“Rush” To Judgment: Can You Identify The Phony?
Well that didn’t take long. In the aftermath of the demand to condemn the questionable MoveOn.org advertisement singling out General Petraeus’ for his role in supporting the Bush administration policy in Iraq, it seemed likely that one of the many Bush apologists would soon step into some deep doodoo. As fortune would have it, the winner turns out to be none other than Rush Limbaugh.
During the September 26 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh called service members who advocate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq “phony soldiers.” He made the comment while discussing with a caller a conversation he had with a previous caller, “Mike from Chicago,” who said he “used to be military,” and “believe[s] that we should pull out of Iraq.” Limbaugh told the second caller, whom he identified as “Mike, this one from Olympia, Washington,” that “[t]here’s a lot” that people who favor U.S. withdrawal “don’t understand” and that when asked why the United States should pull out, their only answer is, ” ‘Well, we just gotta bring the troops home.’ … ‘Save the — keeps the troops safe’ or whatever,” adding, “[I]t’s not possible, intellectually, to follow these people.” “Mike” from Olympia replied, “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.” Limbaugh interjected, “The phony soldiers.” The caller, who had earlier said, “I am a serving American military, in the Army,” agreed, replying, “The phony soldiers.”
As Media Matters for America has documented, Limbaugh denounced as “contemptible” and “indecent” MoveOn.org’s much-discussed advertisement — titled “General Petraeus or General Betray Us?” — critical of Gen. David Petraeus, but has repeatedly attacked the patriotism of those with whom he disagrees. For instance, on the January 25 broadcast of his radio show, he told his audience that he had a new name for Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE), a Vietnam veteran: “Senator Betrayus.”
Limbaugh has been pushing the envelope for years…frequently jumping up and down on the line but seemingly succeeding in not crossing the threshold of no return. With the timing of his latest remarks…so close on the heels of the MoveOn.org fiasco…Rush may have finally failed to sneak one by.
The man who fashions himself to be a skillful tactician…on the order of an Olympic diver…able to jump into an issue head first, speak his piece, and leave behind insufficient evidence of his obtuse and offensive persona…may have finally committed the proverbial belly flop; leaving behind enough proof to warrant his disqualification.
Limbaugh’s reflections have long been directed at the unwitting…and with this latest assault upon soldiers who serve their country honorably…he has once again chosen to wield his haughty hammer like a crazed carpenter in a glass house. Fortunately, the self-absorbed oxy-gen receptacle (code for pill popping windbag) may have misjudged his swing and shattered his own house of smoke and mirrors.
If it isn’t obvious, I’ll not lose any sleep while his actions are probed…in ways that he’ll hopefully find to be reminiscent of a visit to the one fingered physician. All I can say is, “Enjoy the examination, Rush!”
September 28th, 2007 at 4:00 am
Is it possible that Rush meant phony soldiers like this? Booted out of boot camp after forty days, spent no time in Iraq, telling complete fabrications to the media, media lapping it up like a kitten at a saucer of cream until eventually the truth comes out?
September 28th, 2007 at 4:34 am
Or perhaps he meant this phony soldier.
September 28th, 2007 at 4:43 am
Craig,
Possibly. But why is someone who is on active military service allowed to talk to Rush? I thought active soldiers weren’t supposed to do politics like that.
September 28th, 2007 at 5:04 am
I mean it’s possible, isn’t it, that when Rush referred to phony soldiers going to the media, these guys are who he had in mind? I don’t know, of course, since I’m not in Rush’s mind, I don’t even listen to his program, but before media matters starts calling him a liar, perhaps a little homework might be in order. I mean, I could find these guys and I’m not an organization with lots of people and resources available to track down these things. Just a guy with Google.
I’m no Rush fan. As I said, I never listen. Calling Hagel Betrayus is just as bad as Move On’s ad, as far as I’m concerned. Just saying, there’s no reason to think, at least nothing that I’ve read at either media matters or here, to think that Rush was lying. I mean, if I’m familiar with these guys, I’m sure Rush Limbaugh is. These stories were passed around the conservative blogs at the time and you can bet that Rush had plenty to say about them then.
