Gunboards Forums banner

1 - 7 of 7 Posts

·
Silver Bullet member
Joined
·
36,341 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
The grotesque, stupid but well orchestrated attempt by the Democratic machine to attack Rush Limbaugh on the the "phony soldiers" smear continues, with a Senate vote failing, even Liberal commentators asking why they're doing something so stupid, and Limbaugh hammering back.
Here's why and how its organized - mostly by David Brock, the conservative writer turned gay extreme Liberal mouth foaming activist of Media Matters. Maybe this, and the extreme stupidity of Harry Reid, explains why its all been so nuts:


Inside Politics - Washington Times
October 4, 2007

Greg Pierce - Phony accusation

Byron York, writing at National Review Online (www.nationalreview.com) about a left-wing attempt to besmirch the reputation of conservative talk-show host Rush Limbaugh, lists the political affiliations of the talk show's accusers.

Independent-minded critics who look at Media Matters "might conclude that its political motivations are simply too strong to merit serious consideration," Mr. York said.

In addition to its ties to major Democratic donors and to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, Media Matters is a deeply politicized organization down to its lowest levels.

In the past few days, it has posted 11 stories on the Limbaugh matter. Those postings were written by, among others, Julie Millican, a veteran of the Kerry campaign, MoveOn.org, and the Democratic turnout organization America Coming Together; Sarah Pavlus, formerly of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee; Andrew Ironside, who worked for the Howard Dean campaign; Adam Shah, a lawyer who worked for the Alliance for Justice, the organization best known for opposing President Bush's judicial nominees; Jeremy Schulman, a former spokesman for Colorado Democratic congressional candidate Dave Thomas; and Matthew Gertz, former deputy campaign manager for Connecticut Democratic congressional candidate Diane Farrell, as well as intern for New York Democratic Sen. Charles E. Schumer.

Other excerpts from NRO:

Media Matters is much more than a traditional media watchdog group. Indeed, it is probably more accurate to view Media Matters as part of the constellation of groups — the so-called “527” organizations, the voter-turnout group America Coming Together, John Podesta’s liberal think tank the Center for American Progress, MoveOn.org, liberal talk radio, and others — that have come together on the left in the last year or so, all aimed at electing a Democratic president this November.

Certainly some of Brock’s donors see it that way. Leo Hindery Jr., a cable-television executive who contributes to Democratic causes, says he sees Media Matters as part of a coordinated action on the left. “I thought this was a piece of the puzzle,” Hindery says. “There are people like Mike Lux [a Democratic consultant who runs an important ad agency], who are into the strategy point of view, there’s Podesta, who’s into the think tank/intellectual side, and I think the third part of the triangle is David’s initiative.”

Brock’s donors read like a Who’s Who of those who have financed the new, activist Left. Besides Buell and Hindery, donors to Media Matters include Peter Lewis, chairman of Progressive Corp., who has contributed more than $7 million to the 527s in partnership with his friend, the financier George Soros. There is Democratic activist Bren Simon, wife of shopping-mall tycoon Mel Simon, New York psychologist and donor Gail Furman, California philanthropist James Hormel, and others. Two anti-Bush organizations, the New Democratic Network and MoveOn.org, have also contributed to Brock’s project.

In addition to his donor list, Brock’s staff at times resembles that of a political campaign. In the group’s K Street offices, there are a number of veterans of Democratic causes. One Brock aide did opposition research for the recent presidential campaign of Sen. John Edwards; another did the same thing for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee; yet another worked on the Wesley Clark presidential campaign; another worked for Massachusetts Democratic representative Barney Frank, and so on.

Given all that, it seems fair to say that Media Matters is only partly about the media. It is also very much about defeating George W. Bush.

Media Matters has.. a “fiscal sponsorship” relationship with an existing charity, which is already set up to accept tax exempt (501(c)(3) charitable) contributions. For that, Brock turned to the Tides Foundation, a wealthy but little-known institution that funds a variety of left-wing causes.

