« Rollin' | Main | The Evangelical President, Rush to War and Wide Open Terror »

October 04, 2007



The Saturday show is gonna be a barn burner. Can't wait.

These elected Representatives are misusing their offices/authority in the worst way. They seek to indite, try and convict a private citizen in the court of public opinion by repeating lies with the most reckless disregard for the consequences or potential injury.

They do this from an esteemed and protected position knowing that they are immune to being sued for libel or slander. Moreover, by doing this they tarnish and bring shame to the very offices they have sworn to protect and uphold. These cowards are a disgrace!

If, however, they choose to make these libelous comments outside their offices and while not engaged in official business, they can be held accountable. They are subject to being sued in a court of our choosing where they will have to explain their actions to a jury. It's my impression that they walk around in a self involved bubble and think they can say whatever they want whenever they want. These airheads are talking out of school. It's time to give them a truancy notice.

Jack Flynn

"On our show, we talk about "projection"----how people accuse others of which they themselves are guilty."

I am sure you won't discuss the plethora of projections that you flash on Hillary's screen on a regular basis. Could the "Hillary is Satan" cap you peddle on your blog be one of those projections, Monica?

So you do not misunderstand, I go with the following, limited definition of satanic:
SATANIC - extremely cruel; expressive of cruelty.
It is the sort of cruelty one finds in a junior high school cafeteria or on a middle school playground— certainly not in the writings of a respected journalist.
I say this because your attacks against Hillary are extremely cruel and bereft of the objective critical criteria befitting the best minds of your profession.

Does Hillary take offense at the constant ridicule, character assassination and other savage missiles you, Rush, Ann and Laura fire at her? I am sure in some personal way she does, but she is too much of a gentlewoman to respond in kind.



I agree with you. A nice, sweet, and saintly angel like Hillary is sacrosanct, and should not be subjected to these 'unfair' appelations and attacks by these irrational and bitter righwing Republicans.

Harriet Tubman was known as the 'Black Moses'. And Hillary is going to go down in history as the 'White, Female Moses'. She is going to lead us out of bondage into the promised land, where milk and honey flows--where there will be no more more sicknes, crime, and war.
There won't be any use for the armed forces either, because she'll make peace with Bin Laden and all the ememies who want to destroy us. Boy, its going to be like Heaven down here. Maybe she's the Messiah that we've been expecting for such a long time.
I can't wait for 2009, when we'll all be one big, happy family--loving and caring for each other.


Just who we need to lead our country; Hillary Clinton, a "gentlewoman" like her "gentleman" husband Bill who worked "overtime" at his desk in the Oval Office.



You might want to warn all the independents out there about what might happen to you when you vote for a Democrat. Some of us are learning the hardway.


The majority of New Yorkers are finding more and more reasons why we feel that giving valid driver's licenses to illegal immigrants is a very bad idea, yet Gov. Spitzer continues to ignore us. It is my understanding that 18 of the 19 terrorists had valid driver's licenses, even though they were not American citizens and their visas had expired. It is also my understanding that the 9/11 commission found documents, like driver's licenses, only make it easier for terrorists to implement their plans.

I flew out of Boston's Logan airport to Los Angeles three days before the 9/11 attacks and I am not about to forget the fact that I could have been on one of those planes. Instead of making our County Clerks perform the jobs of the INS, why doesn't the INS try enforcing their own laws? Isn't it the government's job to protect us?

By the way, where does Congressman Israel stand on this issue?


Rush Limbaugh is a "shock jock" extraordinaire, much like the ill-fated Don Imus.Personally, I don't think we as "free choice, free speech" Americans should get worked up about comments that we read, or listen to in our public media. Like the "Push Diet"(push the plate away) is to eating, I just employ the "Switch Channels" feature of my TV/Radio set when I don't want to watch/listen to some journalist or talk show host. I must admit that I miss IMUS as he and his talented crew, including Monica "Crowley that is" really added much humor and also some great unbiased news for the day. I take offense with anyone calling for "censorship" of our media coverage(other than some sick porno, vulgar, swear word content sites). Earlier this week, I heard CNN's Jack Cafferty (Cafferty/Files) respond to Rush Limbaugh's recent "phony soldier" comment by calling Rush a "big fat drug addict". Now I ask, "why don't all those obese or "big fat" people with alcohol and drug addictions stand up and call for Jack Cafferty's dismissal from CNN?" Obese drug addicts need some "racist watchdogs" and ambulance-chasers like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson.


Monica, All,

Here is Tucker taking on General Wesley Clark and Waldman from Media Matters...did Media Matters call Hillary a liar?




Even people living out in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, have figured out what is going on with, the cordinated attacks in the Mainstream Media.


In the words of Phil Collins,

..well, I was there and I saw what you did, I saw it with my own two eyes, So you can wipe off the grin, I know where you’ve been, It’s all been a pack of lies.

In the Air tonight

J. Pierpont Finch

It is moronic to claim that "Rush Limbaugh is a 'shock jock' extraordinaire". Such a person either doesn't understand the meaning of the term "shock jock", or, is deliberately smearing Rush's good name. Such a person is really saying that any talk host whose opinions differ from those of such a person are extremist. Clearly such a person will be at home in a dictatorship. Such a person will certainly be comfortable where there is no first amendment right and those who speak their mind and express what they see will become smeared by those in power, jailed if perceive a danger to those in power, or ignored as a non person.

