another country's religious civil war.
HUMPHRIES: Okay, so it's not what Rush said, it's who Rush supports, and because he helped get them elected, he needs to be taken down, is that --
FRIEDMAN: No, it's a pattern of what he does. I mean, this guy has a voice, and he affects people.
HUMPHRIES: Right.
RUSH: There you have it. The guy, ladies and gentlemen, a leading spokesman for VoteVets.org admitting publicly that the reason the liberal hit squad is attacking me is because they don't agree with my position on the war and that I'm influential. Let me ask you a question. Is that what we should be doing in America? Knowingly smearing somebody because you disagree with his policy views, lying about what he said, trying to destroy his character, because that's what this gentleman has just admitted doing. Anyone who practices these kinds of tactics ought to be ashamed of themselves, whether they're civilized, or used to wear the uniform, or still wear the uniform. Lying about somebody's statements to advance your own policy objectives is not honorable, and it won't work because there's no substance behind it. Let me suggest that the vast majority of men and women in uniform today, as well as those who have served before, do not want us to lose. They don't want this mission to fail, and they don't sign on to the anti-war movement led by the likes of Harry Reid.
Let me further suggest this: VoteVets.org doesn't represent the vast majority of veterans out there. I think the American Legion and the Veterans of Foreign Wars, with literally millions and millions of members, are far more representative of the vets in this country than VoteVets.org, and yet they are portrayed much as other fringe liberal groups as huge and powerful and influential, and they're not, and this audio clip indicates that they are feeling powerless to stop people like me and my influence, and so I have to be taken out with a smear. Now, one thing I want to also point out: When Harry Reid went to the floor of the Senate this past Monday to denounce me, he didn't cite this group, he didn't mention VoteVets.org. They never hold press conferences with them. I never see Dingy Harry with members of VoteVets.org standing with them on the podium. Why is that? Could it be because they don't share the policy positions of Reid and his ilk, they want our combat forces to have the equipment, additional support they need to win the war, and this group doesn't even really like Reid -- maybe it is that Reid's embarrassed to be with these guys. You don't think that's what it is? (interruption) Meets with them secretly? Well, that's probably right.
The reason Dingy Harry and the rest of the Democrats do not show publicly with members of VoteVets.org is because they don't want you to know the intricate degree of coordination between these anti-war groups and elected Democrats in the House and the Senate. That's why they never cite them; that's why Dingy Harry didn't cite them. He made it his own words. He said, "Limbaugh said this." He had no idea what I said. He didn't care what I said. The VoteVet.orgs and the Media Matters types fed him the data. It worked. This is, and was, a coordinated smear, and they don't want the coordination noticed, orchestrated from day one here, folks, as I have explained repeatedly. And not thanks to VoteVets.org and one of its spokesmen, this fact has been underscored. The American Legion, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, these are organizations with literally millions and millions of members. I side with them. I side with the American Legion.
I don't share the views of VoteVets.org, which works closely with Harry Reid and a number of other elected Democrats. And because I share the same position as most of our soldiers and this new Fox poll, and because I share the position of most of the American people, who do not want us to lose, I support the troops in this war as anybody with a brain knows, I am attacked over my support for the troops and the war by the claim I oppose the troops. Wesley Clark is still on the bandwagon doing it. He was in Sacramento yesterday on our blowtorch affiliate out there, KFBK, still attacking my constant criticism of uniformed military personnel. Think about how nutty that is. The fact that it has received the endorsement of many in the media underscores why so many of you have nothing but contempt for the Drive-By Media, because you know the coordination. The one place it hasn't spread, it hasn't spread to the Drive-By Media en masse. It stayed pretty relegated to cable.
They wanted to create the same kind of blow-back that MoveOn.org got, and they have failed. They've failed for a simple reason. People at the New York Times, the Washington Post, the three networks, know this is a smear. They'll be glad to take me out if something comes up that they think is legitimate that they can push, but they didn't want any part this, and they've had nine days now to get on it. They didn't want any part of this because they know this is a smear. They know of the coordination. The truth of that should be, then, if they know that it's a smear, where is that story? Where is that story against VoteVet.org and Media Matters? So it's not that they are trying to protect me. It's that they just want to wait for their next chance and they're not going to go out and attack fellow leftists on this. I got one more sound bite here from Brandon Friedman, who was on Rusty Humphries' show last night, which airs nine to midnight Eastern time. Humphries does most of the talking in this bite. Brandon Friedman pipes in at the end.
