Can you reply to the Limbaugh controversy without ad hominem attacks?

Question

Here is my view. Before Rush made his "phony soldier" comment, ABC News did a story of people who pretend they are ex-soldiers. The reason most apparently do so now is to criticize the Iraq war effort from a supposed insider point of view.

In an aside to a caller, Rush used the same phrase ABC News did, phony soldiers. He was later taken to task by Senator Harry Reid on the Senate floor for attacking real soldiers.

Can you present evidence that Senator Reid was correct, without resorting to name calling, using a history of abuse of prescription drugs or divorces?

Answer 1

I guess not. Having read the first 12 answers, it isn't possible.
There are those who pull Mediamatters into the fray with their transcript. This isn't ad hominem, it just goes to intent. Mediamatters was started by Hillary. She said so in a speech.

So anyway, I read the Mediamatters reference. I read what Rush edited the next day. There was nothing exculpatory about what was left out. He wasn't hiding anything. He has a show to do and not an unlimited amount of time to do it. And how could he hide anything (he didn't)? Mediamatters records everything he said.

As to the couple who attacked him based on his personal life, typical. These are probably the same people who defended Bill in the Oval Office because that was Bill's personal sex life.

To call what Rush said a Freudian slip is just wrong. He meant what he said, there are people who fake being soldiers. It happens.

So, I have read the Rush transcripts and the Mediamatter transcripts. Rush WAS talking about the likes of Jesse MacBeth, AND the other like him. Yes he pluralized it. Because there have been more than just one.

This whole thing is ridiculous. The whole thing is an ad hominem attack served up by Moveon.org and Mediamatters. I would ask "have they no shame left?", except that would presume there was some shame to begin with. Unfortunately, that is not for sure.

So many were raised by children of the 60's, where they were taught that the end justifies the means. If you have to lie about the right, feel free. It is for the cause.


Added later - this attack on Limbaugh seems to be the same kind of attack that the Libs claim the right does all of the time. Seems to me the left ought to be ashamed of doing what they accuse others of doing.

Answer 2

I'll do the best I can, but at the same time the controversy was brewing, I was installing/tweaking a major browser upgrade so I sporadically 'checked in' rather than following the story as it was unfolding. That said...

I read the transcript shortly after his program aired, and I took the 'phony soldiers' comment in the context of Rush and his caller at the time (Mike/Olympia, WA) discussing the views of Rush's previous caller (Mike/Chicago, IL). Rush had argued with the previous caller saying he didn't believe Mike #1 was really a Republican. So my take is that it was a generalization by Rush and Mike #2, in reference Mike #1 and others that did not share their views. At the time I read the transcript, I didn't see the 'Jesse MacBeth' part, but I was also browser tweaking.
-- How Long Is Too Long for Victory?
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_092607/content/01125113.guest.html

Later, I didn't understand the 'Jesse MacBeth' connection because I hadn't seen that part when I'd initially read the transcript. I'm not saying the page was changed because I was browser tweaking and may have missed it. Then I read this, which I believe misrepresents the original context:
-- The Anatomy of a Smear: "Phony Soldiers" Is a Phony Story
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_092807/content/01125106.guest.html

Sorry, this probably isn't much help because I haven't read the Media Matters article(s) or what Reid has said. I have seen this incident compared with the MoveOn ad, which I feel is nothing more than a political tit-for-tat game that obfuscates the facts in the MoveOn ad and lends undeserved credibility to Rush.

Answer 3

i've got no longer tried to study Godless. I did attempt to study considered one of her books as quickly as (I ignore the identify, even even though it replace into printed in the final 5 years). i stumbled on her writing form vicious and incoherent. i do no longer think of that qualifies as an attack on her. I only have on no account popular her to make an argument that i might call logical.

Answer 4

I can- if a comment of Rush Limbaugh's was taken out of context, it's only an example of Rush reaping just a little of what he sews every day. It also highlights the divisiveness of a man who makes his living by making people feel better about their own failings, by blaming them an an ambiguous enemy "liberals".

It feels good to have someone to blame for the job you hate, the unsatisfying marriage, the disrespectful kids, the payments on your second mortgage, for the existance of tv shows you don't like to watch, poor schools, NAFTA, CAFTA, immigrants that you can't understand, and that myriad other annoyances that build a life. Many liberals do much the same thing by demonizing the President. Rush's niche often depends on him to make his own news (as with the current story).

But it's not smart, and it isn't right. By turning against such a large number of Americans, Rush is contributing to the decline of our country, not the improvement of it. We can't build anything together, if we can't trust each other with tools. And there's enough of us that we can't build anything alone, either.

Is Senator Reid correct in bringing it to the floor's attention? I don't think so. Our Legislators really do have far more important things to focus on, whereas Mr. Limbaugh really doesn't. I suspect it was really just a joke that most of the elected body enjoyed, seeing as they've all pretty much taken turns being Rush's punching bag at one time or another.

If his name-calling and history of drug use weren't enough to marginalize him in my mind, his tendency to villianize hardworking Americans who see things slightly differently than himself is. Rush may be a good Republican, but he's a bad American.

Answer 5

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_100307/content/01125111.guest.html

http://michellemalkin.com/2007/09/30/rush-limbaugh-phony-soldiers-and-the-lefts-desperate-need-for-its-own-betray-us-moment/?print=1

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/09/30/abc-reported-phony-heroes-three-days-rush-limbaugh-did

For those of you that weren't aware that the term "phony soldiers" actually refers to people who are pretending to be veterans in order to collect VA benefits- or to just get attention.
How embarrassing for them to get caught-
The majority of people have a really good idea of what they heard Rush say- what the transcripts say and what it was meant when the term "phony soldiers" was uttered by Rush-

The context in which the phrase was used just doesn't match with what the loony left is trying to make it say.
maybe media matters and their crew has been drinking too much Kool Aid.

Answer 6

No Senator Reid was not correct. Senator Reid pulled a comment out of context--which you supplied. While Rush is a bit to far to the right for my own personal tastes--anyone who has ever listened to Rush would immediately note that he supports the military and the troops. Clearly, Senator Reid made his comments in an attempt to create a new firestorm of controversy in his--arguement ad hominim attack-on Rush in order to change the subject from the far lefts General Betrayus ad. This is the use of another logical device--the red herring--if you can't win the point--change the subject.

Answer 7

Senator Reed is a liar. Mr. Limbaugh spoke about people claiming to be Soldiers, and attacking the War effort, and called them Phony Soldiers. Get it right people !
Minister

Answer 8

Both sides are so disengenuous that they would rather use petty issue to score points, rather than to focus on real issues.

Nobody should be outraged at the moveon.org ad - so what, they used a play on words to criticize a general. Big deal, let it go already.

Same with Limbaugh. He's a right-wing gasbag. That's his job. So he calls some soldiers phonies. Again - no big deal.

The politicians are being disengenuous by trotting out their contrived "outrage" when these things occur. And the media is guilty of giving these things WAY to much coverage.

Just another way that politicians play to the voters' stupidity instead of discussing the real issues.

Answer 9

It is clear from the transcripts and from Rush's doctored clips that he was in fact calling soldiers who come back from Iraq and criticize the war or say that we should bring the troops home...phony. Now do I think Rush doesn't support the troops...No. But the fact is he said what he said...just apologize and move on. The words speak for themselves. He got caught spewing partisan trash and he should just apologize and move on.

Answer 10

Rush specifically "phony soldiers" the "s" on the end believe it or not means Plural! more than one!

i heard it and he did say "soldiers"

could be two, three, 160,000, who knows

he was not talking about just one person as after the fact he has tried to explain this away.