You cannot possibly be serious. Rush Limbaugh has made his career on slinging feces on any and all who disagree with his idiotic worldview.

Poor, poor, pitiful Rush. Now, if he would just lay HIS head on the railroad track and be waitin’ on the double-E.

It’s either disingenuous or ignorant to insinuate that the Dems are primarily responsible for congressional inaction. And if either a 60/40 majority or the executive branch goes to the Dems in 08 there will be some action.

Frankly I’d just as soon the entire Congress stay out of the cosmetic performances wrto Petraeus, Limbaugh, Major League Baseball, Terry Schiavo, Janet Jackson’s titty and a crapton of other non-issues.

We pay them to be there for a reason. Addressing those Us Magazine “issue” lites aren’t in the job description.

How many times can Limbaugh fool the Dems on the Hill? He has used this gambit countless times. Whether you like him or hate him, Limbaugh is cunning.

It was phony soldiers not soldiers who protest. Words have meaning. Harkin is usually smarter than this. He looks so foolish right now.

Glen, did you also think the MoveOn admonishment was a waste of time? Cause this is the same shit.

Glen, did you also think the MoveOn admonishment was a waste of time? Cause this is the same shit.

Agreed.

And yes, I did.

But, then again, I’m not Glen.

I think talking about it on the Senate floor was a waste of time, as is any meaningless resolution.

This was not the same batch of human waste though. MoveOn was criticized for running an ad that labeled the Commander in Iraq a betrayer. Rush was slandered. It’s not exactly the same thing.

The drugs comment was the worst.

Democommie’s comment speaks volumes. Since Rush is a bad guy, it is okay to slander him. Nice.

Reason over Religion, the Dems don’t have the courage to end this war. All three Dem front-runners refused to promise a troop withdrawal. Face it. You guys were duped. To throw you a bone, your elected officials stir up this nonsense. I know you must be frustrated.

You’re kidding me, right? You didn’t notice the little Senate resolution about the MoveOn.org ad? Terry Schiavo? Dolphin slaughter? (that last one was from 1995).

Nice little double standard, Glen.

This was not the same batch of human waste though. MoveOn was criticized for running an ad that labeled the Commander in Iraq a betrayer. Rush was slandered. It’s not exactly the same thing.

I’m sorry, but I do see it as the same thing.

Glen:

You may be right. But a lot of traditional conservatives bit the bullet and voted for Dems in 06 to try to stop the runaway train. It’s not just liberals that feel a change in Iraq policy is due. The people may yet have some influence.

SB, why do you change the subject from the Senate nonsense over Limbaugh to something the Republicans did? Is that how you morally justify things? Tell me, do you disapprove of Repub resolutions and approve of Dem resolutions? I bet you do. Btw, show me the link where I praised the MoveOn resolution.

Kat, how can you say that these two situations are the same thing? If you mean that the Senate should have not passed a resolution for either one, then fine. But if you are saying that both or neither instance should warrant outrage, then that doesn’t make any sense. The MoveOn outrage was over an ad. The Rush outrage is manufactured out of slander. Are you saying that the general public should not have been outraged by MoveOns ad, or that everybody was right to slander Limbaugh. You’re not making any sense.

Reason Over Religion, if the 2006 election was about Iraq, we’d be out by now.

At least if they’re doing this, they’re not raising my taxes, nationalizing my healthcare, or cutting off funding to my Marines.

Let’s all remember the GOP controlled Congress took days to debate flag burning, gay marriage, and stem cells for no other reason than to try to prop up a failing GOP base.

I do agree Limbaugh shouldn’t be the business of Congress, nor should MoveOn.

Give us time, Jay, give us time. I’m shaking my head at the idea that it’s perfectly ok to pass the cost of this war down to future generations, so we don’t raise taxes to pay for “my marines.”

Read the polls Glen. Iraq war number issue. Healthcare is two, if memory serves. Slander? We are talking about Rush here, right? Did Rush not have a drug problem? It’s pretty well documented, right? So, slander does not apply.

Mack, do you want to raise taxes and freeze spending until the National Debt is paid off, then only spend what we can pay for upfront?

But if you are saying that both or neither instance should warrant outrage, then that doesn’t make any sense.

I’m not telling anyone to refrain from outrage.

I’m just wishing they would refrain from outrage on my dime and my time, and using my name.

Because that’s what Senate and House Resolutions are.

They are putting the United States Government’s name and stamp of approval on various brands of outrage.

I’m no fool….I know there are Resolutions for all kinds of silly stuff.

Steve Cohen was once behind some resolution about wishing Warren Zevon a happy birthday. My name is somewhere in the Congressional Record as part of a resolution posted by Dan Coats acknowledging our group of Government Studies from his district in Indiana.

There’s all kinds of things put through resolutions. They’re like those dumdum suckers our bank used to give kids at the drive-through.

They’ve ALWAYS been about P.R. And I think they’re becoming increasingly silly.

Especially when they’re P.R. stunts about sexy issues designed to give people something to talk about besides the dry business of governing.

