Anatomy of a Left-wing Smear

The Left has been working hard to gin up controversies attacking conservatives, this latest one is a hoot, having watched it unfold until none other than John "If I wasn't in Cambodia I'll eat my hat" Kerry weighs in.

As always, it begins with Media Matters here:

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."

Enter the usual band of useless idiots in the form of the foaming at the mouth left-wing blogs with a special guest appearance by the Kerry-coached Jon "someone get me a soapbox" Soltz at the Huffington Post and the stage is set.

As Media Matters reported today, Rush Limbaugh, on his show said that those troops who come home and want to get America out of the middle of the religious civil war in Iraq are "phony soldiers." I'd love for you, Rush, to have me on your show and tell that to me to my face.

That Kerry, of all people, would choose to swiftly weigh in is the real laugher. It's over John not JFK Kerry. If you're lucky Hillary wins in 08 and makes you a secretary and gives you a decent desk.

Late Update: Here's John Kerry's statement:

"This disgusting attack from Rush Limbaugh, cheerleader for the Chicken Hawk wing of the far right, is an insult to American troops.

yawn....

Comments

[Fred Beloit]

Pita writes:

"Meanwhile, any of your support-the-troop guys want to actually discuss the particulars of what Limbaugh and other GOP blowhards have said about Webb, Cleland, McCain, Kerry, Murtha, the VVAW, Phony Soldiers, etc."

No, Pi, this issue has already been discussed often and at length here, but you refuse to acknowledge it. However, would you like to discuss how Truman fired General MacArthur resulting in the fact that we still have soldiers in Korea after over 50 years and are still at war with North Korea and under a truce or cease fire at this time?

Would you like to discuss how Left-winger Walter Cronkite, disguised as a neutral commentator, savaged the reputation of General Westmoreland and other American officers and gave comfort to our enemies there in Vietnam?

But these issues have also been discussed before. It is all politics after all isn't it? And you on your high horse of deliberate avoidance of contextual meaning is quite a humorous sight. Hi-yoo Silver. Away.

[rwilymz]

I missed this last night in my most recent "lot of verbiage" which answered your peevish question for the ... third time, was it?

"I'm not arguing in favor of any political comments made by..."

You are effectively saying that certain specific comments made by these political hacks are comprised of political fluff, but seriously insinuating that they cannot be criticized for it in return political fluff.

In other words: "It's okay when we do it, but not okay when it's done to us."

And for chuckles to claim that the "Limbaugh faction" has this same philosophy is quite the delicious irony.

Yummmm, mmmmm. I could have a whole meal of that.

[Fred Beloit]

Hhhhmmmmmm. PITA, PITA. Now where have I heard that name before? Are you perchance a representative of that organization...no, that's PETA. Help me out here, if you would be so kind, PITA. Do you favor a tax credit for baboons who have legal fees?

[bloodrage bob]

back to the ol' 'alice in woderland' defense, eh, pita?

you know, no matter how many paragraphs you waste singing max cleland's praises, it's obvious you're missing the point here. i rather suspect *you're missing it on purpose*, btw. coulter never "attacked" cleland, idiot. neither did i, nor any other conservative. what we DID was respond to political statements and actions made by cleland. cleland initiated those actions, and **is allowed to be responded to**, despite the fact you liberals would prefer that not to be the case.

when coulter or anyone else responds to cleland's political speech, a funny thing happens: liberals squeal that doing so is "wrong", because cleland was "a war hero". LIBERALS introduced cleland's condition into the case. not conservatives. so naturally, when a political party declares their boy can't be questioned "because of his heroism", looking at that "hero's" case is ALSO fair game. you know: like when you asswipes subpeona'd robert bork's video rental records. remember that? you clowns were *all for* free speech back THEN.

pointing out the facts of cleland's case isn't "attacking", pita. despite what teacher told you back in school. challenging cleland's political speech isn't "dishonoring a hero", pita, despite the fact you clowns *want* that to be the case. so let's recap:

1) cleland was never "denigrated", as you whined.
2) cleland himself says his injuries were an accident
3) cleland himself says he was "not a hero"
4) cleland himself says he was "embarrassed by" the medals he received after his accident
5) the army seemed to agree that cleland's injuries were accidental, because he didn't get a purple heart: the medal reserved for *combat* injuries
6) although you claim you're "not a democrat" - they all do, by the way - you DO exhibit democrat traits of 'eagerness to silence debate by proclaiming certain individuals "off limits" for questioning; looking into their stories; etc.'. what's up with that?
7) why shouldn't we look into the claims of ex-mil guys who claim headlines by suddenly deciding they're against the war? after john kerry; and jessie mcbeath; and "evan thomas"; and the other loons the left held up as "unassailable heroes", who then turned out to be sad pathetic little liars ....why shouldn't we question them? the left said THOSE GUYS were "heroes", and they were wrong. in 'evan thomas's' case, they KNEW he was lying to them, and they published his shit anyway. fool us once ...
8) "because us liberals don't want you to" isn't an acceptable answer.
9) why do you liberals want so desperately to have free speech silenced? why are you just a bunch of fascists in disguise? is it that you're just mental defectives?
10) any comment on why kerry allowed the swiftboaters to make him their bitch? based on kerry's refusal to sue the swiftboaters; and his ongoing refusal to release ALL his mil records, a reasonable person can only conclude that "every word kerry has ever said about the war or his service is a lie". why would you - a "non-democrat" defend an asswipe like that? hmmm?

[PITA]

Okay, two quick points:

1.) For all your rabbit trails, red herrings, and off-the-point/dissent-is-treason ramblings, you guys simply aren't willing to grasp the nettle that mouthpieces like Limbaugh, Coulter, and Malkin have said some very dishonest things about the combat service (not the politics, but the actual combat service) of those veterans who happen to be Democrats or RINOs.

If you guys are cool with this quote from Coulter--"Cleland lost three limbs in an accident during a routine noncombat mission where he was about to drink beer with friends"--when, in fact, the loose-grenade incident that claimed Cleland's limbs took place during the ferocious Battle for Khe Sanh.... well, then you inhabit a fantasy world in which political talking-points matter more than the realities as they were on the ground. ". . . routine noncombat mission . . ." Jesus, have you guys no shame?

2.) Any discussion in which this retort is made--"Like talcum on a wet behinie"--is too freaky for me.

[PITA]

Cripes, how did I overlook this retort: "... To say that your wet panties are beneath my level of interest is to overstate my interest in your panties greatly...."

I'm runnin' for the hills. You guys are nuts!

[bloodrage bob]

say, pita, before ya "run away like a little bitch" or whatever it was you said, a quick question. despite many many MANY voluminous natterings from you; for all your rabbit trails, red herrings, and off-the-point/questioning a democrat is hate speech ramblings, you neglected to mention a name. a famous, topical name. a name that *should have* come up in your ringing, stirring defense of ex-uniformed "heroes". (despite the fact that they themselves denied being such.) as an added bonus, this individual is the only one currently in uniform, which makes attacks upon him - by your own definition - terrible & awful.

you never said a word in defense of general petraeus. how come? when your fellow liberals attacked him; called him a liar; said in print he was lying and committing perjury ..... you didn't rise to his defense. odd. you came to EX soldiers kerry, murtha, macbeath and cleland's defense .... but not petraeus. you even defended kerry's "silver star", which his cowardly refusal to sue the swiftboaters for trashing proved to the world was a bullshit medal. yet not a word for petraeus. strange.

what's up with THAT, mr. "i'm not a liberal, i just parrot liberal talking points"? why do you want to defend kerry & cleland so badly, yet prefer "not to mention" petraeus? might it be .... oh, i dunno .... might your alleged high-toned speeches just be the usual liberal hypocrisy & lies?

sure LOOKS that way, don't it?

[rwilymz]

"mouthpieces like Limbaugh, Coulter, and Malkin have said some very dishonest things about the combat service (not the politics, but the actual combat service) of those veterans who happen to be Democrats or RINOs"

And mouthpieces like yadda and blah-blah and etcetera have said some very dishonest things about the persons [not the politics, the actual persons] of those who happen to be Republicans.

You are spending your time wetting your panties in public over policial cheerleading, which has **always** done this, and always will. There is nothing new, here, except that you are indignant all over again.

Well ... who cares?

Who cares what Coulter says? Who cares about your hurt-by-proxy feelings? As far as I'm concerned, anyone surprised and outraged by cheerleaders doing what cheerleaders do is naive. Limbaugh/Coulter versus MoveOn ... these aren't the real issues.

You are making an issue of the **cheerleading**, fergodsake. There's a game going on and you're more interested in the sidelines.

"You guys are nuts!"

And you're a simpleton.

Mexican standoff.