Syl's "why is nobody talking about this" thread

[The Laughing Man]

I haven't met anyone on this board, myself included, who can even qualify to lick Kerry's boots.

[taraswizard]

Trappper,
Surely you're joking (please excuse me calling you 'Shirely')Trapper wrote ahile ago

It's funny how the Rush defenders are the same people who liked to attack Kerry over his comments on the military.

One would have thought that all those Purple Hearts Rush Limbaugh won in battle would have given him some respite from such baseless accusations as these.

One can only commend these true heroes that simultaneously uphold the virtue of Rush Limbaugh, whilst also decrying the cowardice and duplicity of John Kerry.

[Zarathustra]

It's funny how the Rush defenders are the same people who liked to attack Kerry over his comments on the military.

One would have thought that all those Purple Hearts Rush Limbaugh won in battle would have given him some respite from such baseless accusations as these.

One can only commend these true heroes that simultaneously uphold the virtue of Rush Limbaugh, whilst also decrying the cowardice and duplicity of John Kerry.

The sheer valour of these posters leaves me truly humbled.

On such ideals are great nations built...

I see your point. On the surface, it appears to be a contradiction, purely driven by political differences. However, I think there's a huge difference here. Even *IF* Rush actually meant what people are accusing him of meaning, there's a big difference between a private citizen criticizing the troops, and a U.S. Senator and presidential candidate criticizing the troops. Add on top of that the fact that this private citizen is being publicly chastised by our federal government, including an attempt to pass a resolution and make it all official. The federal government has no place making personal attacks against individual citizens based on their political speech. BIG DIFFERENCE.

Besides, there's evidence that Kerry meant what he said, while Rush did not. For instance, Kerry has a decades long history of criticizing our troops, while Rush has a decades long history of supporting our troops. The man has been speaking publicly for 3 hours a day for nearly two decades, with every single word recorded for posterity. And the best anyone can come up with to prove his "anti-troops" behavior are two words, which he claims were taken out of context.

So the apparent contradiction you're trying to draw doesn't exist. Both of these events are so different, that they require a different response.

[The Laughing Man]

Besides, there's evidence that Kerry meant what he said, while Rush did not. For instance, Kerry has a decades long history of criticizing our troops, while Rush has a decades long history of supporting our troops. The man has been speaking publicly for 3 hours a day for nearly two decades, with every single word recorded for posterity. And the best anyone can come up with to prove his "anti-troops" behavior are two words, which he claims were taken out of context.

So the apparent contradiction you're trying to draw doesn't exist. Both of these events are so different, that they require a different response.

Kerry certainly has a decades long history of being accused, by the right-wing prowar no less, of criticising "the troops". That doesn't make it any more true, Malik, no matter how "foregone conclusion" you present it. Why don't you provide us with this "evidence" so that we might compare them to any Rush quotes that might pop up?

[Plissken]

Plissken, do you really think Rush's words are worse than our soldiers hearing their own elected leaders declare that they have failed in their mission? Or that the Abu grab fiasco showed that our soldiers were as bad as Saddam himself?

I'm not comparing the two. Rush makes his dollars selling advertising. When he says this shit on AFR, he's making money for selling demoralizing lies to our troops.

Comparing that to (as far as I can tell) completely theoretical quotes from politicos (find me one who says that the troops have failed, as opposed to the mission failing) who are, after all, supposed to be monitoring success and failure of Executive policies, is Apples and Road Apples.

[Avatar]

...who says that the troops have failed, as opposed to the mission failing...

The very distinction I was going to draw.

--A

[taraswizard]

Agreeing with Pliss and Av's comment. IIRC, the constitutional officer who said the troops had failed was a holder of a non-elected position and part of the executive branch.

BTW, being called a 'phony' is worse than being told you're a 'failure'. The phony comment questions those in the military authenticity of service, and it implies a question of the sincerity and honorablity of their service. Questioning authenticity of service is something these right-wing gas bags do continuously, Rush said that Senatorial aspirant Paul Hackett only went to Iraq to 'pad' his resume or compare how Max Cleland and Wes Clark have be talked about at various times.