And by “people” I mean the representatives who would rather be showy and make resolutions honouring Mrs. Landingham from the West Wing than talk about subsidies, etc.

Mack the slander was that he called soldiers who oppose the war phony soldiers. The drug comments were just nasty and mean.

William, I am all about condemning the Congress’s stupid debating of flag burning and gay marriage. In fact, I have said as much many times. At least William, you had the intellectual honesty to condemn both Senate resolutions to be wrong.

Mack, the election was about the Republican base being disenchanted with big spending Republicans, as well as Foley and Macaca. If it was about Iraq, we would be out by now. In the least, you would think that Hillary, Edwards, and Obama would promise a pullout if elected.

How about we do away with all resolutions?

Katherine, aside from the resolution issue, is the outrage over MoveOns ad and the outrage over Limbaugh the same thing? My point is that they are not. MoveOn was being honest about how they felt about the Gen and people were outraged. Rush was taken out of context and slandered. Not the same thing.

How about we do away with all resolutions?

Fine by me. But it’ll disappoint spelling bee winners, ladies from the home district who grow the world’s largest sweet potato(e) and other assorted folx.

Katherine, aside from the resolution issue, is the outrage over MoveOns ad and the outrage over Limbaugh the same thing?

Yes, it is. The Right was outraged because someone said something they didn’t like. (Petraeus)

Then the Left was outraged because someone said something they didn’t like (Limbaugh).

I know you are a big fan of Limbaugh’s, and while I’m not a fan of his at all I do agree that his “phony soldier” remark was taken out of context and magnified.

But you know what? I think the Petraeus ad was magnified beyond all sense of proportion.

MoveOn’s been talking smack about the war forever. They do it to get attention. Just ignore it.

Oh, but I meant to say there that while Limbaugh’s remark was taken out of context, he still made what seems like a really nasty remark unless it has footnotes.

And frankly, the man’s been in Radio for a glacial age. He knows Radio doesn’t have footnotes and ought to be more careful.

MoveOn’s been talking smack about the war forever. They do it to get attention. Just ignore it.

No, they do it because the war is immoral, unjust, and is bankrupting this country financially and immorally. They do it because their supporters want to *end the war.* And no, it’s not gonna be ignored. You cannot ignore the war.

that’s the whole problem, Limbaugh and O’Reilly types want to “ignore the war.” As long as it’s middle America sending their sons and daughters to fight it, there’s no ignoring the war.

Kat, unbelievable. I like how you dismiss my position here as “I know your a big fan of Limbaugh”. Kind of like you dismissed my criticism of Lincoln as “I know your from the south”. The left was not enraged because Limbaugh said something they didn’t like. They were enraged and tried to create rage because of something Limbaugh didn’t say. And about MoveOn ads being blown out of proportion. What the hell ever. Unbelievable. Oh hell, by now you’re probably a member of MoveOn.

No, they do it because the war is immoral, unjust, and is bankrupting this country financially and immorally.

Maybe it is. But there are other, less cutesy, less goading ways to make those points.

Oh, and Ididn’t say I was ignoring the war.

Contrary to what Glen assumes, I said I ignore MoveOn. Because they’re like a little kid using his first swear word to get attention.

Glen, Limbaugh DID say the term “phony soldier” and he did so without the broader context being immediately available to the listener. That was his mistake.

And I’m not dismissing your position.

I’m saying I disagree with it.

Glen - Kat is no more a ‘Move-On’ member than I’m a member of Belle Meade Country Club. The real issue here is the war..everything else is just window treatments.

John, I didn’t know you were a golfer. Can you get me in the Country Club? I’ll promise to wear my best Polo and a new pair of Khakis.

I’ll say first, I have only a tangential knowledge of what Rush said or what the Senate did about it.

But I will say, I’m a progressive Democrat who appreciates when the Senate wastes its time. Frankly, until they get themselves a veto-proof majority, or a new president, they CAN’T do anything they want to do.

While there are big problems that potentially need government intervention in this country, for the most part — certain situations excepted — I’m glad for them to take their time and drag stuff out. Things passed in the heat of passion [re: The Patriot Act] are rarely well considered.

Glen, your willingness to characterise me as a MoveOn member simply because I disagree with you on the way these two (non)issues are playing out does not bode well for your arguments in general.

Why?

Because to my mind if you are so willing to embrace hyperbole, then it would stand to reason that you will do so in other circumstances as well.

Things passed in the heat of passion [re: The Patriot Act] are rarely well considered.

This is a very good point.

Kat, I don’t think you are a MoveOn member. That was a smartellic remark, not meant to be taken seriously. I said it because of the transformations you have made since I first met you blogging. You have come a long way from the outlaw abortion, pro-Iraq War positions you took a couple of years ago. That’s what that remark was about. It’s called sarcasm.

Poor Rush, people say bad things about him which are not true? Golly, that’s just terrible. Unfortunately since the idiot has made it his business in life to be a major public figure his chances of prevailing in most courts if he presses a slander suit are fairly slim. If being an oxymoron isn’t damaging to his reputation then it’s hard to see how quoting him out of context could be.