September 28th, 2007 at 5:07 am
Paul,
I don’t know. I’m not familiar with the rules. Maybe the guy talking to Rush was breaking the rules. That doesn’t in any way reflect on Rush, though. If the soldier broke the rules that’s his bad.
September 28th, 2007 at 5:25 am
Craig,
I wasn’t criticising Rush on this. Just a bit confused as I understood that you couldn’t talk to the media without a superior officer’s consent in the US.
September 28th, 2007 at 5:26 am
And if they’re only letting one side talk to the media? Well, that’s again nothing to do with Rush, but it certainly allows a misleading picture to be presented of how the ‘military’ feels about things. But that’s the military, and not Rush.
September 28th, 2007 at 6:27 am
Paul,
I’ll have to refer all questions about media contact by serving military to those who know what they’re talking about on that score. Anything I’d say is more likely than not to be wrong.
September 28th, 2007 at 6:32 am
Craig,
I wasn’t really asking you specifically, just further clarifying.
September 28th, 2007 at 6:51 am
By the way, regarding Senator Betrayus, for Sen. Hagel, it wasn’t Rush that came up with that. Rush plainly said on the show that it was a caller who couldn’t stay on the line that mentioned that, based upon the rhyme with Gen. Petraeus’ name, the caller’s new name for Senator Hagel was Senator Betrayus.
Now Rush repeated what the caller had said without comment and it may be fair to say that he did so approvingly — or at least he didn’t take the opportunity to disavow it, but facially, he didn’t say that his own (i. e., Rush’s) new name for Senator Hagel was “Senator Betrayus”; he said that that was his caller’s new name for him.
That doesn’t change much since someone who expresses outrage at MoveOn.org referring (with a question mark) to General Petraeus as General Betrayus should, to be consistent, also have rejected the same exact epithet being used of a US Senator by a caller. It’s just that Media Matters seems to be making it sound like it was Rush’s new name for him. I think that that might tend to mislead their readers about the actual origin of the name.
September 28th, 2007 at 8:19 am
Well obviously, it’s the Marine with the stump. He’s just a really dedicated phony.
Flush Rush!
September 28th, 2007 at 10:40 am
Rush is now, and always has been, little more than a pompous windbag. Sadly, too many listen to his nonsense and vitriol and actually regard him as some sort of political saint.
September 28th, 2007 at 10:46 am
Ken and Poobah-
Are you purposely ignoring the links Craig provided? You may like Rush but by him exposing these guys and calling them “phony” soldiers which they are,he is protecting the honor of the soldiers serving by protecting from the lies.
So are you actually supporting these 2 guys and their lies?
Way to support the troops.
September 28th, 2007 at 11:24 am
Lisa,
Rush wasn’t exposing anyone. As I indicated, I have no idea what Rush had in mind when he referred to phony soldiers. I can no more than suggest that he might have had these guys in mind and, if he did, then his “phony soldiers” epithet was well deserved. On the other hand, Media Matters might be right; he might have been referring to soldiers who did serve, saw combat and came out against the war. There have been those who have done that; some of them ran for office in the 2006 election cycle. If Rush was thinking of them when he spoke of phony soldiers, then no number of links that I can provide will save him from being a schmuck.
In any case, by speaking of Rush as Ken and Poobah do, they are saying nothing at all about the two guys in my links or their lies. They are saying something about their thoughts about Rush Limbaugh and what they view to be his shortcomings.
My links are no more than a possible innocent explanation. They prove nothing.
September 28th, 2007 at 12:03 pm
Yes Craig he was referring to those 2 soldiers. That’s what they do they twist it but he was strictly talking about those two.
September 28th, 2007 at 12:09 pm
It’s hardly news that a partisan hack would also be a flaming inconsistent hypocrite. Waterboy may be the worst of them, but he’s certainly not the only double-standard dead-ender.
September 28th, 2007 at 12:12 pm
but not to worry when Hillary becomes president she will shut down all talk radio so the only agenda we get to hear will be hers and her ilke.
September 28th, 2007 at 12:30 pm
Well, Lisa, you’re a much more accomplished mind-reader than I am because I’m not certain of anything.
September 28th, 2007 at 2:15 pm
Lisa
Are you an alias for steveil. Your arguments are remarkably similar.
September 28th, 2007 at 3:40 pm
No Alias just me!
Craig that’s what she said. You do recall the Fairness Doctrine?