Finally, the creation of Brock’s new organization happens to coincide with his drive to publicize his new book, The Republican Noise Machine: Right-Wing Media and How It Corrupts Democracy. The book purports to tell Americans that the “verbal brownshirts” of the Right are far more dangerous than many believe. In Brock’s telling, conservatism is close to an all-powerful political movement, while liberalism, once formidable, now “seems a fringe dispensation of a few aging professors and Hollywood celebrities.”

The right wing is so dominant, Brock writes, that even if Democrats win the presidency this year “they still face the prospect of being brutally slammed and systematically slandered in such a way that will make governing exceedingly difficult.” The brutal conservative noise machine will keep going, Brock warns, “until its capacities to spread filth are somehow eradicated.”

Hyperbole aside, it should be said that some of Brock’s supporters genuinely believe such things. But at least so far, their faith in Brock does not appear to be shared by the mainstream press. Other than a friendly interview by the Today show’s Katie Couric, Brock has received far less attention for his new project than he received in 2002 when he published Blinded by the Right, the book in which he confessed to having lied in some of the stories he wrote for conservative publications in the 1990s.

The book did what many — even those on the left who share Brock’s contempt for conservatives — consider fatal damage to Brock’s credibility. When Blinded by the Right appeared, Timothy Noah, the liberal “Chatterbox” columnist for Slate, wrote that “Chatterbox yields to no one in his eagerness to believe the awful things Brock is now saying about himself and the conservative movement in America. But the more Brock insists that he has lied, and lied, and then lied again, the more one begins to suspect Brock of being, well, a liar.”

Now that same David Brock is trying on a new role as guardian of accuracy in media. It all seems, well, a little much. But in this year of 527s, mega-donors, and Democrats determined to “fight back,” it appears that anything is possible.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,560 Posts
Quote from article……..
Given all that, it seems fair to say that Media Matters is only partly about the media. It is also very much about defeating George W. Bush.

Guess they still don’t get it…… Bush isn’t running for anything

One of the theories floating around ‘bout the “attack” on Rush is ;

The Democrats can’t or won’t (pick your adjective) get us out of Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, the Middle East. So in order to “distract” the far left from that fact, and to give them another “target”, they are attacking Rush.

The Democrats need to pacify their far left voter base, who all (the far left) vehemently disagree with arguably the most effective radio host of all time. That purpose is served with Harry Reid and Richard Durbin “harassing” Rush,. The harassment also has the added benefit of “distracting” (that’s not the right word, but I’m not sure of what is) Rush so he is spending less radio air time on exposing and reporting on Hillary and all the others.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,811 Posts
I am glad to see RL going for the jugular... not just a simple defense of his record. I will listen again today. The more they attack him, the more he exposes their true agenda.
 

·
Diamond Bullet Member/Moderator
Joined
·
8,131 Posts
I am glad to see RL going for the jugular... not just a simple defense of his record. I will listen again today. The more they attack him, the more he exposes their true agenda.
I just wish Republican politicians were as articulate and willing to defend their viewpoints. Yesterday Bush was, I'm sorry, but an idiot for vetoeing the "child health care bill" behind closed doors. A political hot button issue like that deserved a press conference with Bush clearly articulating (I know, ha ha) why we shouldn't be giving subsidies to people who earn almost 80k a year - and it should have been used as an opportunity to differentiate the two parties, and to slam the dems for holding up money for the truly needy by politizising the whole issue.
The dem comparison of moveon.org to the Swift Boat Vets was handled in an equally clumsy manner. Here again, a great opportunity for a comeback - one group served in the same theatre as Kerry and pointed out that he lied about his war record. The other engaged in personnel attacks against a man before he even had a chance to present his report. You can't just let the dems throw junk like that out there and not respsond to it. If people think the truth will triumph, they're naive (sorry Dave).
All these politicians - both parties -have been up there WAY too long. To hear them "debate", one can only conclude that half of them ought to be in nursing homes throwing food at each other, not in the halls of Congress trying to discuss matters of substance. To heck with term limits - we have age limts for people in professions where they have far fewer lives in their hands then our elected representatives do - I think we need age limits for the Congress and Senate.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,319 Posts
I am glad to see RL going for the jugular... not just a simple defense of his record. I will listen again today. The more they attack him, the more he exposes their true agenda.
Listening to the DemoRats' faux outrage defending the troops is akin to the Feminazis marching in the streets to support pornographers' rights to produce smut IMHO:rolleyes:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,560 Posts
Don't know if this belongs here, but.......