HUMPHRIES: Again, he talked about this Jesse MacBeth the day before, he talked about him on that show, the day of the show, the day after the show. He's explained himself and still you're going to continue, and you support what Harry Reid said, taking this out of context? Come on, Brandon, that's not fair. That's not right. I could take what you said out of context. I mean this guy explained, and explained, and explained, and you're still spreading these lies, saying that he called a soldier a suicide bomber? And what about Tom Harkin? Do you think it was okay for Tom Harkin to accuse Rush Limbaugh to be on drugs?
FRIEDMAN: Yeah, maybe it's not appropriate for the Senate floor, but it's true.
RUSH: I granted an interview to the Palm Beach Post on Wednesday night, and it was published in the Palm Beach Post today. Somebody over at the pretrial diversion office let a reporter see -- I have to fill out a monthly report to the pretrial diversion office that ends, by the way, this is the last month of it, this will be 18 months. The form asks a bunch of personal questions, information, name, address, phone number, you gotta put it down every month, the e-mail address, how much you earn during the month, and you have to testify whether you've used illegal drugs, this sort of thing. I've had monthly drug tests that are performed, passed them all, have not even been tempted. I told the guy at the newspaper, Jose Lambiet, never been tempted to go back to it. Story today opens, "Sorry, Tom Harkin, Rush Limbaugh is not on drugs." The proof comes from the State of Florida.
So here we have Brandon Friedman -- play this bite again. He thinks it's totally true what Tom Harkin said. It was just inappropriate where Harkin said...
(replaying of Humphries sound bite)
That's Brandon Friedman of VoteVets.org. So, look, these people have been caught in a big lie, they've admitted it themselves. Now they've admitted their own ignorance, their own prejudice, and their own bias, and this is one of the two groups behind this smear that's now in its ninth day. They've been totally exposed and discredited for who they are and what their purpose was. I want to thank Rusty Humphries for making this audio available to me this morning.
END TRANSCRIPT
Read the Background Material...
NRO: RE: RE: Losers - Steve Schippert
http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NjdkMzVlYmM3ZWZkNGJmZDkwY2UzZWFjMTg2NDQzMjQ=
Palm Beach Post: Limbaugh Leaves Probation Better, Richer - Jose Lambiet
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/localnews/content/local_news/epaper/2007/10/05/a2a_jose_col_1005.html
NRO: Rush Kettle, Dem Pot. All That Matters Is That Democrats Get a Free Hand - Jonah Goldberg
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YjQ2MDRjZjZlM2Y4ZTUwNmI2MTU4MmM0OTVmOWYxMjU=
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12121
*Note: Links to content outside RushLimbaugh.com usually become inactive over time.
Bash a vet and make big bucks
Oct. 5: The RNC is turning Rush Limbaugh's ravings into hard campaign dollars. The committee is e-mailing supporters asking them to sign a petition to stand with Rush and his ravings and maybe click on a link where you can send money to the party.
Transcript of this video:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21192508/
'Countdown with Keith Olbermann' for Oct. 5
Read the transcript to the Friday show
Updated: 9:48 a.m. CT Oct 8, 2007
Guests: James Risen, Robert Baer, Joan Walsh, Brandon Friedman
OLBERMANN: The day after the Republicans lost the Senate and the House last November, Rush Limbaugh admitted to having carried water for many in the party. Now he is carrying actual fund raising duties on a day when his water is in the news again, as in his drug tests. Our third story in the COUNTDOWN, the continuing cover up of Limbaugh‘s phony soldiers story being turned into a pitch for contributions.
The Republican National Committee now turning Limbaugh‘s ravings into hard campaign dollars. The committee sending an email written by Congressman Eric Canter to supporters asking them to sign a petition to stand with Limbaugh and the unmistakably and fully contextualized claim that any soldier or veteran who criticizes the war in Iraq is, in his terms, a phony soldier. There is a link where you can send money to the party, bash a vet and make bucks.
This is the same day Limbaugh proudly told his audience that he has passed another court-ordered drug test after the doctor shopping pill popping charges, and a day in which Limbaugh‘s echo chamber continued to bash troops like wounded war vet Brian McGough, claiming he was dooped by anti-war groups, continuing to claim any veterans who disagree with Limbaugh must be stupid, a strategy that Limbaugh started, as you will recall, on Tuesday.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RUSH LIMBAUGH, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Whoever pumped him full of these lies about what I said and embarrassed with this ad has betrayed him. They are not hurting me. They are betraying this soldier. Now, unless he actually believes what he is saying, in which case it‘s just so unfortunate and sad when the truth of what I said is right out there to be learned.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
OLBERMANN: Brandon Friedman is vice president of VoteVets.org and himself a veteran of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He was written about in “The War I Always Wanted, The Illusion of Glory and the Reality of War.” Thank you for your time tonight, sir.
BRANDON FRIEDMAN, VICE PRESIDENT, VOTEVETS.ORG: Thanks for having me on, Keith.