September 28th, 2007 at 4:54 pm
Lisa,
No, no…I mean reading what was in Rush’s mind when he spoke of phony soldiers. I mean, I think I laid out a plausible case for what he meant but only he knows what he had in mind. I imagine that, by now, he has addressed the issue. Alas, I have no idea, although it would be interesting if his response is anything like mine. As for the fairness doctrine, I just really don’t think it’s happening. NPR would then have to hire a whole slew of conservatives to serve as yang to the likes of Dianne Rheme’s yin. It just wouldn’t work.
Plus, in this day and age, where the resources of “broadcast” “air waves” are no longer limited but are nearly limitless, I think the present Supreme Court would consider it as an unconstitutional infringement of free speech. Free speech, it ought to be recalled, means not only can the government not tell one what one cannot say (with some exceptions) or punish you for saying it, neither can the government (again with exceptions) tell one what they must say. The government does not exist to dictate what the people may or may not or must say, at least in my opinion.
Back when there were, for most people, very few tv or radio choices, it was felt that forcing balance was necessary in order to allow more than just the rich owners of networks to be able to address wide swaths of the population. Today, talk radio makes that unnecessary. Everyone can call into some am station and discuss sports, religion, politics and present their own unique take. Talk radio has given everyone, at least potentially, if they will merely take advantage of it, a voice to the world…not to mention the internet.
September 28th, 2007 at 7:15 pm
I know people love to hate Rush and I don’t listen to him either but why should we assume that he meant anything other than those 2 guys especially when he compared it to John Kerry’s speec after Viet Nam. Just because he called them phony soldiers I think it was blown out of proportion(as usual)what he meant.
I forgot the nam of the black quarteback that he had said on ESPN that they want him to do good because he’s black. He got fired for that because they ttok that statement and turned it into what they wanted it to be. I don’t think that statement meant nothing more than what was said and that it would be a good thing for him to do well because there were no other black quarterbacks at the time.
I thinl it’s the left that divides this country more than anyone but taking regular comments and twisting them to turn people off.
September 28th, 2007 at 9:12 pm
HI
September 29th, 2007 at 12:18 am
Lisa,
I don’t think we should assume anything anything other than that he meant those guys but that’s sorta conservative me. Given the partisan rhetoric often adopted by Rush against liberals/progressives, you can hardly blame the liberal/progressives here at BIO! for not giving him the benefit of the doubt..
September 29th, 2007 at 9:13 am
You can read how Rush address this here:
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_092807/content/01125106.guest.html
And here you will find a story addressing the “phony soldiers”
http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/09/anti-war-youtub.html
From the article at ABC
“The phony war hero phenomenon plagues the American landscape and tarnishes the service of thousands of veterans who have served honorable,” said Douglas Carver, special agent in charge of the VA’s inspector general operation in the west.”
Notice the person saying this was NOT Rush but Douglas Carver. The dateline for the story was 9/21/07.
Anybody see John Kerry rushing to the floor of the Senate addressing this story? Of course not, it only became important when Rush repeated it. Did you see a story at Media Matters? Of couse not even though the name of their group is media matters all that really matters to them is a disingenious attempt to smear the right wing talkers.
From the ABC story:
“A Washington man, whose claims to have slaughtered civilians as a U.S. Army Ranger in Iraq were seen by millions on YouTube, admitted in federal court in Seattle today that he was a fake and a liar.
Jesse Adam Macbeth, 23, pleaded guilty to charges he faked his war record.
“He was in the Army for 40 days before he was kicked out of boot camp for being unfit,” said U.S. Attorney Jeffrey C. Sullivan. “He was never in Iraq.”"
This guy IS a phony soldier and a scumbag.
Also from the ABC story:
“In another recent case, investigators uncovered a man who posed as a U.S. Marine Chaplain, officiating at the weddings and funerals of Marines.
Reggie Lee Buddle, 59, of Puyallup, Wash., was sentenced to two years of probation in July after pleading guilty to charges he wore a Marine Captain’s uniform and insignia.
Buddle, who never served in the Marines, participated in an opening ceremony of the Washington state Senate last year, delivering the opening prayer.
Macbeth, the phony U.S. soldier who claimed to have committed atrocities, was sentenced to five months in jail.
