www.ditl.org

Hot on the heels of "General Betray-Us" by MoveOn.org that generated so much controversy and negative attitudes towards MoveOn, it seems as if reprisals are being conducted. There's the O'Reilly thing, and now a more topical attack on conservative radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh by another Soros-funded leftist gang, MediaMatters.org.

While talking to a caller, Rush used the term "phony soldiers". MediaMatters, followed in short order by the 'mainstream' leftist media (1, 2, 3), is painting the context of this as referring specifically to American soldiers who do not support the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Except that's not the context of what he said. Listen here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rm84gOXkZaY

Rush Limbaugh clearly referred to fake soldiers like Jesse MacBeth, et al.

MediaMatters claims that this is a wickedly-edited clip intended to distort the facts, but the caller himself changed topic after that, after which Limbaugh returned to the point. This is normal. Some people ask him quick sports questions or talk about the TV show 24 when they have his attention, after which he returns to the politics they called about.

The clip itself is obviously faded . . . had it been an effort to distort the facts they could've done so much more effectively. In short, Limbaugh misspoke with the word "entire" regarding the clip, but other than that he's basically sinless in the matter.

I'm reminded of the "Barack the Magic Negro" controversy (also involving Limbaugh), which resulted after the LA Times called Barack Obama "the Magic Negro" and Al Sharpton questioned Obama's racial authenticity, whatever that was supposed to mean. Limbaugh's team produced a parody of Al Sharpton (with ever-the-protestor megaphone) singing (to the tune of "Puff the Magic Dragon"):

"Barack the Magic Negro / lives in DC
The LA Times, they call him that / 'cause he's not authentic like me!"

Et cetera.

Then, as now, it seems as if controversies in the media that focus on political groups or persons on political matters follow a certain pattern. If you're liberal, the controversy over what you said gets covered, albeit somewhat begrudgingly. If you're conservative, controversy is created when your words are taken out of context.

As someone all too familiar with having his words taken out of context, I feel for the guy.

I have no desire to try to convince you how ridiculous you saound - you're entitled to whatever viewpoints you want. But if you have to pick two members of the right wing to defend, are you sure you want them to be Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh?

It's a waste of time trying to argue with him - he'll simply continue to spout his own opinions without the slightest attempt to acknowledge any evidence but that which fits his own conclusions.

Now, I'll admit I'm not too up on politics, but I'm glad I'm not the only one who found this rather ridiculous.

This is why I love Darkstar and his ilk, I really do. They do more to discredit the conservative movement than liberals ever could by arguing against them.

When the left bloc simply says "oh that's ridiculous" without cause, I daresay I'm made more comfortable in my opinion, not less.

Context is what it is. One can only know the contents of a person's mind by what they say and do. In this case we have a snippet of what was said being stripped out of the context of not only the rest of what was said, but also the person's whole massive body of work.

If (pick your favorite leftist political figure) had a radio show where a caller talked about "taking care of Iran" and the partial response was "yeah, nuking Iran", and then after the call the person made fun of people who might talk of using nuclear weapons on Iran . . . do you think they actually think nuking Iran is a good way to take care of it? No, of course not. And you certainly wouldn't call them or their supporters a ridiculous figure . . . indeed, you'd moan and complain if anyone said "Hey, (choice leftist) said nuking Iran is how to take care of the Iran problem!"

What, are you trying to tell me that in the midst of a conversation with a caller, Limbaugh calculated that what he said was actually awful, figured out an all-too-viable 'reimagination' cover story involving Jesse MacBeth, and whipped out the story on him all in a matter of 1 minute, 50 seconds?

If you think such an absurd sequence of events is possible, then wouldn't he have taken special care to note that some non-fake service members genuinely disagree with the war, to cover his tracks that much further? I mean, the absurd sequence of events would involve him intentionally and knowingly distancing himself from the earlier statement, so it would make perfect sense.

Ah, but that didn't happen. Which supports the idea that it never would've, because the fake soldier MacBeth was what he was thinking of, and thus was the context of his "phony soldiers" remark.

Besides . . . just how quick-on-his-feet do you think Rush Limbaugh really is? I thought your position is that conservatives were stupid.

But in any case, perhaps you gentlemen are lucky enough never to have had your words taken out of context, in which case you'll be unaware of how the dishonest do so. Their tactics are infuriating, and I submit that the worst part is when you show them the actual context that they missed (treating them as if they are honest people) and they only dig in their heels and howl that much louder.

On the good side, it's only infuriating in the moment . . . it doesn't take too long before you're just laughing at how ridiculous they are.

Interesting (to me, anyway) further details:

- MediaMatters . . . Soros-funded, Hillary-approved. She takes credit for helping to get it going. Good thing it's 'fair and balanced', eh?

- Stated tactics of MediaMatters senior fellow quoted here . . .

On our side we had the never-was-all-that-liberal-and-certainly-haven't-been-for-some-time outlets like New York Times and NPR, where "balanced" reporting commentary is the norm. Whatever the merits/slant or lack of for NYT and NPR generally, the "two sides to every story" approach doesn't actually serve to generate a basic liberal narrative about events, a common thread which we can all follow.

Now with blogs and a bit more genuine liberal talk radio we finally have our own narrative generation machine, and people who follow them regularly are following a basic storyline. The point isn't that there's consensus on all issues all the time, but we're largely operating within the same basic story, our little model of reality.

Considering the New York Times is often thought to be significantly slanted left, this goes along precisely with what I've said previously where the MediaMatters folks act like the liberal media isn't liberal enough. Or as dude calls the mainstream media in general, the "less partisan media". Less partisan? So it is partisan, he recognizes?

- Additional phony soldiers list, including the aforementioned Jesse MacBeth, Micah Wright, Amorita Randall, along with quasi-phony Scott Thomas Beauchamp, Jimmy Massey, and (ha) John Kerry.

- Let's also enjoy the irony of the fact that Iowa Senator Tom Harkin, one of the fellows who spoke out against Rush Limbaugh on the floor of the Senate, was himself a massive embellisher of his military service.

- Last but not least, we've had Harry 'the war is lost, and the surge is accomplishing nothing' Reid claim that Rush Limbaugh is unpatriotic. This, of course, is also a massive act of irony. There's a fun montage here of what happens if the far-left Democrat leadership tries to run with that line.

In short, I find this whole thing quite amusing. Ridiculous, even, though I rather doubt it's for the reasons some others in this thread do.