OLBERMANN: All this week, Limbaugh denied he referred to veterans who opposed the war as phony soldiers. He compared Brian McGough to a suicide bomber, and denied he did anything of the kind. He has edited the audio that was posted online. He transformed phony soldiers into poor manipulated soldiers. You wrote a piece today called “When Chicken Hawks Attack.” You seem to think this goes further and higher than Limbaugh.
FRIEDMAN: I think it does, Keith. What you have—you had Rush Limbaugh at the top and you have people above him like the RNC. They push this kind of language that disparages veterans. And the problem with it is it‘s very influential. People in middle America hear this stuff and they repeat it. If I could, I am going to read you a couple of pieces of mail we‘ve gotten from Rush Limbaugh‘s listeners this week.
This is written to combat veterans. “Do us all a favor shoot yourself. You are a waste of human flesh. Tell the truth about Rush you phony piece of explicative. You traitorous bunch of explicative cowards. Rush Limbaugh is a great American and you are a phony.”
You know, people hear this and they hear it from Rush. And when that stuff is said enough times, it becomes accepted fact. This is what we saw happen to John Kerry in 2004. As combat veterans, we are just not going to accept this. We are going to defend ourselves. We are just not going to take this from people like Rush.
OLBERMANN: Other than the stark inhumanity of making a U.S. soldier who was wounded by a car bomber, which was Brian McGough‘s story, sound like he is the political equivalent of a suicide bomber, maybe the worst element of this week has been, what? This idea that he has propagated that the average soldier could not possibly think for themselves if they didn‘t support everything they saw? There must be something wrong with them?
FRIEDMAN: Well, it is. And that‘s what people do when they have nothing to fall back on. When their argument has lost all its merit, you know, their argument that our Iraq policy is successful. That‘s what they do. They fall back, they call us traitors. They call us cowards. They call us phony. They do everything except listen to us, when we tell them, we who have been there on the streets of Iraq—we who have been in the mountains of Afghanistan.
And they don‘t listen to us. They don‘t want to. They just want to call us names.
OLBERMANN: You wrote also today that this kind of attack seems to be something akin to a game with the far right. Why do you think they are so insistent that all veterans support this war. Is this the Don Rumsfeld thing about how anybody who doesn‘t under understand what the administration is doing must be morally or intellectually confused? Or is it baser than that?
FRIEDMAN: They know if they lose the veterans, which they essentially have if you read the poll data—they know that if they lose us as veterans that they are going to lose America with their policies. The veterans have now come around, the people who have been there, and said that these policies in Iraq are not working, and we want to do something different. We need to find a solution so that we can go after al Qaeda in Afghanistan.
And, you know, people like Rush Limbaugh, they know that if they lose us, they have got no leg to stand on. And so that‘s why they are desperate to keep us. That‘s why they‘re desperate to discredit us as combat veterans.
OLBERMANN: Lastly, what about this news today of it being turned into a Republican fund raiser?
FRIEDMAN: Well, you know, if that‘s true, that‘s deplorable. I would think that the Republicans themselves would have a lot to lose by supporting Rush Limbaugh and the comments he has made about soldiers. But if that‘s what they want to do, then they can do that. I think American—
I think the American people are going to see that and I think it will reflect in the polls next year.
OLBERMANN: As Senator John McCain criticized Limbaugh and said, whatever he meant, he shouldn‘t have said it and he should have corrected it immediately. Brandon Friedman with VoteVets.org, and the author of “The War I Always Wanted,” great thanks for your time. Great thanks for your service to our country, sir.
FRIEDMAN: Thanks for having me on, Keith...
like you do - THANK YOU a million!
"Our public servants work for us - we don't work for them. We have an obligation, as citizens of this country, to always remember that - and to never let them forget it." - DeadMessengers
for your very kind comments Kelly!
If John Kerry and the Democratic leaders in Congress had this discussion back in 2004 and if there was some kind of serious action taken to credibly fight back against Rush Limbaugh and extreme right wing Neocon talk radio, then Bush would have had a much more difficult time winning that election in my opinion!
Thank you for this excellent post and for helping to raise the level of the dialogue about this very important issue!
Looks like a nice little read. Lot's of great endorsements on the back from Al Gore, Walter Isaacson (my cousin's cousin), Mario Cuomo, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, etc... Oh and Bill has a nice quote on the cover.
'Defamation is the issuance of a false statement about another person, which causes that person to suffer harm. Slander involves the making of defamatory statements by a transitory (non-fixed) representation, usually an oral (spoken) representation. Libel involves the making of defamatory statements in a printed or fixed medium, such as a magazine or newspaper.'
http://tinyurl.com/yg726x
wiki