He told the judge today he wanted to apologize to “the real American heroes.”
He said he lied about his military record in order to get money and treatment from the VA hospital. ”
Yet another “phony soldier”
How about this entry at Blackfive from a soldier who lambasted Rush then heard the clip:
“Rush Limbaugh owes a huge apology
Posted By Uncle Jimbo
UPDATE: All right chill out everyone. I listened to the clip at the link below which has at least 3 minutes or so before he says the phony soldiers bit and there is no context that would lead you to understand his use of the phrase. If there is a longer clip and it does show he meant the Macbeths of the world, then I owe a huge apology. I man up when I’m wrong. So Rush, I am sorry I said you owed an apology. You do not. I am gonna stick with most of the names I called you though except “stunningly stupid” and “foolish and disrespectful” as those referred to this non-incident. Audio at Flopping Aces”
This is only a half assed apology by Uncle Jimbo so when taken to task by his bloggers he later says this:
“Oh, I get it, you haven’t listened to him in 20 years.
“pompous, jackass windbag”? Try the mirror UJ.
Were you unable to read the next sentence feral?
he was such a pompous, jackass windbag that I couldn’t stand to listen to him. Bill O’ Reilly affects me the same way, honestly they remind me of the things I like least about myself.
I already looked in the mirror.
OK everybody quit yelling at me about Rush. I WAS WRONG!
And when a man admits he was wrong and means it, he is instantly forgiven-
The International Rule Book (as interpreted by Kev)
Cordially,
Uncle J
I still don’t like Rush but I may call and apologize in person. I just don’t do well on hold.
Posted by: Uncle Jimbo | September 28, 2007 at 12:01 PM ”
The whole exchange is here:
http://www.blackfive.net/main/2007/09/rush-limbaugh-o.html
How can anyone forget the left wing rag The New Republic jumping on the stories Pvt. Beuachamp was sending in alleging all kinds of atrocities by our guys only to find out he was faking it. Turns out he is married to one of the writers there and the story did not get fact checked and was false. Where was the venerable John Kerry or Media Matters on that one?
You guys think you have a “gotcha” moment here and all you have is evidence of your inability to get you facts straight before smearing someone.
About Beauchamp: Another “phoney soldier”
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,292367,00.html
From the article:
“According to the military source, Beauchamp’s recantation was volunteered on the first day of the military’s investigation. So as Beauchamp was in Iraq signing an affidavit denying the truth of his stories, the New Republic was publishing a statement from him on its website on July 26, in which Beauchamp said, “I’m willing to stand by the entirety of my articles for the New Republic using my real name.”
September 29th, 2007 at 2:58 pm
Now that the truth has had a chance to crawl out from under the slime thrown upon it by Media Matters, the only question I have is, why would anyone turn to Media Matters if they were at all interested in anything resembling the truth. Had they bothered to place the few sentences that they ripped out of the context of the show, this whole phony smear would have been shown to be just that: a phony smear against Rush Limbaugh. The show itself explained exactly what Rush was referring to: Jesse MacBeth and Jesse is not alone. There’s a whole slew of people who simply make shit up about their military careers. In short, just as I suggested above that Rush might have been doing: he was truthfully calling people who phony-up military careers that never were or embellish careers that really were with stories that weren’t, phonies.
Media Matters phonied-up a smear job against Rush Limbaugh by ripping a few words out of a long radio show, the full transcript of which they had so they can’t claim ignorance of the truth, and Democrats are now asking whether Republicans who condemned the MoveOn “General Betrayus” ad will condemn Rush Limbaugh. Well guess what. Limbaugh was right, Media Matters was wrong and Democrats like John Kerry are making laughing stocks out of themselves. Pols have no shame. Apparently, neither does Media Matters.
Oh well…SOS;DD (same old shit; different day).
If I sound mad now, I am. This smear of Rush Limbaugh was despicable.
September 29th, 2007 at 3:19 pm
Oh, and Lisa,
You were exactly right.
September 29th, 2007 at 4:56 pm
Please What he said was that all soldiers who want to pull out of Iraq are phony soldiers.
ALLER 2: 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.
LIMBAUGH: The phony soldiers.