[Zarathustra]

Plissken, do you really think Rush's words are worse than our soldiers hearing their own elected leaders declare that they have failed in their mission? Or that the Abu grab fiasco showed that our soldiers were as bad as Saddam himself?

I'm not comparing the two. Rush makes his dollars selling advertising. When he says this shit on AFR, he's making money for selling demoralizing lies to our troops.

Comparing that to (as far as I can tell) completely theoretical quotes from politicos (find me one who says that the troops have failed, as opposed to the mission failing) who are, after all, supposed to be monitoring success and failure of Executive policies, is Apples and Road Apples.

I could be wrong, but as far I know, there aren't regular commercials on the AFR. Rush doesn't get paid to have his show broadcast on that network.

The troops are being more demoralized by the mainstream media focusing on their "failures" and not mentioning their successes than ANYTHING Rush has ever said. He has been a constant champion of the troops in battle, and they call in constantly to his show to thank him.

[A Gunslinger]

"The troops are being more demoralized by the mainstream media focusing on their "failures" and not mentioning their successes than ANYTHING Rush has ever said. He has been a constant champion of the troops in battle, and they call in constantly to his show to thank him."

But only the REAL ones...right?

Look, I heard Rush's comment. Clearly he WAS suggesting that troops who oppose the war (like Pat tillman?) in Iraq or question the mission, are "phoney" troops. That they knew what they were getting into when they signed up (though i doubt that many understood that tours of duty would be extended over and over and OVER etc.). They truly PHONEY troops are the guns-for-hire mercenaries like Black water (that Bush continues to support?! WTF!), but that's another issue.

Whatever Rush said, I still say that to attempt to score points on him by the dems is as shallow as it is for the GOP to attempt to score points on moveon or george soros. It distracts from the issues and real battels that need to be fought over the misguided and foolish conflict.

[Avatar]

As I said before, I really can't see this as any more of a republican version of Kerry's faux pax. *shrug* Just another example of partisan politics blowing things out of proportion.

--A

[High Lord Tolkien]

As I said before, I really can't see this as any more of a republican version of Kerry's faux pax. *shrug* Just another example of partisan politics blowing things out of proportion.

--A

Hey!
What are you doing awake at this hour?

[Avatar]

Haha, it's not that late here. 20h00. I'm at the GF's work...they're having an exhibition so I'm stealing their bandwidth while I wait.

--A

[Plissken]

Plissken, do you really think Rush's words are worse than our soldiers hearing their own elected leaders declare that they have failed in their mission? Or that the Abu grab fiasco showed that our soldiers were as bad as Saddam himself?

I'm not comparing the two. Rush makes his dollars selling advertising. When he says this shit on AFR, he's making money for selling demoralizing lies to our troops.

Comparing that to (as far as I can tell) completely theoretical quotes from politicos (find me one who says that the troops have failed, as opposed to the mission failing) who are, after all, supposed to be monitoring success and failure of Executive policies, is Apples and Road Apples.

I could be wrong, but as far I know, there aren't regular commercials on the AFR. Rush doesn't get paid to have his show broadcast on that network.

The troops are being more demoralized by the mainstream media focusing on their "failures" and not mentioning their successes than ANYTHING Rush has ever said. He has been a constant champion of the troops in battle, and they call in constantly to his show to thank him.

Again, you're operating under the assumption that anyone thinks that the troops have failed. No one I know of does. The troops have performed admirably under the worst conditions (and overall strag-et-y) that can be imagined.

Moving on from that, Rush is still benefiting from his airtime on AFR (if nothing else, in audience numbers, and in prestige amongst his followers), and his calling troops "Phoney" or telling them that half the country is upset that they and their comrades are surviving their time under fire puts into question whether or not he should to continue to reap that benefit.

[Tjol]

I haven't met anyone on this board, myself included, who can even qualify to lick Kerry's boots.