Just so we’re clear on it:

Rush never wore a uniform.
Rush is a drug abuser.
Rush plays fast and loose with the facts.
Rush has an exceptionally hard time staying married.

Poor Rush.

Oh yeah I forgot.
You can’t support the troops or support the war effort unless you served in the military.

No Democrats, especially Hollywood Democrats have ever done drugs.

All you have to do is claim someone plays “loose with the facts”. No examples are needed.

And no Democrats have ever been divorced or even gotten blow jobs from interns while married.

Yes Rush is bad and thus deserves to be lied about.

three days from now this story will be as stale and boring as Charles Barkley’s worn sweat socks, and yet, somehow, somehow, Rush will continue to blather (or orate, depending on your orientation), the war will be going on and politicians of both sides will be positioning themselves for votes in the coming election.

You have come a long way from the outlaw abortion, pro-Iraq War positions you took a couple of years ago.

I’ve changed my position on outlawing abortion quite simply because I believe there are better solutions to the problem than an attempt to rubber stamp it into the background.

I’m still very pro-Iraq War, The Original Version.

I think it was very good that we went when we did, and I do think we Accomplished that Mission.

I’m very much wishing that we’d find a way to extricate ourselves from the current situation.

I don’t think the current Iraq War is a quagmire. I don’t think it’s ever been “all about oil”–but I don’t care if it was, quite frankly.

I do think–and I imagine a lot of people are in a similar position–that we are no longer focused on a clear objective, that we have no further immediate reason to remain in the theatre and that our resources of time, money and personnel could be put to better use elsewhere.

That hardly makes me a member of MoveOn.

I’ve changed my position on outlawing abortion quite simply because I believe there are better solutions to the problem than an attempt to rubber stamp it into the background.

I hate to totally hijack the thread, but I’m wondering, what do you think are better solutions to the abortion situation? This is an interesting position to me, and I think I agree with you.

Glen Dean, Strawman King:

Rush has attacked gays, druggies, people who are anti-war (including some who are decorated combat vets)–the list goes on an on. Each and every day that Rush is on the air he plays loose with the facts.

You can certainly be pro-war if you didn’t serve–and I can certainly impugn your integrity for doing so and call you a coward who hasn’t got the courage of his convictions. Spin it any way you’d like to–Rush is a whining, fatuous windbag who, when he is hoist on his own petard (can we remember when the ACLU went to bat for him a while back) screams foul. But I suppose it’s okay if he’s a crybaby, he’s your crybaby.

I do think–and I imagine a lot of people are in a similar position–that we are no longer focused on a clear objective…

What was our objective at the beginning?

So, help me understand, people. You think the Congress isn’t doing anything useful? As if it ever has? They’re politicians. They’re supposed to lie, cheat, steal, and waste time.

It would be interesting to know if any of the opiners here have actually listened to and read the transcript of the entire conversation being so critically disected here.

Pretty funny update about the Phony Vets for Truth Glenn:

Phony Vets for Truth, an non-profit group comprised of ex-military personnel who have publicly and deceptively disparaged the United States, the president or fellow U.S. troops in time of war, applauded “Sen. Reid’s bravery, and his appropriate use of senate debate time to discuss Mr. Limbaugh’s scurrilous remarks.”

You go girls.

I have to admit, I am pretty proud of the update, especially the irony of some of those guys questioning Limbaugh’s respect for the troops. I mean, did Harkin really want for everybody to be reminded that he himself was a phony soldier. And Kerry with his Winter Soldier nonsense during Vietnam.

Glennie:

You really are a useful tool for the reichwing. After all these years you still insist on that canard about Kerry not serving honorably. I question Rush’s patriotism and bravery and I served, I think George Bush is possibly more deserving of the derisiveness directed towards Saddam Hussein by Norm Schwarzkopf than was Sadddam himself. He couldn’t manage a panty raid, some ”
War President”, not.

Rush Limpone is a putz, a loudmouth lying putz. You are entirely welcome to him.

Glen,

“Reason Over Religion, if the 2006 election was about Iraq, we’d be out by now.”

Folks, is it just me, or does that statement seem to lack any foundation in reality?

It seems to me that the evidence indicates that the fact that there has been no attempt to seriously consider reevaluating Iraq policy pertains to the executive branch, which was not up in 06. Are you saying that if congress was “serious” about getting out of Iraq they would cut funding? Politics are politics, let’s keep it real. Speaking of which, when the republicans won it was “the American people have spoken”, from Bush, but now it’s “Democrats are playing politics, and I won’t be a part of it”.

RoR,
Just because a certain party wins an election is not de facto proof that any particular policy of that party is “the will of the people.”

Ned:

Well, I never said it was. I was just making an observation regarding Bush’s behavior.

However, there is evidence that indicates that a significant majority of Americans now favor new Iraq policy, and that was a big factor in the mid terms. I guess we’ll get a clearer picture regarding all this in 08.