CALLER 2: The phony soldiers. If you talk to a real soldier, they are proud to serve. They want to be over in Iraq. They understand their sacrifice, and they’re willing to sacrifice for their country.
September 29th, 2007 at 5:33 pm
What who said. Rush Limbaugh did not, not any where at any time in the transcript of the show, say that all soldiers who want to pull out of Iraq are phony soldiers. That’s the bullshit that Media Matters interpreted into it and you bought it. Taken in context of the show, what went before, what came after, there is simply no way that a fair person could put that interpretation on what was said.
September 29th, 2007 at 5:49 pm
craig
Please explain
The phony soldiers. If you talk to a real soldier, they are proud to serve. They want to be over in Iraq. They understand their sacrifice, and they’re willing to sacrifice for their country.
September 29th, 2007 at 6:06 pm
Look at it this way. Perhaps the caller was saying that. Who knows? He opens his phone lines and any crackpot can call in and say any damn thing. Rush Limbaugh is not responsible for the opinions, thoughts or words of his callers. The point is, shortly after this exchange, Rush Limbaugh told his listeners and Media Matters (if they hadn’t ignored everything that explained what Rush meant) what he meant by phony soldiers.
From the transcript of the show:
Any fair person who would have had the entire record in front of them, as Media Matters did, would now be in absolutely no doubt as to what Rush meant by phony soldiers. Now you, Christopher, are a fair person and if you had had the whole record in front of you, you’d know that this whole smear job of Rush was bullshit. For some reason Media Matters didn’t think it necessary to tell you or its other readers that Rush had told them exactly what he meant by phony soldiers, that he was NOT talking about any real soldier who dared to think we shouldn’t be in Iraq, that he was talking about people like MacBeth who made up an entire career in Iraq, along with war-crimes witnessed and participated in, lies all of it, even wrote a book, had become a cause célèbre of the anti-war left and others like him until the truth came out.
Reading just what Media Matters gave you to read, yes, I can see how a fair person could assume that Rush was calling any soldier who did serve but did not want the troops to stay in Iraq a phony soldier. What is unforgivable is that Media Matters kept the truth from you and the rest of their readers.
September 29th, 2007 at 6:37 pm
His comments immediately after that caller remark were
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.
Sounds very much like he is agreeing with the caller. The only real soldiers are the one that want to be in Iraq.
September 29th, 2007 at 7:01 pm
Well, this is what I think. I think that a talk show host isn’t responsible for their callers’ every word. If he took exception to every word a caller said, soon people would stop calling in. Whether to take exception to some particular thing said by a caller is, I would think, a judgment call. Not being a radio talk-show host who fields calls from all over the country and is restricted in time, I don’t know. That’s just what I think. However, sometimes I read a post by someone here or elsewhere and I like it and I say so. I don’t always nit-pick every word in the post and take exception to everything they say. On the air, Rush is limited in time. He can’t just say everything that might be said about what a caller says. I just think that when Rush goes on to tell everyone who HE (not the caller) thinks the phony (or fake) soldiers are, then THAT should be what we take to be Rush’s view of who the fake soldiers are…soldiers who have faked their bios and, out of the blue, spoken to the media…that is to say, people about whom “phony soldier” is literally true. It’s what he told his listeners he meant by the phrase. Rush did all of us the favor of telling us who the phony soldiers that he (again, not his caller) was talking about and it was the MacBeths of the world.
I guess we can parse until the cows come home, ignoring Rush’s own explicit explanation, and still come to differing opinions. I just don’t see how one can read Rush’s own explanation of what he means by phony or fake soldiers and come to the conclusion that he means soldiers who really did serve, people who did not make up stories about their service that are self-admittedly and absolutely and unquestionably lies. When an author or speaker actually goes to the trouble to tell you what he means, I think you should take his word for it and not parse his interactions with a caller that no one, not even Rush, has a perfect understanding of what he (that is, of what the caller) means. There simply isn’t time to go into detail, questioning callers to get clear exactly what they mean but that’s not true of Rush. He explicitly told you what he means. MacBeth and those like him: people who are genuine, self-admitted, undeniably and literally phony soldiers.
To me, that should be the end of it.
