107 Comments

• Boonton says:

  October 6, 2007 at 11:59 pm

  How so?
• joe says:

  October 8, 2007 at 1:00 am

  I personally don’t see what we hope to gain by supporting Republicans who don’t support our values. “Pro-choice”, illegal immigration, and anti-mariage politicians will not bring the party back in line with us. Register Constitution party and send a message that there are conservative christians in this country and our votes are not to be taken for granted. You want our support, you have to support us. If Rudy gets the nomination, vote third party or stay home, that’s my view at least.
• jd says:

  October 8, 2007 at 8:04 am

  It’s about the Supreme Court, Joe. With Hillary you’ll get another Ruth Buzzi Ginsburg. At least with Rudy there’s a chance you’ll get a conservative. You vote third party, you elect Hillary. I know. I voted Perot back in the day and I helped to elect the worst man to have ever been President.
• Baggi says:

  October 9, 2007 at 2:01 am

  Why didn’t Boonton share the entire transcript?
  Here is the entire transcript
  “CALLER: 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 spout to the media.
  RUSH: The phony soldiers.
  CALLER: The phony soldiers. If you talk to any real soldier and they’re proud to serve, they want to be over in Iraq, they understand their sacrifice and they’re willing to sacrifice for the country.
  RUSH: They joined to be in Iraq.
  RUSH: It’s frustrating and maddening, and why they must be kept in the minority. I want to thank you, Mike, for calling. I appreciate it very much.
  Here is a Morning Update that we did recently, talking about fake soldiers. This is a story of who the left props up as heroes. They have their celebrities and one of them was Army Ranger Jesse MacBeth. Now, he was a “corporal.” I say in quotes. Twenty-three years old. What made Jesse MacBeth a hero to the anti-war crowd wasn’t his Purple Heart; it wasn’t his being affiliated with post-traumatic stress disorder from tours in Afghanistan and Iraq. No. What made Jesse MacBeth, Army Ranger, a hero to the left was his courage, in their view, off the battlefield, without regard to consequences. He told the world the abuses he had witnessed in Iraq, American soldiers killing unarmed civilians, hundreds of men, women, even children. In one gruesome account, translated into Arabic and spread widely across the Internet, Army Ranger Jesse MacBeth describes the horrors this way: “We would burn their bodies. We would hang their bodies from the rafters in the mosque.”
  Now, recently, Jesse MacBeth, poster boy for the anti-war left, had his day in court. And you know what? He was sentenced to five months in jail and three years probation for falsifying a Department of Veterans Affairs claim and his Army discharge record. He was in the Army. Jesse MacBeth was in the Army, folks, briefly. Forty-four days before he washed out of boot camp. Jesse MacBeth isn’t an Army Ranger, never was. He isn’t a corporal, never was. He never won the Purple Heart, and he was never in combat to witness the horrors he claimed to have seen. You probably haven’t even heard about this. And, if you have, you haven’t heard much about it. This doesn’t fit the narrative and the template in the Drive-By Media and the Democrat Party as to who is a genuine war hero. Don’t look for any retractions, by the way. Not from the anti-war left, the anti-military Drive-By Media, or the Arabic websites that spread Jesse MacBeth’s lies about our troops, because the truth for the left is fiction that serves their purpose. They have to lie about such atrocities because they can’t find any that fit the template of the way they see the US military. In other words, for the American anti-war left, the greatest inconvenience they face is the truth.”
  So when Boonton writes;
  ” Nor did he cite the case of Jesse Macbeth who got 5 months in jail for collecting $10K in Iraq benefits that he did not earn.”
  He’s lying to you. Flat out lying to you. Rush did cite specifically Jesse McBeth. Its right there in the transcript.
  As Reagan would say, “Trust but verify” although i’m not so sure about why anyone would trust Boonton at this point.
• smmtheory says:

  October 9, 2007 at 3:02 am

  I stopped long ago.
• Matthew Goggins says:

  October 9, 2007 at 4:55 am

  Boonton,
  You may have missed my comment 41, which addresses the “phony soldier” quote and why I believe you are mistaken. It took a couple of days for the comment to clear Joe’s filter and hit the comment thread.
  [Matthew said:] I’m advising you not to stoop down to their level when you are trying to say that you hold the moral high ground. And I’m also explaining why their provocative rhetoric doesn’t bother me a whole lot. Of course it would bother you, because their rhetoric is expressly designed to bother you.
  [Boonton:] This wasn’t about whether or not their provocative rhetoric bothers me but why you seem to get so excited by a rather minor criticism of one of them by Hillary….a criticism that had nothing to do with the ‘bile’ you accuse me of. Again I suspect HDS, too bad we can’t consult Doctor House for a second opinion.
  It wasn’t a minor criticism. It was part of a co-ordinated attack on the floor of the Senate, which included speculation by Senator Harkin that Mr. Limbaugh was high on drugs.
  Most importantly, it was part of a co-ordinated attack by one branch of the government on an influential private individual. It was retaliation against a powerful private individual as a reward for his being an effective critic.
  Like I said, I don’t care a whole lot for Rush’s rhetoric. If Al Franken or Chris Matthews had roasted him, I wouldn’t have paid the least bit notice. But Hillary and the “Democrats” have been making noises about bringing back the “Fairness Doctrine” for radio talk-shows, and that is something I adamantly oppose, and Hillary can go to h–l if she thinks I’m not going to call her out on it.
  Of course, you are tempermentally opposed to the “Fairness Doctrine” because you believe that free speech should generally not be regulated by the government.
  But you also know that talk-radio has been vastly more successful for conservatives than for liberals, so I suspect that as a left-leaner you are probably torn a little bit inside and don’t want to condemn the “Fairness Doctrine” out of hand.
  I find it interesting that you accuse me of over-reaction over the Rush kerfuffle when your comments have slipped into ad hominem attacks against not only Rush, but against myself and President Bush as well.
  Here’s a psychological hypothesis which might explain your projection: Rush is a wildly successful popper of balloons in a media-world dominated by liberal commentary and news outlets. You are an aspiring popper of balloons in the blog-world. Subconsciously, you recognize yourself in Mr. Limbaugh, but you recoil at the fact that he is on the wrong side of just about everything. You feel particularly betrayed that someone should promote himself as an iconoclast when you want to dismiss him as a foolish partisan blowhard.
  When I defend Mr. Limbaugh on simple humanitarian grounds, you rush in to poke at the perceived illogic in my reaction: I’m defending a brute from brutality. But of course, you would do the same thing if he were a liberal brute, and you probably wouldn’t even think twice about it. A conservative brute, though, elicits a harsh reaction from you.
  But of course, as I explained above, when I defend a powerful, wealthy, and admittedly flawed brute, I’m actually defending everyone, you and me included, from the tendency of people in government to want to silence, or at least mightily inconvenience, their critics.
  That isn’t Hillary Derangement Syndrome, that’s just taking a stand for freedom before the opponents of freedom can build a lot of momentum.
  Hasta luego, amigo,
  Matthew
• Boonton says:

  October 9, 2007 at 9:31 am

  Matt
  Here we go again with the Rush is a Martyr routine. Did you have this same opinion when Rudy demanded that everyone under the sun vote to condemm Moveon.org for their General Betray Us ad? Forgive me if it still seems like the sacred cows are on one side of the political spectrum here.
  But you also know that talk-radio has been vastly more successful for conservatives than for liberals, so I suspect that as a left-leaner you are probably torn a little bit inside and don’t want to condemn the “Fairness Doctrine” out of hand.
  I understand the conservatives have flip-flopped on the fairness doctrine, once supporting it and now being against it. I don’t support it because I think broadcast media is too minor a player in our intellectual debates these days to really worry about. You should note, though, that even under the fairness doctrine Rush still would have had his show. The doctrine just required ‘the other side’ to have its say…not equal time. Usually this took the form of one or two minutes given to ‘the other side’ on the daily news.
  When I defend Mr. Limbaugh on simple humanitarian grounds, you rush in to poke at the perceived illogic in my reaction: I’m defending a brute from brutality. But of course, you would do the same thing if he were a liberal brute, and you probably wouldn’t even think twice about it. A conservative brute, though, elicits a harsh reaction from you.
  But the brute is not being attacked with brutality. If someone supports the fairness doctrine that may be a wrong position but that isn’t in itself brutality nor is it brutality to complain about what Rush said. It also isn’t brutality for me to call Rush as I see him, a has-been, drug addict shock jock. And no remember Rush didn’t get any reaction out of me, what I reacted to was your idea that the most important thing about Hillary was that she dared criticize Rush.
  Baggi,
  I didn’t say that Rush never mentioned McBeth. I pointed out in post 43, in fact, he did mention him. The problem is that citation comes in a different segment and obviously cannot be read backwards as referring to the phony soldiers Rush spoke about. McBeth never showed up in the media as an advocate of withdrawl, is only a single person (Rush complained about ‘phony soldiers’ not ‘the phony soldier’ or ‘this phony soldier’), and, of course, it’s rather strange to be asserting that the problem with McBeth was that “not possible, intellectually, to follow” him….IT’S THAT THE DAMM GUY WAS FAKING BEING A SOLDIER! Again if your assertion is correct you’ve simply demonstrated Rush to be a scumbag since he’s essentially saying its ok to be a phony soldier as long as you’re advocating the right policies.
• Matthew Goggins says:

  October 9, 2007 at 12:42 pm

  Boonton,
  Again if your assertion is correct you’ve simply demonstrated Rush to be a scumbag since he’s essentially saying its ok to be a phony soldier as long as you’re advocating the right policies.
  Umm, now you’re just being silly Boonton.
  Even if on the inside Rush happened to be pleased by a phony pro-war soldier, he would never say so publicly. And of course we have no reason to believe he would approve of a phony pro-war soldier; Rush would probably resent him for disrespecting the troops and for being a propaganda point for the other side.
  Use the preview button a little more diligently, or people will start disbelieving you here :-)
  But the brute is not being attacked with brutality. If someone supports the fairness doctrine that may be a wrong position but that isn’t in itself brutality nor is it brutality to complain about what Rush said.
  It also isn’t brutality for me to call Rush as I see him, a has-been, drug addict shock jock. And no remember Rush didn’t get any reaction out of me, what I reacted to was your idea that the most important thing about Hillary was that she dared criticize Rush.
  Boonton, read my comment again. I wasn’t talking about you, I was talking about Senator McCarthy — oops, I mean Senator Clinton — and Senator Harkin and all the other inspirational congressional leaders.
  But of course, your opinion matters too, because we get the representatives we deserve. If enough Americans approve of the Fairness Doctrine, then that enables the Hildabeast and her allies to push it through.
  When I said you would defend a brute if he were liberal instead of conservative, I didn’t know you would be so eager to prove me right by jumping right in and defending MoveOn’s smear of General Petreaus. Have you no sense of cognitive dissonance, sir — at long last have you no sense of cognitive dissonance?
  I didn’t say that Rush never mentioned McBeth. I pointed out in post 43, in fact, he did mention him.
  I noticed that, and you also mentioned that the transcript provided by Rush is misleading because it leaves out about a minute and a half between the two segments. So I vouch for your good faith.
  But I still disagree with you about the “phony soldiers” quote.
  Rush wasn’t making a general claim about all anti-war soldiers, he was making a clumsy attempt to bridge into the upcoming Jesse MacBeth segment. It was an attempt that was easy to misinterpret, and which the Senate Democrats were anxious to misinterpret.
  McBeth never showed up in the media as an advocate of withdrawl, …
  This isn’t as silly as the first comment of yours that I quoted above, but it is very close.
  Of course Jesse MacBeth did show up in the media. He was interviewed about alleged atrocities which he eyewitnessed, and the media accounts I saw passed along his testimony without raising questions about his reliability or accuracy (before he was exposed as a con-artist).
  If someone appears in the media and makes up eyewitness testimony about alleged war crimes, then he is not an advocate against the war in your opinion? Remember the preview button, Boonton, it is your friend.
  [MacBeth] … is only a single person (Rush complained about ‘phony soldiers’ not ‘the phony soldier’ or ‘this phony soldier’) …
  Boonton, it’s called giving an example. It happened to be a topical example because MacBeth had been sentenced a couple of days previously.
  I do agree with you that Rush’s argument is overstated and inflammatory. But by no means is it “anti-soldier”, which is what Clinton & Co. were insisting on the floor of the Senate.
  … and, of course, it’s rather strange to be asserting that the problem with McBeth was that “not possible, intellectually, to follow” him….IT’S THAT THE DAMM GUY WAS FAKING BEING A SOLDIER!
  If you read the transcript or listen to the clip, it’s clear that Rush was referring specifically to the following anti-war argument: we shouldn’t have gone into Iraq, so therefore we should leave right away, even if it makes things a hell of a lot worse. And that is precisely the argument that I have heard anti-war soldiers and politicians make.
  Here we go again with the Rush is a Martyr routine. Did you have this same opinion when Rudy demanded that everyone under the sun vote to condemm Moveon.org for their General Betray Us ad? Forgive me if it still seems like the sacred cows are on one side of the political spectrum here.
  Rush is not a martyr (you also labeled him a has-been, which is also incorrect). Rush is a canary in the coal-mine.
  First they went after the overweight, pompous media titans — and I said nothing. Then they went after all the talk-show jockeys and news broadcasters — and I said nothing. Then they went after the bloggers and the blog commenters — and there was no one left to say anything [cue the scary music].
  As for MoveOn and the Petreaus ad, you can defend it if you like, and you do. But if a political advocacy group with close ties to Clinton & Co. is going to accuse our commander in the field of dishonesty/unreliability, and imply that he is disloyal to his country, I would hope you would demand they have some evidence first. But you are free to choose whatever standards make you happy.
• Boonton says:

  October 9, 2007 at 1:27 pm

  Even if on the inside Rush happened to be pleased by a phony pro-war soldier, he would never say so publicly. And of course we have no reason to believe he would approve of a phony pro-war soldier; Rush would probably resent him for disrespecting the troops and for being a propaganda point for the other side.
  Well if Rush really was talking about McBeth then why is he complaining about not being able to follow his arguments about withdrawl (arguments never made as far as anyone seems to know)? Kind of like complaining about Charlie Manson writing poor poetry isn’t it?
  Boonton, read my comment again. I wasn’t talking about you, I was talking about Senator McCarthy — oops, I mean Senator Clinton — and Senator Harkin and all the other inspirational congressional leaders.
  Indeed, I found it striking that the two most important things that leaped into your mind to criticize Hillary for was her attack on Rush’s statement and the baby bond idea. I find Rush such a has-been that it’s strange to get all uppity that he is criticized. Imagine I said Mitt Romney said critical things of Rosie ODonald or Michael Moore?
  But of course, your opinion matters too, because we get the representatives we deserve. If enough Americans approve of the Fairness Doctrine, then that enables the Hildabeast and her allies to push it through.
  And perhaps we need it since it seems we are not allowed to directly criticize the right even when they clearly say things that should be critized. Again I don’t think the Fairness Doctrine is worth caring about as it was a pretty minor regulation even back when broadcast media mattered….
  When I said you would defend a brute if he were liberal instead of conservative, I didn’t know you would be so eager to prove me right by jumping right in and defending MoveOn’s smear of General Petreaus. Have you no sense of cognitive dissonance, sir — at long last have you no sense of cognitive dissonance?
  Errr, I didn’t defend them. I pointed out that the right did the same thing you are supposedly saying you would be even-handed about. Demanding Congressional votes to ‘condem’ speech etc. You say you’re even handed but Rudy & others seem to get lots and lots of passes from you.
  I noticed that, and you also mentioned that the transcript provided by Rush is misleading because it leaves out about a minute and a half between the two segments. So I vouch for your good faith.
  I had to reread that part twice on the Media Matters cite. What they said was that Rush aired a clip where he cut out a minute and change between the ‘phony’ sentence and the ‘morning update’ where McBeth was the topic thereby making it seem like it happened immediately afterwards. They didn’t charge that the transcript was altered, without digging up audio files I have no idea if it takes a minute to speak the paragraph or so between the two.
  What’s not misleading, though, is that McBeth comes AFTER the discussion with the caller and McBeth does not fit the discussion with the caller at all unless you’re very creative.
  Rush wasn’t making a general claim about all anti-war soldiers, he was making a clumsy attempt to bridge into the upcoming Jesse MacBeth segment. It was an attempt that was easy to misinterpret, and which the Senate Democrats were anxious to misinterpret.
  I was willing to grant him the credit at the start of this thread…he was shooting his mouth off and wasn’t thinking but that’s not what he said. He said that he was talking about McBeth all along and anyone who gets upset is just being purposefully deceptive. His supporters are taking the same lie jumping up and down all over the place saying the transcript proves him right…it doesn’t.
  He did the same thing with regards to the drug problem, claiming he was the victim of selective prosecution and privacy invasion instead of taking responsibility.
  Of course Jesse MacBeth did show up in the media. He was interviewed about alleged atrocities which he eyewitnessed, and the media accounts I saw passed along his testimony without raising questions about his reliability or accuracy (before he was exposed as a con-artist).
  The only mentions of him in the media was a short article in a local paper saying he was wounded in Iraq, no mention of atrocities or anti-war positions. Another article in a local college paper saying he got into an argument with a coffee shop owner and police were called. He never made the media. One anti-war group made a documentary where he complained the media were ignoring him, he was interviewed by socialistalternative.org , and he made some Myspace & Military.com pages. At best you can say an anti-war group picked up his story but he never made it to ‘the media’ if by media you mean normal mainstream publications.
  No somehow I don’t think either the caller or Rush are regular readers of that news powerhouse socialistalternative.org and were upset because they discovered its reporting was not up to the standards of CNN or the NY Times.
  If someone appears in the media and makes up eyewitness testimony about alleged war crimes, then he is not an advocate against the war in your opinion? Remember the preview button, Boonton, it is your friend.
  Notice that Rush & the caller were complaining about demands to bring the troops home right now…not claims they were committing atrocities. Again the only things about policy I see MacBeth every saying had to do with atrocities and not withdrawl timetables.
  If you read the transcript or listen to the clip, it’s clear that Rush was referring specifically to the following anti-war argument: we shouldn’t have gone into Iraq, so therefore we should leave right away, even if it makes things a hell of a lot worse. And that is precisely the argument that I have heard anti-war soldiers and politicians make.
  Not MacBeth who seems to have been saying he had to committ atrocities in Iraq. While I haven’t read his interview on the socialist site or saw the documentary I doubt Rush or the caller did either. So what argument are they talking about? MacBeth is what they say there were talking about but where was this argument? Not in the media it seems. The claim, again, was that the call and Rush’s statement were about that specific case. Well you can’t have your cake and eat it too. You want to buy that its about that case except when its about all cases of military fakers. Time to get your story straight.
• Matthew Goggins says:

  October 9, 2007 at 2:29 pm

  Boonton,
  I concede that Rush was sloppy. In hindsight, he probably wishes he had been more careful, although on balance, his reputation as a champion of truth and justice has probably only been enhanced among ditto-heads and other sympathizers.
  On the other hand, nothing that Rush said can fairly be construed as “anti-soldier”. He stated explicitly during his on-air conversation that a minority of active-duty soldiers and veterans are against the war. So to claim that he was libeling them as “phony soldiers” is pure malarkey, sunny-side up.
  Indeed, I found it striking that the two most important things that leaped into your mind to criticize Hillary for was her attack on Rush’s statement and the baby bond idea. I find Rush such a has-been that it’s strange to get all uppity that he is criticized.
  Rush wasn’t just “criticized”.
  His employer Clear Channel, was sent a threatening letter from Hildabeast & Co. And more importantly, Hillary has been floating the “Fairness Doctrine” and will use the “phony soldier” flap as a rationale for it.
  At best you can say an anti-war group picked up his story but he never made it to ‘the media’ if by media you mean normal mainstream publications.
  You are right that he never made it into the national media with his war stories. But one Arizona mainstream paper did do a story on him, and I wouldn’t be surprised if there were others.
  The bigger point here is that Rush is full to the gills with baloney when he focuses on MacBeth but refuses to seriously engage genuine anti-war sentiment among the troops. And I agree with you about that.
  Of course, that is not the issue that Hillary chose to write Clear Channel about. And the remedy is not a “Fairness Doctrine”, but for all parties concerned to debate the issues in good faith.
  If you want government censorship/”balance”, then you are free to submit your own comments and blog posts to the White House for review before you publish them on the internet. But please leave the rest of us out of it.
  Cheers,
  Matthew
• Boonton says:

  October 9, 2007 at 2:31 pm

  Here’s the nail in the coffin. Right before Rush took the call from Mike, he had another call from another guy named Mike. That Mike claimed to be Republican, ex-military and in favor of pulling out of Iraq. That Mike asserted that sometimes you have to cut your losses and admit you were wrong. He challenged Rush on implying only Democrats were against the war. While I don’t see Rush directly challenging his military claim, Rush did challenge his claim to be a Republican.
  ***********************
  RUSH: You’re not listening to what I say. You can’t possibly be a Republican. I’m answering every question; it’s not what you want to hear, and so it’s not even penetrating your little wall of armor you’ve got built up. I said we stay to get the job done, as long as it takes. I didn’t say forever. Nothing takes forever. That’s not possible, Bill. Mike. Whatever. Nobody lives forever, no situation lasts forever, everything ends. We determine how do we want it to end, in our favor or in our defeat? With people like you in charge, who want to put a timeline on everything — do you ever get anything done in your life? Or do you say, “Well, I wanted to have this done by now, and it’s not, so screw it”? You don’t live your life that way. Well, hell, you might, I don’t know. But the limitations that you want to impose here are senseless, and they, frankly, portray no evidence that you are a Republican.
  Another Mike. This one in Olympia, Washington. Welcome to the EIB Network. Hello.
  CALLER: Hi, Rush. Thanks for taking my call.
  RUSH: You bet.
  CALLER: I have a retort to Mike in Chicago, because I am serving in the American military, in the Army. I’ve been serving for 14 years, very proudly.
  ***********************
  If you’re going to say this is about a specific military ‘faker’ then the fact is the call picks up talking about the previous call. MacBeth is not mentioned at all and then a different segment comes on (“Morning Update”). The claim by Rush and his fellow-travelers that all along he was talking about MacBeth simply cannot hold water.
  Even more damming is that Mike #1 began his call asking Rush why he is making broad claims about those who are anti-war
  ******
  CALLER: Good. Why is it that you always just accuse the Democrats of being against the war and that there’s actually no Republicans that can possibly be against the war?
  *******
  So here we have:
  1. Previous caller anti-war but claims to be Republican and claims Rush paints with too broad a brush.
  2. Previous caller claims to be ex-military.
  3. New caller says he is responding to previous caller.
  4. New caller says serving soldiers are proud to be doing what they are doing & the media doesn’t speak to real soldiers.
  5. Rush calls them phony soldiers and says you can’t follow their arguments…they want to just pull out right now. In other words, the so-called phony soldiers make the arguments made by Mike #1 who claimed to be ex-military.
  6. After call #2 ends, in a totally different segment Rush talks about the MacBeth case.
  From this you guys are telling us with a straight face that its obvious Rush was talking about MacBeth all along. Very sad.
• Matthew Goggins says:

  October 9, 2007 at 2:53 pm

  Boonton,
  From this you guys are telling us with a straight face that its obvious Rush was talking about MacBeth all along. Very sad.
  Hmmm, too bad you’re sad. Perhaps it will cheer you up when I remind you that what I actually said is that it wasn’t obvious that Rush was talking about MacBeth, that what I actually said is that his words were sloppy and easily misconstrued.
  I also said that Rush explicitly conceded that thousands of real troops were against the war, so that the charge that he is “anti-soldier” is easily challenged.
  If you are having a hard time following the thread of what I am saying, perhaps you should consider that you might be mistaken about what Rush was saying as well.
• Boonton says:

  October 9, 2007 at 3:04 pm

  I concede that Rush was sloppy. In hindsight, he probably wishes he had been more careful, although on balance, his reputation as a champion of truth and justice has probably only been enhanced among ditto-heads and other sympathizers.
  You mean to the reality immune community his rep. has been enhanced? What is it saying that sloppiness and then being arrogant and untruthful about it enhances your reputation among a group? It says that the group is intellectually bankrupt. Now maybe you won’t get so antsy when I harp on that point since you’re all but saying it too.
  On the other hand, nothing that Rush said can fairly be construed as “anti-soldier”. He stated explicitly during his on-air conversation that a minority of active-duty soldiers and veterans are against the war. So to claim that he was libeling them as “phony soldiers” is pure malarkey, sunny-side up.
  Actually he never said that, he said he was skeptical that the previous caller really was a Republican and there does seem to be a real implication that Rush was skeptical of his claim to be ex-military.
  The bigger point here is that Rush is full to the gills with baloney when he focuses on MacBeth but refuses to seriously engage genuine anti-war sentiment among the troops. And I agree with you about that.
  Having your cake and eating it too I see! Rush made it clear that he acknowledged there’s a minority of honorable military members who are anti-war….but then Rush also fails to seriously acknowledge this? What is it? It seems like these two callers present a very interesting experiment. Claim to be military and oppose the war and you’re treated with skepticism. Claim to be military and support the war and Rush believes you. This would be quite consistent with calling anti-war vets ‘phony soldiers’.
  Of course, that is not the issue that Hillary chose to write Clear Channel about. And the remedy is not a “Fairness Doctrine”, but for all parties concerned to debate the issues in good faith.
  You didn’t bring up the fairness doctrine or Hillary writing Clear channel initially. YOu brought up Hillary criticizing Rush, only after the fact have you revised your original point to be about broadcast policies or writing letters that are supposedly threatening. In fact, you didn’t even attack Hillary for uttering a single anti-Rush word!
  Senator Clinton talks about baby bonds and, through the website Media Matters which she supports, how Rush Limbaugh is anti-soldier.
  Leaving aside the fact that Media Matters is an independent web site that Clinton does not own or control & that its mission is basically to examine everything people like Rush broadcaste and criticize it, your original point seems to be saying not only can Rush not be criticized but even the loosest association with anything that criticizes Rush is bad! Sounds like a sacred cow to me….yet you’ve basically done a few 180’s and now tell us Rush deserves criticism….just no one important should actually do it.
  You are right that he never made it into the national media with his war stories. But one Arizona mainstream paper did do a story on him, and I wouldn’t be surprised if there were others.
  Not that it matters much anymore but that one article simply stated that he was wounded in Iraq, had nightmares about killing people and seeing his friends die and was now trying to move on with his life. The closest you can get is a single quote by him saying he had to shoot through civilians….which if he was telling the truth may or may not have been an atrocity.
  No mention was made of pulling out. That shouldn’t be a surprise since the article was published on 11/03/2003 (http://www.eacourier.com/articles/2003/11/03/news/news02.txt). At that time many people thought the war was just about over, in fact the article opens with “The war in Iraq was officially called to an end a few months ago, but according to Private First Class Jesse MacBeth, 19, of Pima, the turmoil has just begun.”.
  Sorry, there’s no way to square Rush’s claim with the truth at all. In other words its a bald faced lie and it says a lot about the character of those who continue to defend him to the death over it.
• Matthew Goggins says:

  October 9, 2007 at 3:28 pm

  Boonton,
  Having your cake and eating it too I see!
  Actually, I’m having the cake, eating it, and sharing it with you all at the same time :)
  Seriously though, I’m just making a very simple point. Hillary is a disgusting politician who gins up a false contoversy (Rush says anti-war soldiers are all phony soldiers) in order to push her “Fairness Doctrine” agenda and intimidate radio stations with the power of the federal government. She does this to distract decent people from other issues, and to use the government to defang her critics.
  I don’t need to defend Rush because he is innocent or on the side of angels. I need to defend Rush because free speech is too important to monkey around with.
  You don’t seem to agree with me about Hillary, which is fine. And we’ll just have to agree to disagree about what Rush really meant, which is even more fine.
  But I really hope you can draw a distinction between the Senate Dems unloading on a member of the fourth estate, and a political hit-group using McCarthyite tactics against a commanding general in active combat.
  If you say Rush is a big fat hypocrite, I say fine, you are correct, he is. But he is a hypocrite who lives in a free country, and I want to keep it that way. It’s not about him, it’s about us.
  All the best,
  Matthew
• Boonton says:

  October 9, 2007 at 3:50 pm

  Seriously though, I’m just making a very simple point. Hillary is a disgusting politician who gins up a false contoversy (Rush says anti-war soldiers are all phony soldiers) in order to push her “Fairness Doctrine” agenda and intimidate radio stations with the power of the federal government. She does this to distract decent people from other issues, and to use the government to defang her critics.
  Two different issues, whether or not you support the fiarness doctrine has nothing to do with whether or not Rush deserves criticism. You can’t be against politicians criticizing speech…even calling for Federal ‘intimidation’ since you’ve dodged the Moveon.org ad contraversy by trying to pretend I defended their ad.
  You don’t seem to agree with me about Hillary, which is fine. And we’ll just have to agree to disagree about what Rush really meant, which is even more fine.
  Not only do I seem to have to disagree with you over what Rush really meant you seem to disagree with yourself over it. Rush isn’t innocent….but he is.
  But I really hope you can draw a distinction between the Senate Dems unloading on a member of the fourth estate, and a political hit-group using McCarthyite tactics against a commanding general in active combat.
  Ahhh, so let’s see….speech by a ‘fourth estate’ which I take it you mean private citizens since neither Rush nor Moveon.org are actually journalists, shouldn’t be condemmed by politicians if its Rush but it should be if it is Moveon.org? I notice the nice two-step you do with ‘McCarthyite tactics’….McCarthy was a Senator not the head of a political group.
  So you reveal your double standard. Rush makes anti-military comments and a team of pseudo-linguists are deployed to lie about the issue, divert attention away or, like you, to tell us Rush says bad things but his soul is good (I guess that’s what you’re trying to say) & allege that letter writing, speeches and votes for censure by politicians is using the power of the Fed. gov’t to intimiate, threaten etc.. Moveon.og makes a anti-military comment & all in the sudden even pointing out a politician behaved in a manner similiar to Hillary over Rush is defending the ad.
  If you say Rush is a big fat hypocrite, I say fine, you are correct, he is. But he is a hypocrite who lives in a free country, and I want to keep it that way. It’s not about him, it’s about us.
  Ahhh yes the changing story. Remember you didn’t complain about Senators making speeches, writing broadcasters or supporting the fairness doctrine. You complained about Media Matters criticizing Rush. Now you’re going to play the free speech and apple pie card and pretend this is about poor Rush being silenced. There is not a single serious proposal on the table by anyone to take away Rush’s free speech rights.
• Matthew Goggins says:

  October 9, 2007 at 7:10 pm

  Boonton,
  Rush is innocent. He is innocent of being “anti-soldier”, or of claiming that all anti-war soldiers are phony soldiers. If you deny that, you are resisting the evidence that you yourself have linked to.
  Rush is also guilty. He is guilty of being an overly confrontational pundit, who frequently indulges in demagogic rhetoric. He is also guilty of not taking anti-war soldiers and veterans seriously enough to engage their ideas and experiences. He doesn’t try to reconcile their hard-earned painful knowledge with his own views, and that is a very bad failing in his intellectual and rhetorical approach to the war in Iraq.
  However, he does not deny that anti-war soldiers exist. For Hillary and friends to claim that he does is Orwellian double-speak. Shame on you for trying to enable them.
  Ahhh yes the changing story. Remember you didn’t complain about Senators making speeches, writing broadcasters or supporting the fairness doctrine. You complained about Media Matters criticizing Rush.
  Actually I complained about Hillary Clinton supporting Media Matters in their criticism of Rush.
  Media Matters was founded by Hillary and her friends and closely follows the Clinton party line. That was the whole starting point for this discussion. Since you don’t see things my way, I have been happy to elaborate and make connections for you.
  Senator Clinton’s hit-jobs are a multi-media event. If she harnessed her talents and energy for good instead of evil, the world would be a much better place.
  Now you’re going to play the free speech and apple pie card and pretend this is about poor Rush being silenced. There is not a single serious proposal on the table by anyone to take away Rush’s free speech rights.
  Actually Wesley Clark did try to silence Rush on the Armed Forces radio network, and Senator Clinton sent a letter to Clear Channel that was intended to put direct pressure on Rush.
  And I’m getting a little tired of repeating this, but the worst proposal is very real and very much in the air in the Democratic caucus, and that is the “Fairness Doctrine”. That is the real free speech issue here, and it is not a changing story, it’s what I’ve been concerned about all along.
  If President Hillary installs a new “Fairness Doctrine”, it won’t be the worst thing on her agenda, but it will be very typical of the petty tyranny that appears to be her reflexive way of dealing with policy and politics.
• Boonton says:

  October 10, 2007 at 12:12 am

  However, he does not deny that anti-war soldiers exist. For Hillary and friends to claim that he does is Orwellian double-speak. Shame on you for trying to enable them.
  Speaking of Orwellian….”Rush is innocent” “Rush is guilty” “Rush is Eurasia! He is our enemy” You’re talking in circles here. Rush called them phony soldiers and then lied about who he meant. I don’t know what he meant and neither do you. He could have just admitted he made a mistake instead he pretends the transcripts prove him right when they prove him wrong (BTW, where does Rush admit real anti-war soldiers exist?)
  Media Matters was founded by Hillary and her friends and closely follows the Clinton party line.
  No it wasn’t. Media Matters was founded by David Brock who spent the Clinton years hounding Clinton. Perhaps she feels a bit less hatred towards the author of troopergate since he changed sides but I doubt they are friends.
  And I’m getting a little tired of repeating this, but the worst proposal is very real and very much in the air in the Democratic caucus, and that is the “Fairness Doctrine”. That is the real free speech issue here, and it is not a changing story, it’s what I’ve been concerned about all along.
  Ohhh that’s the real issue, right. That’s why Media Matters & Baby Bonds is what you mentioned first.
  Let’s take it from the top:
  Rush is innocent. He is innocent of being “anti-soldier”, or of claiming that all anti-war soldiers are phony soldiers.
  1. The transcript proves you wrong.
  2. The post-transcript lies also prove you wrong.
  3. Rush is probably not anti-solder in that he hates all soldiers, it’s that he is anti-soldier in the sense that his ‘love’ of soldiers is entirely conditional on soldiers being supportive and positive for the Repubican Party. In other words he prefers to use soldiers for his political agenda. That’s very clear from the transcript. Disagree with the war, better be ready to fax certified copies of your military record to Rush. Agree with the war and Rush will thank you, no questions asked, even if you claim to have been the guy they based the movie Rambo on.
• Matthew Goggins says:

  October 10, 2007 at 2:25 pm

  Boonton,
  Speaking of Orwellian….”Rush is innocent” “Rush is guilty” “Rush is Eurasia! He is our enemy” You’re talking in circles here.
  Okay, to say he is innocent of one thing and guilty of something else is talking in circles.
  Next:
  Rush called them phony soldiers and then lied about who he meant.
  Who is them? You don’t say, and that is probably because Rush didn’t say either.
  Next:
  I don’t know what he meant and neither do you.
  This is a fair point. We can’t be sure what Rush was saying or wasn’t saying. I’ve already said as much several times in this thread.
  Next:
  He could have just admitted he made a mistake instead he pretends the transcripts prove him right when they prove him wrong …
  Well hold on, Boonton, if we don’t know what he meant, then how do we know he made a mistake? And if the transcripts prove him wrong, then how can you say we don’t know what he meant?
  I admitted that Rush was sloppy and that his words were open to interpretation or misinterpretation. But with all due respect, Rush is a beacon of blinding clarity compared to you.
  … (BTW, where does Rush admit real anti-war soldiers exist?)
  I heard him say it in an audio clip of the broadcast. Or at least I believe I did, because I no longer have access to the clip. Since I can’t link to it, I can’t document it.
  But here’s a question for you: Do you think that Rush believes that all anti-war soldiers are phony soldiers? Do you believe that Senator Clinton or Senator Harkin thinks that Rush believes all anti-war soldiers are phony soldiers?
  No [Media Matters] wasn’t [founded by Hillary and her friends]. Media Matters was founded by David Brock who spent the Clinton years hounding Clinton.
  I am wrong, you are correct.
  Hillary is a supporter of Media Matters, and Media Matters closely follows the Clinton party line, but I have no evidence that Hillary was one of the initial financial backers of the website.
  Sorry for the misstatement.
  Ohhh [the "Fairness Doctrine" is] the real issue, right. That’s why Media Matters & Baby Bonds is what you mentioned first.
  Media Matters is explicitly dedicated to the proposition that various media outlets are riddled with conservative bias and conservative misrepresentations of reality. They are perhaps the number one source of talking points for political liberals who decry an alleged right-wing imbalance in the media and who demand the adoption of a “Fairness Doctrine”.
  When Media Matters says Rush is calling anti-war soldiers “phony soldiers”, they are trying to discredit conservative media. When Hillary repeats it and runs with it, she is doing the same thing. They share the same goal of fighting conservative and non-liberal media messengers, and they both want to bring back the “Fairness Doctrine”.
  1. The transcript proves you wrong.
  Okay, we don’t know what he meant, but the transcript proves that I am wrong and you are right.
  Please tell me exactly how the transcript proves that Rush says anti-war soldiers are phony soldiers. Where does the transcript say that?
  2. The post-transcript lies also prove you wrong.
  What lies?
  3. Rush is probably not anti-solder in that he hates all soldiers, it’s that he is anti-soldier in the sense that his ‘love’ of soldiers is entirely conditional on soldiers being supportive and positive for the Repubican Party.
  Okay, I can see why you might want to think that. But since as far as I know he’s never said anything like that, why do you expect me or anyone else who doesn’t hate Rush to agree with you?
  Rush actually talked to someone on the same show who was a veteran and a Republican and who was against the war. Rush was polite and respectful, and didn’t display any animus. Did you hear Rush say anything that makes you think he doesn’t like anti-war soldiers, or are you just speculating?
  That’s very clear from the transcript.
  Where in the transcript?
  Agree with the war and Rush will thank you, no questions asked, even if you claim to have been the guy they based the movie Rambo on.
  Witty, but what are you basing it on?
  Boonton, you like to be the pin in the balloon warehouse. But it seems to me that Rush is a great big balloon of your own. I’ve already suggested that we agree to disagree about this, but you don’t seem satisfied with that.
  Why can’t you see why we think that Rush’s alleged offense was blown out of proportion by Hillary and others? Why can’t you accept that even if you are right (which I don’t believe you are), it doesn’t mean those who disagree with you are being stubborn or worse? We disagree because the evidence is ambiguous, to say the least, and we don’t think it supports what you claim.
  I’ve admitted that Rush is a big fat hypocrite who says things he shouldn’t say. Can you admit that, although you believe otherwise, it’s still in the realm of possibility that Rush does in fact honor and respect soldiers who are anti-war?
• Boonton says:

  October 10, 2007 at 3:35 pm

  Who is them? You don’t say, and that is probably because Rush didn’t say either.
  The them is Rush and his defenders. The lies are:
  1. The statement was referring to MacBeth.
  2. That the transcript ‘proves’ Rush was taken out of context or that his critics have distorted his statement.
  This is a fair point. We can’t be sure what Rush was saying or wasn’t saying. I’ve already said as much several times in this thread.
  In which case we have a statement that on its surface is anti-soldier and his behavior has certainly been very one sided (questioning the honestly of war skeptics, accepting the claims of war supporters without question). When called on this he hasn’t accepted responsibility for wording his statement in a sloppy manner, but instead has blamed others for being out to get him. Since he hasn’t accepted responsibility I see no reason to grant him the automatic forgiveness you seem to extend only to him.
  I heard him say it in an audio clip of the broadcast. Or at least I believe I did, because I no longer have access to the clip. Since I can’t link to it, I can’t document it.
  This is what you wrote:
  He stated explicitly during his on-air conversation that a minority of active-duty soldiers and veterans are against the war. So to claim that he was libeling them as “phony soldiers” is pure malarkey, sunny-side up.
  The transcript of this conversation has been posted and linked to several times on this thread and I saw no explicit admission. Perhaps you meant some other time you listened to Rush’s show, in that case your statement was rather unclear since I took “his on-air conversation” to mean the one we were talking about.
  But here’s a question for you: Do you think that Rush believes that all anti-war soldiers are phony soldiers? Do you believe that Senator Clinton or Senator Harkin thinks that Rush believes all anti-war soldiers are phony soldiers?
  I’m not sure even Rush knows what he believes but if Rush does believe anti-war soldiers are phony then yes that is an anti-soldier statement. I suspect Rush uses soldiers for political ends, though. In other words he loves them when they help the GOP but couldn’t care less otherwise. That would explain the overflowing affection for people that agree with him while those that don’t are treated with skepticism.
  Furthermore, the caller certainly seemed to be saying that real soldiers support the policy and those that don’t are somehow phony. Rush certainly did nothing to challenge that assertion and seemed to encourage it. So the benefit of the doubt account here ran out a long time ago and the checks are bouncing.
  Thank you for accepting the correction on Media Matter’s.
  Media Matters is explicitly dedicated to the proposition that various media outlets are riddled with conservative bias and conservative misrepresentations of reality. They are perhaps the number one source of talking points for political liberals who decry an alleged right-wing imbalance in the media and who demand the adoption of a “Fairness Doctrine”.
  So what? There’s a host of groups on the right that dedicate themselves to tracking what they feel are liberal biases. Media Matters tracks Conservatives on non-broadcast media such as Fox News for whom the fairness doctrine wouldn’t apply as they operate on cable. I’m not seeing anything to indicate the ‘fairness doctrine’ is anything more serious than an idea on the far backburner. Perhaps if it actually comes up for a vote or seriously is pushed as someone’s agenda I’ll consider it more otherwise I’m not buying this idea that any liberal criticism of a conservative is a front for the fairness doctrine therefore must be opposed at all cost.
  Why can’t you see why we think that Rush’s alleged offense was blown out of proportion by Hillary and others? Why can’t you accept that even if you are right (which I don’t believe you are), it doesn’t mean those who disagree with you are being stubborn or worse? We disagree because the evidence is ambiguous, to say the least, and we don’t think it supports what you claim.
  I don’t see Hillary blowing Rush’s offense out of the water, I see you blowing her taking offense out of the water. It is almost like she offended some type of sacred cow. I’m perfectly willing to be fair on this matter, some of the stuff I read on Media Matters such as Rush supopsedly ‘added’ people like Murther to his ‘phony soldier’ list I didn’t bring up because I thought they were reading too much into the actual transcripts they presented. Here, though, Rush is dead to rights and I think it is fair he be judged on his actual words….not us having to try to mind read what he really meant. He has had plenty of opportunity to clarify his words.
  I’ve admitted that Rush is a big fat hypocrite who says things he shouldn’t say. Can you admit that, although you believe otherwise, it’s still in the realm of possibility that Rush does in fact honor and respect soldiers who are anti-war?
  I’ll say its in the realm of possibility, we just haven’t had any evidence of it.
• Matthew Goggins says:

  October 10, 2007 at 5:25 pm

  Boonton,
  In which case we have a statement that on its surface is anti-soldier …
  Putting down “phony soldiers” is not, on its surface, anti-soldier. Someone who impersonates a soldier and invents fictitious accounts of atrocities is behaving in an anti-soldier way. If Rush is calling attention to a soldier-impersonator, then that is a prima facie pro-soldier thing to do.
  … and his behavior has certainly been very one-sided (questioning the honesty of war skeptics, accepting the claims of war supporters without question).
  You are perhaps overstating things, but I agree with you.
  When called on this he hasn’t accepted responsibility for wording his statement in a sloppy manner, but instead has blamed others for being out to get him.
  Rush was handling a live caller, who made a reference to soldiers who weren’t “real”, and Rush prompted the caller with the three words “the phony soldiers”, in order to summarize or clarify what the caller meant.
  In hindsight, I can describe this as a sloppy interview technique, but it certainly wasn’t a “statement” on Rush’s part. At no point does Rush make any statement about anti-war soldiers being phony soldiers. You are expecting/demanding that Rush apologize for something he didn’t do.
  If you wanted to demand that Rush interview anti-war soldiers and give them a proper hearing, then I would stand next to you and hold him responsible for dodging a real debate.
  Since he hasn’t accepted responsibility I see no reason to grant him the automatic forgiveness you seem to extend only to him.
  If he actually said something wrong, then I would want to see him accept responsibility too. It’s hard to accept responsibility for something you didn’t do, though.
  Perhaps you meant some other time you listened to Rush’s show, in that case your statement was rather unclear since I took “his on-air conversation” to mean the one we were talking about.
  No, it was the same show.
  If I remember correctly, he made reference to a poll of active-duty service members that showed a significant percent opposed to the war in Iraq. He accepted the result, but spun it as showing that the large majority was in favor.
  The transcript you linked to is a partial transcript, that’s why it’s not in there (either that, or I’m confusing one show with another, but I don’t think I am).
  I’m not sure even Rush knows what he believes but if Rush does believe anti-war soldiers are phony then yes that is an anti-soldier statement.
  I agree with you 100%. If Rush does believe anti-war soldiers are phony, then Rush is anti-soldier.
  I suspect Rush uses soldiers for political ends, though. In other words he loves them when they help the GOP but couldn’t care less otherwise. That would explain the overflowing affection for people that agree with him while those that don’t are treated with skepticism.
  Hmmm, Rush likes people who agree with him, and treats people who disagree with him with skepticism. Hmmm, do I know anybody else who behaves this way… let me think…
  Why yes, yes I do! The whole world!!!
  But of course, if Rush does it, it must be because “[he] uses soldiers for political ends”. Shame on Rush!
  I also hear he likes to offer to walk elderly people across the street only to abandon them halfway. He’s a real SOB, don’t you think?
  Furthermore, the caller certainly seemed to be saying that real soldiers support the policy and those that don’t are somehow phony. Rush certainly did nothing to challenge that assertion and seemed to encourage it.
  I agree that Rush didn’t challenge the caller.
  As you might remember, I made the same point to you in comment 41 (fifth paragraph):
  The caller, on the other hand, seems rather delusional about anti-war soldiers, and Rush does nothing to disabuse him of his delusions, since that would have impeded the flow of his own bluster.
  On the other hand, Rush says nothing to actually encourage the man in his delusions; he gives him a pass and rolls on to his next complaint.
  So what [if Media Matters is dedicated to correcting conservative bias]? There’s a host of groups on the right that dedicate themselves to tracking what they feel are liberal biases. Media Matters tracks Conservatives on non-broadcast media such as Fox News for whom the fairness doctrine wouldn’t apply as they operate on cable. I’m not seeing anything to indicate the ‘fairness doctrine’ is anything more serious than an idea on the far backburner.
  Are there any conservatives arguing for a “Fairness Doctrine” to correct the liberal biases that exist in media outlets?
  I disagree with your belief that the “Fairness Doctrine” is on the far backburner. If Hillary gets elected it will come into play almost immediately, and serve as a useful club even before it becomes law.
  I don’t see Hillary blowing Rush’s offense out of the water, I see you blowing her taking offense out of the water.
  If Hillary were a benign person, I wouldn’t pay the least bit attention to any of her media commentary.
  Hillary is not a benign person, she is a tough, dirty fighter who is willing to use the government (and everything else at her disposal) to reward her allies and to squash her critics and anyone else who stands in her way.
  Electing her president would be the equivalent of giving a drunk a fifth of vodka and the keys to a sports car.
  … I think it is fair he be judged on his actual words.
  His actual words were “the phony soldiers”, and that’s it. If you judge him on these words, you come up with nothing. They don’t say anything.
  You are not judging him on his actual words. You are putting his words into the context of his conversation with the caller and reaching a conclusion based on several assumptions.
  If you do what you say you are doing, judging him on his actual words, then you have no grounds for your allegation.
  I’ll say it’s in the realm of possibility [that Rush honors and respects soldiers who are anti-war], we just haven’t had any evidence of it.
  I don’t listen to Rush, so I don’t know if there is any evidence or not. If you know, then you know more about Rush than I do.
• smmtheory says:

  October 10, 2007 at 5:42 pm

  Boonton: That would explain the overflowing affection for people that agree with him while those that don’t are treated with skepticism.
  Matthew: Hmmm, Rush likes people who agree with him, and treats people who disagree with him with skepticism. Hmmm, do I know anybody else who behaves this way… let me think…

  Dare I fill in the blank???? How about Boonton for one?
• Boonton says:

  October 11, 2007 at 8:53 am

  Smm,
  Context is the key here. I’d treat anyone who said the Iraq war was great with skepticism but if they also claimed to have been in the military I wouldn’t treat such a claim itself with skepticism based on their political beliefs.
  Again looking at the two Mike callers and Rush’s reaction to them it does seem clear he thinks ‘real’ soldiers support GOP policies and ones that don’t are ‘phonies’. By phony I don’t think he necesarily means they didn’t serve. Rush has no choice but to admit that many people he dislikes like Kerry, Murtha, McGovern etc. have very real military records. By phony I think he means inauthentic (see Joe’s recent post about flag pins).
  Matt:
  Putting down “phony soldiers” is not, on its surface, anti-soldier. Someone who impersonates a soldier and invents fictitious accounts of atrocities is behaving in an anti-soldier way. If Rush is calling attention to a soldier-impersonator, then that is a prima facie pro-soldier thing to do.
  True but there’s no evidence to support this contention that the comment had anything to do with fakers.
  Rush was handling a live caller, who made a reference to soldiers who weren’t “real”, and Rush prompted the caller with the three words “the phony soldiers”, in order to summarize or clarify what the caller meant.
  No he wasn’t. The caller complained that the media talks to soldiers who don’t support the war. He wasn’t complaining that they were talking to people without real military records. As the call was in reference to the previous Mike how would either of them have any idea if Mike’s claim to be ex-military was valid? Again how would Rush know that the second Mike’s claim to be military was valid?
  In reality while I might agree with Mike #1 more than #2, I and most people would not consider that relevant to evaluating their claims to be military members. Being a talk radio show, I know that callers often like to play games so I can see an equal chance that either Mike or both Mikes could have been faking. As a host, though, I wouldn’t challenge them on that regard unless I had clear reason too (I remember listening to one talk radio show where a supposed Korean War vet seemed rather young and seemed to get lots of basic facts wrong)
  At no point does Rush make any statement about anti-war soldiers being phony soldiers. You are expecting/demanding that Rush apologize for something he didn’t do.
  A rational reading of the call shows Mike #2 basically asserting that and Rush going along with it. People do have a right to be offended and to demand an apology or at least acknowledgement. Simply asserting that this is just something made up by left wing Rush-haters is not acceptable.
  Are there any conservatives arguing for a “Fairness Doctrine” to correct the liberal biases that exist in media outlets?
  well it used to be a policy conservatives loved to advocate but I don’t know if any around today still support it. Regardless its a big so-what? Certainly liberals have just as much right to their own ‘media watchdog’ groups as conservatives have. Again I’m not buying this “every liberal criticism of right wing media is a front for the fairness gestpos”….sounds to me like you just want to silenece the criticism liberal groups make of media figures while leaving the door open for their right-wing counterparts.
  I disagree with your belief that the “Fairness Doctrine” is on the far backburner. If Hillary gets elected it will come into play almost immediately, and serve as a useful club even before it becomes law.
  It was never a useful club nor will it ever be even if it becomes war. I remember the ‘fairness doctrine’ in action. It meant maybe a pro-lifer would get 30 seconds ‘equal time’ to respond to a news editorial. It never said critics get equal time, only ‘the other side’ must get a chance. In effect that means a liberal group would get 30 seconds at 2 in the morning to reply to Rush’s 4 hours.
  If Hillary were a benign person, I wouldn’t pay the least bit attention to any of her media commentary.
  Hillary is not a benign person, she is a tough, dirty fighter who is willing to use the government (and everything else at her disposal) to reward her allies and to squash her critics and anyone else who stands in her way.
  Yes HDS in full force. The patient is very sick.
  You are not judging him on his actual words. You are putting his words into the context of his conversation with the caller and reaching a conclusion based on several assumptions.
  If you do what you say you are doing, judging him on his actual words, then you have no grounds for your allegation.
  Indeed I’m assuming he is using the English language. That the words he used actually fit the conversation he was having. That he wasn’t, say, time traveling into the future to address a later segment that hadn’t happened yet or that he wasn’t suffering Touretts or aphasia or some other neurological dysfunction. These are not, I think, heroic assumptions to have made.
• Matthew Goggnis says:

  October 11, 2007 at 1:34 pm

  Boonton,
  I’d treat anyone who said the Iraq war was great with skepticism but if they also claimed to have been in the military I wouldn’t treat such a claim itself with skepticism based on their political beliefs.
  Wrong again, my friend.
  Rush didn’t challenge the first caller’s record of military service (go back and read the transcript again if you aren’t sure). He challenged the caller’s self-identification as a Republican. That is to say, Rush expressed skepticism about the caller’s politics based on the caller’s political views.
  Again looking at the two Mike callers and Rush’s reaction to them it does seem clear he thinks ‘real’ soldiers support GOP policies and ones that don’t are ‘phonies’.
  Yes, it’s very clear, because although he never said any such thing, the mighty Boonton is blessed with the power of reading minds, even several days after the fact.
  Or are you saying that a phony Republican is the same thing as a phony soldier?
  By phony I don’t think he necesarily means they didn’t serve. Rush has no choice but to admit that many people he dislikes like Kerry, Murtha, McGovern etc. have very real military records. By phony I think he means inauthentic (see Joe’s recent post about flag pins).
  This is all well and good, and would actually be relevant, if Rush had actually called any of these people phony soldiers. But once again, you’re just assuming that he thinks that or that he meant to say it, even though he didn’t.
  Are you willing to hold yourself to the same standard?
  If I can piece together some disjointed phrases in your comments and develop a very strong suspicion that you are, in fact, anti-soldier (or anti-children, or anti-apple-pie), should I write a letter to your employer warning him that he should take care to monitor your web-surfing?
  Me-thinks you are neglecting the very reasonable standard that you yourself claim to embrace: judge people on the basis of their own words, and not what we would like to read into them.
  True but there’s no evidence to support this contention that the comment had anything to do with fakers.
  Wrong again, my friend.
  When I read the transcript and listened to the audio clip of the broadcast, my first reaction was that he was referring to Jesse MacBeth. I can’t prove that he was referring to MacBeth, and I can’t be sure that I am correct, but that still appears to me to be the most reasonable and natural explanation.
  And even if there were no transcript or recording of the broadcast, there would still be evidence: Rush’s personal testimony is that he was talking about MacBeth. Of course, you are perfectly justified in discounting the value of this evidence, but you are flat-out wrong to state that it doesn’t exist.
  No he wasn’t [making a reference to soldiers who weren't "real".] …
  Wrong again, my friend.
  The caller did make a reference to soldiers who weren’t “real”. And he did this immediately before Rush prompted him with the three words “the phony soldiers”.
  … The caller complained that the media talks to soldiers who don’t support the war. He wasn’t complaining that they were talking to people without real military records.
  Yes, it is possible that that is what he meant. But once again you are going beyond what the caller actually said, his actual words, and putting your own interpretation on them.
  I think your interpretation is a very reasonable one, and it is more likely than not that you are correct. But it is not the only reasonable interpretation. The caller had not yet at that point in the conversation come out and flatly said that all anti-war soldiers are phony soldiers.
  In reality while I might agree with Mike #1 more than #2, I and most people would not consider that relevant to evaluating their claims to be military members. Being a talk radio show, I know that callers often like to play games so I can see an equal chance that either Mike or both Mikes could have been faking. As a host, though, I wouldn’t challenge them on that regard unless I had clear reason too (I remember listening to one talk radio show where a supposed Korean War vet seemed rather young and seemed to get lots of basic facts wrong).
  I agree.
  And I also agree that this would be relevant if Rush had challenged caller #1’s military service. Since Rush did not do any such thing, though, I am afraid you are fencing a man-o-straw.
  A rational reading of the call shows Mike #2 basically asserting that and Rush going along with it.
  I agree with you that that is a reasonable, rational interpretation of the three words “the phony soldiers”. But the accusation itself (Rush is anti-soldier) is of such a magnitude to require more evidence than a “rational reading”, especially when an equally rational reading is that he didn’t go along with it at all.
  People do have a right to be offended and to demand an apology or at least acknowledgement.
  Yes, they do.
  Simply asserting that this is just something made up by left wing Rush-haters is not acceptable.
  And have I asserted that left-wing Rush-haters made anything up?
  All that I am asserting is that Rush’s sloppiness gave his opponents an opening to unfairly attack him, and that Hillary took advantage of that to the hilt.
  Rush himself didn’t deny he said what he said, he’s just insisting that his critics are taking it out of context, and that the politicians in particular are being very cynical and dishonest about it.
  My response to Rush is that is that he deserves some of the grief that he has gotten for being a hypocrite who refuses to engage anti-war soldiers in genuine debate. But that fact doesn’t mitigate what Hillary and Senator Harkin and the other Dem congressmen have been doing.
  Regardless it’s [the "Fairness Doctrine"] a big “so-what?”
  Not just wrong, but fabulously wrong, my friend.
  Yes, a one-minute rebuttal in a one-hour broadcast is not a very bad thing per se. The thing that is bad is the government regulation that would enforce such a requirement.
  The paperwork and the looming threat of a government legal action would have (as it did in the 70’s and 80’s) a very chilling effect on “controversial” speech and increase the costs of broadcasting talk-show radio dramatically.
  Government should not be in the business of monitoring public speech for political content, period.
  This is not a small thing, this is a very big thing. I respect your disagreement, but your position on this is really the pits.
  It was never a useful club nor will it ever be even if it becomes law.
  Keep your stinking hands off my radio, because there isn’t any need for it. Then your assurances won’t be necessary. (By the way, when I listen to the radio, which isn’t very often, it’s usually NPR.)
  Yes HDS in full force. The patient is very sick.
  Ah yes, Hillary has no record of retaliating against people who stand in her way. Ah yes, it is so ungenerous of me to characterize her as “not benign”. The great and mighty Boonton would never malign a politician in such a loopy way.
  What was I thinking?
  That he wasn’t, say, time-traveling into the future to address a later segment that hadn’t happened yet.
  Hmmm, Rush needs a time-machine to anticipate a segment that is coming up in two minutes on his own show. You know, I hadn’t really considered this point before, thank you for bringing it up.
  … or that he wasn’t suffering Touretts or aphasia or some other neurological dysfunction.
  Hey, you left out Senator Tom “warm-and-cuddly” Harkin’s speculation that he was high on drugs. Are you having a bad day?
  These are not, I think, heroic assumptions to have made.
  Not heroic indeed.
• Boonton says:

  October 11, 2007 at 2:36 pm

  Are you willing to hold yourself to the same standard?
  If I can piece together some disjointed phrases in your comments and develop a very strong suspicion that you are, in fact, anti-soldier (or anti-children, or anti-apple-pie),
  Disjointed phrases? Come on grow up here. Mike #2 was having a conversation with Rush about Mike #1, the policy complaint was the policy Mike seemed to be advocating. Again who are the ‘phony soldiers’ Rush was talking about? The disjointed interpretation is believing he was talking about Macbeth who clearly did not apply to the conversation.
  Me-thinks you are neglecting the very reasonable standard that you yourself claim to embrace: judge people on the basis of their own words, and not what we would like to read into them.
  Judge people on a reasonable reading of their words. You seem to want to fall back on such a reading that almost all speech would be rendered unintelligible nonsense hence Rush cannot be held responsible for anything he says. Of course this is one sided. Democrats can have their words parsed in most minute detail necessary.
  When I read the transcript and listened to the audio clip of the broadcast, my first reaction was that he was referring to Jesse MacBeth. I can’t prove that he was referring to MacBeth, and I can’t be sure that I am correct, but that still appears to me to be the most reasonable and natural explanation.
  Except for that fact that it is the most unreasonable and unnatural reading of the transcript for reasons we’ve gone over a half dozen times now. MacBeth never, to anyone’s knowledge, advocated withdrawl, was not spotlighted by the media, was not the previous caller as the current caller said he was responding to Mike #1 and so on.
  And even if there were no transcript or recording of the broadcast, there would still be evidence: Rush’s personal testimony is that he was talking about MacBeth. Of course, you are perfectly justified in discounting the value of this evidence, but you are flat-out wrong to state that it doesn’t exist.
  It’s amusing that you would find Rush’s version more credible if the transcript didn’t exist! Yea lies are more credible if you ignore the evidence.
  Wrong again, my friend.
  The caller did make a reference to soldiers who weren’t “real”. And he did this immediately before Rush prompted him with the three words “the phony soldiers”.
  Boy you either have a massive comprehension problem or are really brazen. The caller never referenced soldiers who were faking their service, the caller specifically said he was responding to the previous caller. It’s there in plain sight. It’s stunning after all these posts and the transcript being pasted so many times you’re making such a claim.
  Fairness Doctrine
  Yes, a one-minute rebuttal in a one-hour broadcast is not a very bad thing per se. The thing that is bad is the government regulation that would enforce such a requirement.
  The problem is that broadcasters do not pay for their licenses, they apply for them and assert they are ’serving the public’. In theory the fairness doctrine is a lot different than, say, ordering a cable station or newspaper to print ‘fair balance’. I would be in favor of auctioning off licences every year and then treat them as private property like a printing press but broadcasters like to have it both ways, arguing they are a public service when it comes time to pay and arguing they are a private speaker whenever else.
  The paperwork and the looming threat of a government legal action would have (as it did in the 70’s and 80’s) a very chilling effect on “controversial” speech and increase the costs of broadcasting talk-show radio dramatically.
  This is false. Talk radio has a very long history long before Rush ever came around. Ever hear of Bob Grant, for instance? Don’t confuse a limited market due to monopolies, or just lack of innovation with a ‘chilling effect’.
  Keep your stinking hands off my radio, because there isn’t any need for it. Then your assurances won’t be necessary. (By the way, when I listen to the radio, which isn’t very often, it’s usually NPR.)
  So do I! Not so much for the politics but because I try to listen to classical music to relax plus I like the fact that they have long news stories that go into a lot of detail rather than lots of short ones. As I said, though, I’m not in favor of the doctrine nor am I in fear of it. Broadcasting has become, quite frankly, very unimportant and the right is hyping the doctrine as a scare tactic.
  Ah yes, Hillary has no record of retaliating against people who stand in her way. Ah yes, it is so ungenerous of me to characterize her as “not benign”. The great and mighty Boonton would never malign a politician in such a loopy way.
  Retaliating? You mean like clubbing people with a baseball bat? Blowing up their cars? Ohhh, wait, you mean writing a letter criticizing something a broadcaster said. Yea really scarey except for the fact that dozens of politicans have done the same thing in all different ways.
  Rush again
  Hey, you left out Senator Tom “warm-and-cuddly” Harkin’s speculation that he was high on drugs. Are you having a bad day?
  I’m the one that is giving Rush the credit that he means what he says. You seem to be saying that Rush’s words are so untrustworthy and unreliable that only the most exacting specific and literal meaning is permitted to be read by them. If Rush, after being called out on this, had said something like “I misspoke, I was thinking about MacBeth” or if he said “Hey got high, slipped up sorry” I’d give him the credit. Instead he lied claiming not only was he talking about MacBeth but his critics were just making this up from nothing but their hatred of him. Sorry, his critics read the transcript fairly in this case.
• Matthew Goggins says:

  October 11, 2007 at 4:00 pm

  Boonton,
  Disjointed phrases?
  Yes, you’re right to question “disjointed phrases”.
  It was actually one isolated phrase that Rush never elaborated upon.
  Judge people on a reasonable reading of their words. You seem to want to fall back on such a reading that almost all speech would be rendered unintelligible nonsense hence Rush cannot be held responsible for anything he says.
  You’re entitled to your opinion. It’s not based on what I’ve said though.
  What I actually said is that your interpretation is reasonable, at least if you don’t take too close a look and are willing to make certain assumptions about what Rush is likely to believe.
  And I also said that I believe my interpretation is more reasonable or more valid. Since both our interpretations can’t be correct, that means one of us is wrong. It doesn’t mean that I think we shouldn’t be making interpretations — I don’t think that at all.
  Of course this is one sided. Democrats can have their words parsed in most minute detail necessary.
  Taking the phrase “the phony soldiers” and waving it around as an anti-soldier badge is not some kind of exercise in detailed parsing?
  And yes, if Dem’s are going to hide behind artful, lawyerly phrasings to obscure their agendas and their records, you can be damn sure I’m going to parse what they say whenever I feel like it.
  Except for that fact that it is the most unreasonable and unnatural reading of the transcript for reasons we’ve gone over a half dozen times now.
  Yes, I know that’s what you think. And I know we’ve gone over it ad nauseum. But perhaps you don’t realize I don’t have the Boonton gift of reading minds.
  MacBeth never, to anyone’s knowledge, advocated withdrawal, …
  Criminies, you are being awfully dense to say that.
  Yes, his motivation was that he was a psychotic loser who was scamming for attention and money. But his means to that end was to pretend to be a war criminal, and he allowed himself to be used by withdrawal advocates as an exhibit against the war. Do you get it now?
  … was not spotlighted by the media, …
  He was spotlighted by alternative media and by an article in at least one local mainstream paper in Arizona. So your point is valid, but overstated.
  … was not the previous caller as the current caller said he was responding to Mike #1…
  Yes, caller number two was responding to caller number one. However, what caller number two actually said was,
  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.
  So caller number two was not calling caller number one a phony or not “real” soldier, because caller number one never mentioned having talked to the media.
  If you can’t get your own facts straight, Boonton, how can you credibly claim to tell us the authoritative “reading” of a three-word phrase?
  … and so on.
  Thanks for restraining yourself from listing more proof. You were just on the verge of persuading me, it was a very close call.
  It’s amusing that you would find Rush’s version more credible if the transcript didn’t exist! Yea lies are more credible if you ignore the evidence.
  You really can’t read. You are your own worst witness. I didn’t say or imply any such thing.
  You said there wasn’t any evidence. I said the transcript and the recording were evidence, and that Rush’s testimony was additional evidence. I didn’t say his testimony was dispositive, I said just the opposite: “you are perfectly justified in discounting the value of this evidence”.
  Get a clue, Sherlock!
  The caller never referenced soldiers who were faking their service, the caller specifically said he was responding to the previous caller.
  Boonton, here it is one more time:
  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.
  And then Rush said:
  The phony soldiers.
  Since caller number one didn’t talk to the media, he wasn’t one of the soldiers that caller number two was talking about.
  It’s stunning after all these posts and the transcript being pasted so many times you’re making such a claim.
  I suppose I could say the same thing about you, but if you can’t get the plain sense of what I myself am repeatedly saying, then why should I be surprised you can’t read what Rush and the caller said either.
  The problem is that broadcasters do not pay for their licenses, they apply for them and assert they are ’serving the public’. In theory the fairness doctrine is a lot different than, say, ordering a cable station or newspaper to print ‘fair balance’. I would be in favor of auctioning off licences every year and then treat them as private property like a printing press but broadcasters like to have it both ways, arguing they are a public service when it comes time to pay and arguing they are a private speaker whenever else.
  Gee, why am I not surprised you are defending the “Fairness Doctrine”? Because it is not part of the Patriot Act, so it has nothing to do with George Bush or fighting terrorists. Because it is Hillary and the Dem’s who are pushing it, so why not downplay the costs and highlight the “public service” duties of public broadcasters?
  Like I said before, keep your stinking hands off my radio, amigo.
  This is false. Talk radio has a very long history long before Rush ever came around. Ever hear of Bob Grant, for instance? Don’t confuse a limited market due to monopolies, or just lack of innovation with a ‘chilling effect’.
  As always, you are entitled to your opinion. But I strongly believe that a dispassionate accounting of the history of talk radio in the 70’s and 80’s would support my position.
  So do I! Not so much for the politics but because I try to listen to classical music to relax plus I like the fact that they have long news stories that go into a lot of detail rather than lots of short ones.
  Same here.
  As I said, though, I’m not in favor of the doctrine nor am I in fear of it.
  I don’t fear Hillary and the “Fairness Doctrine”. I am mobilized against her (and against the “Fairness Doctrine”) because she is dangerous to our liberty and to our rights (as is, to a lesser extent, the “Fairness Doctrine”). Hillary is scary as a political phenomenon or as a freak of nature, but she doesn’t go as far as to actually inspire fear in me.
  Broadcasting has become, quite frankly, very unimportant and the right is hyping the doctrine as a scare tactic.
  Yeah right. That’s why Hillary & Co. want to regulate it. And that’s why you’ve just bloviated for a couple of minutes to explain why it’s unimportant.
  But I think you’ve actually stumbled across a key point: to Hillary, the consequences of most of her policies are unimportant except inasmuch as they advance or impede her own agenda and quest for power.
  Retaliating? You mean like clubbing people with a baseball bat? Blowing up their cars? Ohhh, wait, you mean writing a letter criticizing something a broadcaster said. Yea really scarey except for the fact that dozens of politicans have done the same thing in all different ways.
  Boonton, you’re either clueless or disingenuous. Either way, I’m not about to educate you about Hillary. If you’re really interested, you can easily research it yourself. Have at it, dude.
  You seem to be saying that Rush’s words are so untrustworthy and unreliable that only the most exacting specific and literal meaning is permitted to be read by them.
  Then let me be perfectly clear:
  The most exacting specific and literal meaning is NOT the only reading of Rush’s words that is allowed.
  But neither is the most forced and/or negative meaning the only reading that is allowed.
  You have come up with a different reading from mine. I said several times that that was fine. If you still don’t understand that, then your reading comprehension skills don’t inspire confidence.
  I also said that Rush deserves the benefit of the doubt in my view, because his version seems to be the most plausible one to me and because the allegation is a very serious allegation.
  I understand that you disagree, but I haven’t said you don’t know how to intrepret things correctly, I just have been making the case for my own interpretation because I still think it makes the most sense. If you don’t buy my argument, that is fine with me.
  Instead he lied claiming not only was he talking about MacBeth but his critics were just making this up from nothing but their hatred of him.
  Maybe he is lying about it, but that is your judgement, and you can’t prove it.
  And Rush didn’t say his critics made it up. He said they they took his words out of context, which is arguably true (or arguably false, in your view, but again not a lie).
  Sorry, his critics read the transcript fairly in this case.
  I think a superficial or cursory reading supports the critics, but that a more sustained inspection leaves only ambiguity. As always, feel free to disagree.
  Boonton, I admire your tenaciousness, but your sloppiness goes well beyond Rush’s, and your attitude on the “Fairness Doctrine” seems at least as hypocritical as Rush’s attitude towards anti-war soldiers.
  If you’re going to make an argument about what a person meant to say, you should really take more care not to make blatant errors of reading comprehension.
  One more thing:
  You may remember that I mentioned a couple of positive things about the Hildabeast, and challenged you to do the same with President Bush. So how about it, do you have anything genuinely nice you could say about Chimpy McHitler?
  Cheers,
  Matthew
• Matthew Goggins says:

  October 14, 2007 at 12:27 am

  Here’s another reason that I fervently hope Senator Clinton gets her head handed to her on a platter by Giuliani or Senator Thompson or whoever.
  From the great aggregator of important news and amusing trivia, Glenn Reynolds, the Instapundit:
  [Begin quote]
  THE U.S. SENATE: UNITERS, NOT DIVIDERS!
  A reader sends this summary, not available online as far as I know:
  Iraqi Figures Launch Campaign Against U.S. Senate Resolution
  Iraqi political and religious figures, in addition to Arab figures [outside Iraq], have launched a campaign to collect the signatures of one million people, [in order to] oppose the U.S. Senate resolution on partitioning Iraq into federal regions on sectarian bases.
  A conference was held in Amman to this effect, during which the participants, who represent various sects, called on the Arab countries to stand by Iraq and condemn this resolution.
  (Dubai Al-Sharqiyah Television in Arabic — Independent, private news and entertainment channel focusing on Iraq, run by Sa’d al-Bazzaz, publisher of the Arabic-language daily Al-Zaman)
  Soon, the U.S. Senate will be held in as much esteem in Iraq as it is in America.
  [End quote.]
• Boonton says:

  October 14, 2007 at 11:39 am

  Too bad the people who are really partitioning Iraq is not the US Senate but the Iraqi people themselves.
• Brendt says:

  October 14, 2007 at 4:14 pm

  Won’t Dr Evil be upset if I vote for Mini-Me?
  What’s that? . . . Oh, never mind.
• Louis says:

  March 4, 2008 at 6:06 am

  [URL=http://www.dailygmat.com/crack] crack [/URL] crack
• Louis says:

  March 4, 2008 at 1:48 pm

  [URL=http://www.dailygmat.com/ragazze] ragazze [/URL] ragazze
• Halim says:

  March 4, 2008 at 8:39 pm

  [URL=http://www.friland.net/video-porno-da-scaricare-gratis] video porno da scaricare gratis [/URL] video porno da scaricare gratis
• Aria says:

  March 5, 2008 at 3:08 am

  [URL=http://www.friland.net/quattroruote] quattroruote [/URL] quattroruote
• Jessica says:

  March 14, 2008 at 10:40 am

  [URL=http://www.cedricleroy.com/berserk] berserk [/URL] berserk
• Max says:

  March 14, 2008 at 4:28 pm

  [URL=http://www.cedricleroy.com/bancatoscana-it] bancatoscana it [/URL] bancatoscana it
• Yana says:

  March 15, 2008 at 9:47 am

  [URL=http://www.huraiyth.com/death] death [/URL] death
• Barbie says:

  March 15, 2008 at 3:29 pm

  [URL=http://www.huraiyth.com/vanessa-ferrari] vanessa ferrari [/URL] vanessa ferrari
• Janni says:

  March 16, 2008 at 10:31 am

  [URL=http://www.betamate.com/tesi-it] tesi it [/URL] tesi it
• Mike says:

  March 16, 2008 at 4:38 pm

  [URL=http://www.ncfliving.net/hotel-5-stella-berlino] hotel 5 stella berlino [/URL] hotel 5 stella berlino
• Jamelia says:

  March 16, 2008 at 10:53 pm

  [URL=http://www.ncfliving.net/appunti-letteratura] appunti letteratura [/URL] appunti letteratura
• Sofi says:

  March 17, 2008 at 4:48 am

  [URL=http://www.key4fun.com/puglia-vacanza-mare-gargano] puglia vacanza mare gargano [/URL] puglia vacanza mare gargano
• Ibrahim says:

  March 17, 2008 at 12:20 pm

  [URL=http://www.key4fun.com/panca-ad-inversione] panca ad inversione [/URL] panca ad inversione
• Umberto says:

  March 17, 2008 at 6:46 pm

  [URL=http://www.fxtend.net/carta-credito-italiana] carta credito italiana [/URL] carta credito italiana
• Adelaide says:

  March 18, 2008 at 12:53 am

  [URL=http://www.fxtend.net/ministero-della-difesa-it] ministero della difesa it [/URL] ministero della difesa it
• Jason says:

  March 18, 2008 at 7:44 am

  [URL=http://www.michaelsteven.net/ingegnere-genova] ingegnere genova [/URL] ingegnere genova
• Sarah says:

  March 18, 2008 at 5:47 pm

  [URL=http://www.michaelsteven.net/il-piccolo] il piccolo [/URL] il piccolo
• Harry says:

  March 19, 2008 at 12:43 am

  [URL=http://www.youngamericansfund.com/virgilio-eros] virgilio eros [/URL] virgilio eros
• Nick says:

  March 19, 2008 at 7:22 am

  [URL=http://www.youngamericansfund.com/final-fantasy-xii] final fantasy xii [/URL] final fantasy xii
• Jake says:

  April 9, 2008 at 3:34 am

  [URL=http://www.equine-natural-therapy.com/portare-tavola-panettone.php] Portare tavola panettone [/URL] Portare tavola panettone
• Frederick says:

  April 9, 2008 at 11:21 am

  [URL=http://www.clavinum.com/invio-gratuito-suoneria.php] Invio gratuito suoneria [/URL] Invio gratuito suoneria
• Regginald says:

