Wednesday, October 03, 2007

Wesley Clark --- Four-Star Liar

kestrel9000 has the details here, in which Clark falsely claims that "Rush Limbaugh labeled any American soldier who supports an end to the war in Iraq as 'phony.'"

Of course, Limbaugh did no such thing. Instead, he referred to a convicted felon --- convicted, by the way, of falsely representing himself as an Iraq veteran --- as a "phony soldier."

Good God! Calling "any American soldier who supports an end to the war in Iraq as 'phony'" would be kind of like labeling any four-star general a liar simply because of Wesley Clark's comments.

Limbaugh doesn't engage in stereotyping, General. We leave that to those, like you, on the far Left.


kestrel9000 said...

You're full of SHIT.
YOU'RE the liar.
Rush said, "Phony soldierS" plural.
Clearly meaning ANY military member who opposes the wrongheaded and unnecessary war of George Bush.
People like you, with your disinformation and pandering, are the true threat to my country.
Don't FUCKING quote me if you're going to advance distortions using my links.
And watch the video at the end of the threat.
How dare you call a decorated general who served honorably and well, and was never, as Petraeus was, dubbed an "ass-kissing little chickenshit" by a CENTCOM admiral?

James Young said...

kestrel9000, I'm leaving your profane comment up as is simply as an example of the level of the class of the moonbat fringe.

Thanks for that!

kestrel9000 said...

I may swear like a sailor when I am angry, but at least I speak and act with INTEGRITY.
Which is more than can be said for you.

James Young said...

Funny, it sounded much more like a childish whine to my ear....

The only "integrity" that you have is your admission, on your link, that you are a "moonbat."

kestrel9000 said...

I'm a lot of things.
How that link to my first attempt at a blog got there? Oh, well. I like the word, always have.
Sticks and stones and all that.
Now let me give you an opportunity to show that you know what integrity looks like, not that you'd know it if it walked up and slapped you in the face.
Prior to the call which you falsely accuse General Clark of mischaracterizing, this exchange took place:

LIMBAUGH: Mike in Chicago, welcome to the EIB Network. Hello.


CALLER 1: We did what we were supposed to do, OK. We got rid of Saddam Hussein. We got rid of a lot of the terrorists. Let them run their country --


LIMBAUGH: Mike, you can't possibly be a Republican.

CALLER 1: I am.

LIMBAUGH: You are -- you are --

CALLER 1: I am definitely a Republican.

LIMBAUGH: You can't be a Republican. You are --

CALLER 1: Oh, I am definitely a Republican.

LIMBAUGH: You are tarnishing the reputation, 'cause you sound just like a Democrat.

CALLER 1: No, but --

LIMBAUGH: The answer to your question --

CALLER 1: -- seriously, how long do we have to stay there --

LIMBAUGH: As long as it takes!

CALLER 1: -- to win it? How long?

LIMBAUGH: As long as it takes! It is very serious.

CALLER 1: And that is what?

LIMBAUGH: This is the United States of America at war with Islamofascists. We stay as long -- just like your job. You do everything you have to do, whatever it takes to get it done, if you take it seriously.

CALLER 1: So then you say we need to stay there forever --

LIMBAUGH: I -- it won't --

CALLER 1: -- because that's what it'll take.

LIMBAUGH: No, Bill, or Mike -- I'm sorry. I'm confusing you with the guy from Texas.

CALLER 1: See, I -- I've [sic] used to be military, OK? And I am a Republican.

LIMBAUGH: Yeah. Yeah.

CALLER 1: And I do live [inaudible] but --

LIMBAUGH: Right. Right. Right, I know.

CALLER 1: -- you know, really -- I want you to be saying how long it's gonna take.

LIMBAUGH: And I, by the way, used to walk on the moon!

So, to Rush, if you oppose the Doctrine of Endless War, you cannot possibly be a Republican, or a military person. You must, indeed, be a liar.
The same brush which you used to paint General Clark with.
Because, you see, this exchange is what precipitated the "phony soldiers" remark, which followed with the next caller, and CLEARLY was intended to refer also to the previous caller in the above quoted exchange, as well as any person serving in the military who opposes this war.
Now, address this on substance, without derision, and on its merits.
I doubt that you CAN, but you're welcome to try.
If Rush has any semblance of integrity, if he truly wished to stand on his characterization of many who serve our country honorably and well, as "phony soldiers" he would have accepted the challenge of Jon Soltz of to repeat his calumny to his face, on his show.
And as for being the "fringe"?
Look at opinion polls on the war and Bush's Iraq policy.
YOU are the "fringe."
Support for the war and further blank checks to this President's Iraq policy in no sense represents the mainstream, as much as you, Rush, and Fox News would like to pretend that it does.

James Young said...

Oh, "kestrel9000," you are creative! "Doctrine of Endless War," indeed.

Of course, there is no such thing, and certainly, no such thing has been embraced by this Administration. However, even if one could properly characterize the "doctrine of winning the war you're in" as a "Doctrine of Endless War," I certainly prefer it to the doctrine of surrender which provoked Bart Simpson's characterization: "Cheese-eating surrender monkees."

Yes, one can oppose the Administration's policy and still be a Republican. One can oppose the Administration's policy and still have served. However, when one misrepresents one's credentials, or worse yet, cowers in anonymity and misrepresents one's self in call-in shows --- which many frequently do, just as they do on the Internet --- or claims unverifiable credentials which are, on their face, outside of the mainstream of thought among those with similar credentials, it is entirely proper to question whether those claimed credentials are legitimate.

And, of course, it was not "Jon Soltz of," or anyone like him, to whom Rush was referring. He was referring to those who HAVE misrepresented their credentials, not a few of whom have been prosecuted for it in "Operation Stolen Valor." So there was no "calumny" to repeat, and certainly not to the likes of Soltz.

What you fail to explain is why the far Left elevates such individuals, why it fails to police its own ranks in this regard, and why such individuals find such a warm and welcoming home among your ranks.

If Wesley Clark had spent as much time and energy condemning the likes of those convicted of such crimes as he has condemning Rush Limbaugh, he might be more than a political hack. That he has not done so demonstrates that he subscribes, in deed if not word, to the old Marxist credo: "No enemies to the Left!"