September 29th, 2007 at 8:30 pm
A. He denied that the first caller was a republican because he wanted to leave iraq.
B. The second caller was specifically replying to the first caller.
C. The most likely reason for bringing up the jesse was to refute the anti war movement.
D. He is a know lier and drug addict.
E. After the second caller he talks about fake not phony and never refers back to the second caller.
F. He apparently does not watch World News Tonight where they have talk about people faking being war veterens of iraq.
September 29th, 2007 at 9:02 pm
A. Is irrelevant to what he meant by phony soldiers.
B. So what? Elaborate?
C. To me, the most likely reason for bringing up Jesse is to make explicit what he meant in talking with the caller, Mike.
D. I can see how that’s relevant to your being disinclined to believe anything Rush says but irrelevant to what Rush actually meant by phony soldiers.
E. You’re saying you think there’s some substantive difference between “phony soldiers”, spoken during a phone call, and “fake soldiers” spoken immediately, not 10 seconds after the caller hangs up? No segway? No “And now for something completely different? They sound synonymous to me. What? are “phony soldiers” and “fake soldiers” term of art where a speaker can’t refer to one and the same phenomenon by both terms? I don’t buy it. It seems to me that his mention of phony soldiers in the call brought to mind the update on Jesse MacBeth from the previous days program and was the perfect illustration to what he’d just mentioned: phony soldiers. Sure, bringing up Jesse hurts the anti-war movement.
F. Sorry, I miss the point. Please elaborate.
September 29th, 2007 at 11:06 pm
Once we’ve thoroughly discussed the smear of Rush Limbaugh, we can discuss the smear of Bill O’Reilly. :^)
September 30th, 2007 at 10:24 am
CALLER 1: See, I — I’ve used to be military, OK? And I am a Republican.
caller 2 called in direct response to caller 1 saying he use to be in the military. Also in spite of caller 1 repeatetly saying he was a republican, Rush said he wasn’t. because of his stand on Iraq. It shows a pattern of behavior.
I think he would have said: An example of phony soldiers, or continuing on with phony soldiers or an example of phony soldiers.
As to the last bit. Rush states that the main stream media ignores the fake soldiers. Since world news tonight did cover it that would be a lie. However if he meant just Jesse I can not refute that as the only paper on line that I found it in was the seattle times.
As for O’reily what he said was racist. Wether or not he is racist I will leave to al sharpton. Who, to the best of my knowledge has not accused him of it.
September 30th, 2007 at 1:08 pm
Christopher: Here is a link to a black blogsite discussing the O’Reilly thing.:
http://blackvoices.aol.com/blogs/2007/09/26/oreilly-a-racist-sharpton-will-decide/
There is division about Bill’s comments but I find it interesting that many blacks did not find his comments racist and a few point out that he is just stating the facts. Check it out.
Also interesting is this comment from TL @ blackvoices:
14. First of all, the ENTIRE transcript is not at the link you provided. Media Matters conveniently left off the entire transcript and only published part of it. The entire transcript can be heard at billoreilly.com
Why would media matters only publish part of the transcript? If they are really just a media watchdog, why be afraid to publish the entire thing. The answer lies in their agenda which has nothing to do with the truth.
I had an earlier post that addresses the Rush smear but I see that it is still awaiting moderation from yesterday. Hope this makes it through.
September 30th, 2007 at 1:30 pm
Christopher,
I’m going to have to beg off. I’ve gotten a migraine and my brain isn’t working normally. Suffice to say that I think fake and phony are used by most people in most instances as exact synonyms and therefore when, immediately after a phone call where Rush mentions phony soldiers, Rush gives an example of a fake soldier, he’s elaborating upon what he just spoke about with the previous caller. I see no textual indicators that Jesse MacBeth, whom he called a fake soldier, is not an illustration of precisely what he’d just mentioned: phony soldiers. That is, in any case, what he says in his own defense after the controversy. I can’t go on. That’s going to have to stand as summarizing and completing my statement of why I believe Rush has been slimed by a partisan Media Matters. My case will stand or fall as I’ve presented it. Thank you for the debate. You’re a worthy opponent.
If only you would see the light… :^)
October 2nd, 2007 at 9:46 am
You now as well as the rest or should I say the most of us that these are the phony soldiers he was talking about:
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/popup?id=3210247
Don’t forget to accuse ABC of the same accusations:
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/popup?id=3210247