I don't think it's worth it's own thread

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/1/15/205545.shtml

Expert: Dan Rather Exaggerates Military Record

Wes Vernon, NewsMax.com
Wednesday, Jan. 16, 2002

It’s kinda a long read, so excerpts ;

One of the nation’s top military researchers is angry that CBS News anchorman Dan Rather continues to exaggerate and make misleading statements about his military record.

"Rather’s voice started quivering, and he told me how in his young days, he had signed up with the Marines – not once, but twice!”

This is not the first time Rather has hid behind the flag and his own military service claims to deflect criticism of his reporting, Burkett said.
"What he did, he signed up for the military twice, not the Marines,” Burkett said after thoroughly reviewing Rather’s military records.

But Burkett notes that Rather "never got through Marine recruit training because he couldn’t do the physical activity.”

As Burkett explains in "Stolen Valor," Rather "was discharged less than four months later on May 11, 1954 for being medically unfit.” As a boy, Rather had suffered from rheumatic fever.

"This is like a guy who flunks out of Harvard running around saying he went to Harvard,” Burkett said.

Burkett also believes that, far from being a gung-ho military enlistee, Rather’s record shows he deftly avoiding entering the military during the Korean War.

Burkett says that Rather was a student at Sam Houston University at a time during the Korean War when "you could be drafted right out of college,” with deferments available only short term, for a semester.
"The way he got around being eligible for the draft was he joined a reserve unit – Army reserve but not the Marines.” Rather stayed in the reserve for the entire war.

"The second the Korean War was over, and he wasn’t in jeopardy anymore, he dropped out of the Army Reserve. He later graduated from college, and then went into the Marine Corps. So he signed up for the Marine Corps once,” Burkett said, not twice.

And he never got out of recruit training.”

"This is the same national broadcaster who, night after night during the 1988 presidential campaign, hammered Republican presidential candidate Dan Quayle for avoiding Vietnam by joining the National Guard,” he said.

"CBS was particularly heavy on Dan Quayle and his Guard experience. … It’s exactly the same thing Dan Rather did during the Korean War.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,560 Posts
Here’s the guy Rush was talking about



http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_100407/content/01125109.guest.html

Jesse MacBeth Was Jesse Al-Zaid

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: I kind of glossed over this, but the phony soldier being discussed on this program since last Wednesday, Jesse MacBeth, was born as Jesse Al-Zaid in 1984. Now, he did something interesting in January of 2006. After he told all of these lies, after he lied about his Purple Heart -- the guy never got out of boot camp. He washed out after 44 days. He was never a Green Beret, Special Ops, never anything, never went to Iraq. The whole thing was manufactured. Obviously, he had to do this on purpose with the intent of discrediting the US military. Now, these are the people, before they learn the truth, the Democrat Party embraces, sad to say. So he tells all these lies about all these soldiers that he saw hanging innocent civilians from the rafters of mosques and all this.

His words were spread all over the world on the Internet, they were translated into Arabic, and I'm assuming here that Al-Zaid is an Arabic name. So what we have here in the case of Jesse MacBeth, who, by the way, was originally embraced, he was like a hero to the anti-war left. They loved spreading the lies. Are there any retractions coming from them now? No. And there won't be. The truth is inconvenient. It is fiction that propels the anti-war movement, ladies and gentlemen. But in January of 2006, he joined Iraq Veterans Against the War, and he was welcomed into this group. It should raise questions about the mission. The Jesse Al-Zaids of the world do not represent most vets and those serving now. So he joins this group, and they welcome him. I don't know that he will ever be denounced by these guys.
Ref :
Both his parents had “Arabic” (Saudi ? ) names
http://www.cosc.co.pima.az.us/record_search/casesearch.asp?casenum=L2613573
His mother changed his name to MacBeth in 1986
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/jesse-adam-macbeth-was-born-jesse-adam-al-zaid/
His criminal record
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/james-macbeths-damned-spots-credit-card-fraud
 
1 - 7 of 7 Posts
Top