  April 18, 2008 at 3:45 am

  [URL=http://www.albudab.org/convertitore-cd-gratis.php] Convertitore cd gratis [/URL] Convertitore cd gratis [URL=http://www.albudab.org/web-mobile.php] Web mobile [/URL] Web mobile [URL=http://www.albudab.org/olympus-mju-780.php] Olympus mju 780 [/URL] Olympus mju 780 [URL=http://www.albudab.org/cellulare-doppia-sim.php] Cellulare doppia sim [/URL] Cellulare doppia sim [URL=http://www.albudab.org/amplificatori-valvolari.php] Amplificatori valvolari [/URL] Amplificatori valvolari [URL=http://www.albudab.org/radio-milan-inter.php] Radio milan inter [/URL] Radio milan inter [URL=http://www.albudab.org/corsi-arredamento.php] Corsi arredamento [/URL] Corsi arredamento [URL=http://www.albudab.org/catherine-fulop.php] Catherine fulop [/URL] Catherine fulop [URL=http://www.albudab.org/scuola-polizia.php] Scuola polizia [/URL] Scuola polizia [URL=http://www.albudab.org/oops-nude.php] Oops nude [/URL] Oops nude [URL=http://www.albudab.org/allergia-nichel.php] Allergia nichel [/URL] Allergia nichel [URL=http://www.albudab.org/debt-elimination.php] Debt elimination [/URL] Debt elimination [URL=http://www.albudab.org/cella-carico.php] Cella carico [/URL] Cella carico [URL=http://www.albudab.org/provincia-trapani.php] Provincia trapani [/URL] Provincia trapani [URL=http://www.albudab.org/young-lolita-sex.php] Young lolita sex [/URL] Young lolita sex [URL=http://www.albudab.org/hokuto-no-ken.php] Hokuto no ken [/URL] Hokuto no ken [URL=http://www.albudab.org/vendita-online-collana.php] Vendita online collana [/URL] Vendita online collana [URL=http://www.albudab.org/consulenza-astrologica.php] Consulenza astrologica [/URL] Consulenza astrologica [URL=http://www.albudab.org/compagnia-vasco-rosso.php] Compagnia vasco rosso [/URL] Compagnia vasco rosso [URL=http://www.albudab.org/la-verna.php] La verna [/URL] La verna [URL=http://www.albudab.org/virus-informatici.php] Virus informatici [/URL] Virus informatici [URL=http://www.albudab.org/oracle-8-1-7.php] Oracle 8 1 7 [/URL] Oracle 8 1 7 [URL=http://www.albudab.org/accompagnatrice-in-calabria.php] Accompagnatrice in calabria [/URL] Accompagnatrice in calabria [URL=http://www.albudab.org/loverboys.php] Loverboys [/URL] Loverboys [URL=http://www.albudab.org/elementi-architettonici.php] Elementi architettonici [/URL] Elementi architettonici [URL=http://www.albudab.org/corso-arredamento.php] Corso arredamento [/URL] Corso arredamento [URL=http://www.albudab.org/audi-3.php] Audi 3 [/URL] Audi 3 [URL=http://www.albudab.org/xine-dvd-player.php] Xine dvd player [/URL] Xine dvd player [URL=http://www.albudab.org/ragazze-polacche.php] Ragazze polacche [/URL] Ragazze polacche [URL=http://www.albudab.org/castello-chianti.php] Castello chianti [/URL] Castello chianti [URL=http://www.albudab.org/canzone-dragon-ball.php] Canzone dragon ball [/URL] Canzone dragon ball [URL=http://www.albudab.org/gioco-dragon-ball-gt.php] Gioco dragon ball gt [/URL] Gioco dragon ball gt [URL=http://www.albudab.org/lastminutetour-it.php] Lastminutetour it [/URL] Lastminutetour it [URL=http://www.albudab.org/vallo-adriano.php] Vallo adriano [/URL] Vallo adriano [URL=http://www.albudab.org/buste-porta-cd.php] Buste porta cd [/URL] Buste porta cd [URL=http://www.albudab.org/elezione-venezuela.php] Elezione venezuela [/URL] Elezione venezuela [URL=http://www.albudab.org/cerca-indirizzi-e-mail.php] Cerca indirizzi e mail [/URL] Cerca indirizzi e mail [URL=http://www.albudab.org/pussy-wet.php] Pussy wet [/URL] Pussy wet [URL=http://www.albudab.org/castelli-chianti.php] Castelli chianti [/URL] Castelli chianti [URL=http://www.albudab.org/ascoltare-canzone-raffaello-alessio.php] Ascoltare canzone raffaello alessio [/URL] Ascoltare canzone raffaello alessio [URL=http://www.albudab.org/porte-nusco.php] Porte nusco [/URL] Porte nusco [URL=http://www.albudab.org/sostegno-scolastico.php] Sostegno scolastico [/URL] Sostegno scolastico [URL=http://www.albudab.org/gay-anal-sex.php] Gay anal sex [/URL] Gay anal sex [URL=http://www.albudab.org/caldaia-unical.php] Caldaia unical [/URL] Caldaia unical [URL=http://www.albudab.org/residence-milano-marittima.php] Residence milano marittima [/URL] Residence milano marittima [URL=http://www.albudab.org/celle-di-carico.php] Celle di carico [/URL] Celle di carico [URL=http://www.albudab.org/striscione-milan.php] Striscione milan [/URL] Striscione milan [URL=http://www.albudab.org/immagini-sportive.php] Immagini sportive [/URL] Immagini sportive [URL=http://www.alb
  udab.org/ragazza-polacca.php] Ragazza polacca [/URL] Ragazza polacca [URL=http://www.albudab.org/divx-ita.php] Divx ita [/URL] Divx ita [URL=http://www.albudab.org/carta-del-cielo.php] Carta del cielo [/URL] Carta del cielo [URL=http://www.albudab.org/traduzione-canzone-italiano.php] Traduzione canzone italiano [/URL] Traduzione canzone italiano [URL=http://www.albudab.org/rifacimento-tetto.php] Rifacimento tetto [/URL] Rifacimento tetto [URL=http://www.albudab.org/enel-distribuzione.php] Enel distribuzione [/URL] Enel distribuzione [URL=http://www.albudab.org/key-power-dvd.php] Key power dvd [/URL] Key power dvd [URL=http://www.albudab.org/i-will-survive.php] I will survive [/URL] I will survive [URL=http://www.albudab.org/offerta-volo-basso-costo.php] Offerta volo basso costo [/URL] Offerta volo basso costo [URL=http://www.albudab.org/vacanza-hotel-sicilia.php] Vacanza hotel sicilia [/URL] Vacanza hotel sicilia [URL=http://www.albudab.org/masterizzatore-dvd-rw.php] Masterizzatore dvd rw [/URL] Masterizzatore dvd rw [URL=http://www.albudab.org/jack-lo-squartatore.php] Jack lo squartatore [/URL] Jack lo squartatore [URL=http://www.albudab.org/mutuo-regione-sardegna.php] Mutuo regione sardegna [/URL] Mutuo regione sardegna [URL=http://www.albudab.org/trucchi-giochi-ps2-gratis.php] Trucchi giochi ps2 gratis [/URL] Trucchi giochi ps2 gratis [URL=http://www.albudab.org/auricolare-jabra.php] Auricolare jabra [/URL] Auricolare jabra [URL=http://www.albudab.org/lighters.php] Lighters [/URL] Lighters [URL=http://www.albudab.org/eliminare-virus.php] Eliminare virus [/URL] Eliminare virus [URL=http://www.albudab.org/harry-potter-cd.php] Harry potter cd [/URL] Harry potter cd [URL=http://www.albudab.org/lombardia-it.php] Lombardia it [/URL] Lombardia it [URL=http://www.albudab.org/griglia-elettrica.php] Griglia elettrica [/URL] Griglia elettrica [URL=http://www.albudab.org/elettrica.php] Elettrica [/URL] Elettrica [URL=http://www.albudab.org/navman-pin-570.php] Navman pin 570 [/URL] Navman pin 570 [URL=http://www.albudab.org/aereoporto-ancona.php] Aereoporto ancona [/URL] Aereoporto ancona [URL=http://www.albudab.org/prescription-medication.php] Prescription medication [/URL] Prescription medication [URL=http://www.albudab.org/gazzetta-ufficiale-4-serie-speciale.php] Gazzetta ufficiale 4 serie speciale [/URL] Gazzetta ufficiale 4 serie speciale [URL=http://www.albudab.org/poesia-festa-donna.php] Poesia festa donna [/URL] Poesia festa donna [URL=http://www.albudab.org/david-coperfield.php] David coperfield [/URL] David coperfield [URL=http://www.albudab.org/poesia-francese.php] Poesia francese [/URL] Poesia francese [URL=http://www.albudab.org/san-domenico.php] San domenico [/URL] San domenico [URL=http://www.albudab.org/energia-geotermica.php] Energia geotermica [/URL] Energia geotermica [URL=http://www.albudab.org/modem-adsl-alcatel.php] Modem adsl alcatel [/URL] Modem adsl alcatel [URL=http://www.albudab.org/prefettura-ancona.php] Prefettura ancona [/URL] Prefettura ancona [URL=http://www.albudab.org/luis-sepulveda.php] Luis sepulveda [/URL] Luis sepulveda [URL=http://www.albudab.org/volare-airline.php] Volare airline [/URL] Volare airline [URL=http://www.albudab.org/adult-toon.php] Adult toon [/URL] Adult toon [URL=http://www.albudab.org/sposa-it-www-abito-valentino-sposa-abito.php] Sposa it www abito valentino sposa abito [/URL] Sposa it www abito valentino sposa abito [URL=http://www.albudab.org/itinerario-lucca.php] Itinerario lucca [/URL] Itinerario lucca [URL=http://www.albudab.org/foto-intime.php] Foto intime [/URL] Foto intime [URL=http://www.albudab.org/appartamento-affitto-bologna.php] Appartamento affitto bologna [/URL] Appartamento affitto bologna [URL=http://www.albudab.org/cover-dvd-vasco.php] Cover dvd vasco [/URL] Cover dvd vasco [URL=http://www.albudab.org/canzoni-dragonball.php] Canzoni dragonball [/URL] Canzoni dragonball [URL=http://www.albudab.org/decoder-satellitari.php] Decoder satellitari [/URL] Decoder satellitari [URL=http://www.albudab.org/codice-ascii.php] Codice ascii [/URL] Codice ascii [URL=http://www.albudab.org/pavimento-parquet.php] Pavimento parquet [/URL] Pavimento parquet [URL=http://www.albudab.org/foto-finale-champions-league.php] Foto finale champions league [/URL] Foto finale champions league [URL=http://www.albudab.org/tecnocasa-roma.php] Tecnocasa roma [/URL] Tecnocasa roma [URL=http://www.albudab.org/auto-mazda.php] Auto mazda [/URL] Auto mazda [URL=http://www.albudab.org/romane.php] Ro
  mane [/URL] Romane [URL=http://www.albudab.org/augurio-buon-anno-2007.php] Augurio buon anno 2007 [/URL] Augurio buon anno 2007 [URL=http://www.albudab.org/willy-smith.php] Willy smith [/URL] Willy smith [URL=http://www.albudab.org/virus-informatico.php] Virus informatico [/URL] Virus informatico [URL=http://www.albudab.org/legno-massello.php] Legno massello [/URL] Legno massello [URL=http://www.albudab.org/forum-nokia-n70.php] Forum nokia n70 [/URL] Forum nokia n70 [URL=http://www.albudab.org/mobili-ufficio-friuli.php] Mobili ufficio friuli [/URL] Mobili ufficio friuli [URL=http://www.albudab.org/sesso-online.php] Sesso online [/URL] Sesso online [URL=http://www.albudab.org/pallavolo-gattinara.php] Pallavolo gattinara [/URL] Pallavolo gattinara [URL=http://www.albudab.org/file-bin.php] File bin [/URL] File bin [URL=http://www.albudab.org/herzog-de-meuron.php] Herzog de meuron [/URL] Herzog de meuron [URL=http://www.albudab.org/cd-cover-elisa.php] Cd cover elisa [/URL] Cd cover elisa [URL=http://www.albudab.org/armwrestling.php] Armwrestling [/URL] Armwrestling [URL=http://www.albudab.org/esame-matematica.php] Esame matematica [/URL] Esame matematica [URL=http://www.albudab.org/pannolino-mutandina-per-bambino.php] Pannolino mutandina per bambino [/URL] Pannolino mutandina per bambino [URL=http://www.albudab.org/juventus-brescia.php] Juventus brescia [/URL] Juventus brescia [URL=http://www.albudab.org/christmas-uk.php] Christmas uk [/URL] Christmas uk [URL=http://www.albudab.org/calcio-italiano.php] Calcio italiano [/URL] Calcio italiano [URL=http://www.albudab.org/web-mobili.php] Web mobili [/URL] Web mobili [URL=http://www.albudab.org/ufficio-cremona.php] Ufficio cremona [/URL] Ufficio cremona

Leave a Reply

Click here to cancel reply.

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

CAPTCHA Code

Trackbacks

Additional comments powered by BackType