Umm... how so?

There are respectable politicians in the democratic party, but Kerry doesn't really have any qualities shown before the public that really strike me as even making him an equal to the average citizen. Outside of moving up via marriage so that he can include himself among some new england blue bloods, he really hasn't accomplished much of anything.

I thought even most Dems were saying the same after he last the election. Put the money behind half the people on this board that was put behind Kerry, and we would defeat George Bush. Kerry is of lesser importance to the world than most here as well. Outside of his money, he's a stuffed shirt.

[Plissken]

I won't go as far as Es, but Kerry did have more going for him than just marrying well. For one thing, he was capable of seeing (and communicating) the nuances of a problem. To paraphrase one (my favorite) of his critics at the time:

"Kerry's a chess player, and Bush is a checkers player."

The critic then went on to to explain that Bush's "You get in our way and we're gonna jump you" attitude towards foreign policy was "just what this country needs right now."

Me, I'd rather have the nuance. I think that's been borne out.

[Trapper]

However, I think there's a huge difference here. Even *IF* Rush actually meant what people are accusing him of meaning, there's a big difference between a private citizen criticizing the troops, and a U.S. Senator and presidential candidate criticizing the troops. Add on top of that the fact that this private citizen is being publicly chastised by our federal government, including an attempt to pass a resolution and make it all official. The federal government has no place making personal attacks against individual citizens based on their political speech. BIG DIFFERENCE.

You're damn right there's a big difference.

Kerry was answerable to the American electorate. You may have noticed that, IIRC, Kerry didn't actually win that 2004 election thingy, for example.

I'll take it as given that you disagree with me that those Swift Boat shenanigans were "personal attacks against individual citizens based on their political speech", or that those attacks were made with the approval of the "federal government" of the time...

Rush, on the other hand, is answerable only to consumers of the "service" he delivers. The same self proclaimed "ditto-heads" who look to him in order to determine their own views and voting stances. Oh, and also to his sponsors.

Gimps of a gimp of a chimp.

Syl and Cail had it right in the first two posts of this thread.

Yours Truly,

Shirley ( for taraswizard)

[The Laughing Man]

well, Tjol, he volunteered for a very unpopular war. Once there, he volunteered to go on missions that were virtually guaranteed to get him, and his men under his command, killed. Seems there was a part of a river that noone could go down where everyone was geting killed, and they asked him to come up with a plan and take his men down that river where they were likely to be killed like everyone else who had gone down it was killed. At one point he actually grounded his boat, jumped off it and chased an enemy thru the hostile unknown jungle where everyone was getting killed, and he, and his men, killed the enemy. Not only did he clear that river, on a mission he volunteered for, he brought every one of his men back alive. This is just one instance of his military service among many.

Now, after proving his bravery in a war he volunteered for and successful missions where he defeated the enemy and saved his men, he was brave enough to come back here and speak out about the horrible atrocities committed by our soldiers and our leaders over there. Make no mistake, if you can imagine it, one of our soldiers over there did it. Horrible terrible things were done in the fog of war, things no American should tolerate, much less be proud of. He had the courage to stand and speak out against it, and to me that makes him one of the bravest men in the world. After all that, he has had the selfless audacity to serve the needs of his fellow citizens in politics every year since. For some reason, people keep electing him.

Now let's talk about the tone and substance of the election debate fiasco. When Kerry said "I voted for it, then I voted against it", to me was perfectly understandable in the light of voting procedures. He voted for a bill, they changed the bill, so he then voted against it because he didn't like the changes. The whole world responded with "OMG!" and "Flipflopper!". Right then I knew the world was lost, the election was lost, and sanity and intelligence had just disappeared from the landscape of politics and elections forever.

So you, and everyone else are certainly entitled to your opinions, and many of you I'm sure wonder why I defend Kerry so vociferously. It's simple. He defended my ass, and millions of others. It's the least I can do.

[Avatar]

Good post man.

--A