I listen to Rush occasionally and he provides mostly objective analysis. He supports his vies with sound clips and readings of prior quotes by politicians. Sometimes he seems biased toward the GW Bush administrtion, but certainly not consistently. You want to hear a shock jock, just listen to Howard Stern on sat radio - that's a disgusting shock jock in my opinion!

J. Pierpont Finch

Here is an old article I saved that describes who Wesley Clark is and the damage he has did during Clinton's Kosovo fiasco.


Too Important To Be Left To The General?
General Wesley Clark Wants To Be President. But History Is Working Against Him.

By Mackubin Thomas Owens

Former NATO Commander Wesley Clark will formally announce his candidacy for president of the United States in Little Rock on Wednesday. The retired general's entrance into the crowded field of Democrats is seen as a way to counter President George W. Bush's advantage as a wartime leader in next year's election. Given some of Clark's comments in interviews, such as his claim that "progressive taxation" was one of America's founding principles, we can conclude that domestic policy is not his strong suite. But even with Clark's military credentials, history is working against him.

Only George Washington and Dwight Eisenhower were successful as both generals and presidents. Andrew Jackson and Zachary Taylor enjoyed military success, but their presidencies were hardly unalloyed triumphs. And of course, what can be said about the presidency of the unfortunate Ulysses S. Grant, the most successful general of the Civil War?

His partisans claim that like previous general-presidents, Clark presided over an American victory. But can we really compare his role in the war in Kosovo to that of Washington, Taylor, Grant, and Eisenhower?

Clark, who was both commander of NATO and commander of U.S. troops in Europe, faced unprecedented problems in executing the war in Kosovo. First and most important, NATO members were unable to agree on the goals of the war, the strategy, and the extent of force that could be brought to bear against Slobodan Milosevic. NATO's civilian leaders entered into the war expecting that it would end quickly--that Milosevic would be cowed by a few days of air strikes.

Second, the civilian leaders undercut the coercive potential of the means they chose by declaring at the outset how limited the campaign would be. President Clinton announced that NATO would not use ground forces, and NATO Secretary-General Javier Solana stated that the air campaign would last only "days, not months."

Finally, Clark had to deal with an administration that, for whatever reason, did not fully trust him and a military establishment that did not support him indeed, arguably did what it could to undercut him. He was never invited to a strategy discussion with either the secretary of defense or the president in the months and weeks leading up to the Kosovo campaign.

In his memoir, Waging Modern War, Clark writes that his relationship with his Washington counterparts was so bad that Secretary of Defense William Cohen and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Army General Hugh Shelton, conspired to keep him away from the NATO summit meeting in Washington during the war. He attended anyway, but was ostracized at a reception by the president, Secretary of State Madeline Albright, Cohen, and Shelton. As he approached their receiving line, several glanced at him. "'Stay away' was the clear message from the body language. It was jarring."

President Clinton, of course, was not interested in foreign affairs, preferring to focus on domestic politics. Unfortunately for him, events in the international arena did not cooperate. Almost from the beginning of his first term, Clinton found he could run but he couldn't hide from events overseas. This forced him to focus on that part of his job as president in which he had the least interest and the least competence.

On top of this, Clinton foreign policy team was one of the weakest in the history of the Republic some have described it as the Carter Administration's third string. Most of the civilian policy makers in the Clinton Administration had cut their teeth in the anti-war movement of the 1960s. Yet over time, many became advocates of military intervention and the use of force to prevent human rights abuses.

Accordingly, the officer corps did not trust Clinton or his foreign policy team. Even those too young to remember Vietnam thought that these "hawkish" civilians who were so eager to involve them in conflicts abroad would abandon the military if the going got tough, leaving the soldiers to twist in the wind as the military believed the civilians had done during Vietnam.

While much of the blame for the America's lackluster performance in Kosovo can be attributed to the Clinton Administration, Clark himself was also culpable. The fact is that Clark shared the Clinton Administration's rosy view concerning the use of force against Milosevic, believing as those in Washington did that he would fold if threatened with bombing, or to a short air campaign if the threat did not work.

Thus Clark refused to make the unambiguous choice to use decisive force. He did not object to the European preference for cruise missile "drive-by shootings." If NATO countries, he wrote in Waging Modern War, "wanted to fire a few cruise missiles to make a political statement, did I have the right to say they couldn't?"

As a result, Clark had no alternative plan in the event that the first course of action failed. Consider this remarkable exchange from Waging Modern War, in which he recounts a conversation with the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Joseph Ralston, before the war. Ralston wanted to know what would happen if the threat of an air campaign failed to get Milosevic to give in to NATO's demands on Kosovo.

"Well, it will work," I said. "I know [Milosevic] as well as anyone. And it gives the diplomats the leverage they need."

"OK, but let's just say it doesn't. What will we do?" he asked.

"Well, then we'll bomb. We'll have to follow through," I said.

"And what if the bombing doesn't work?"

"I think that's unlikely, but in that event, I guess we'd have to do something on the ground, directed at Kosovo."

"And if that doesn't work?" he persisted.

"Well, then we keep going. But I think you have to work at the front end of the policy, on how to make it effective. Besides, I know Milosevic; he doesn't want to get bombed. I can't believe that Milosevic won't sign, when the crunch comes. He always holds out. He has to be leaned on very hard. But he will come around."

Clark either forgot or ignored Clausewitz's observation that "the art of war deals with living and with moral forces. Consequently, it cannot attain the absolute, or certainty; it must always leave a margin for uncertainty, in the greatest of things as much as in the smallest." This is because "war is not the action of a living body on a lifeless mass...but always the collision of two living forces."

Clark developed a plan that depended on the cooperation of the enemy and then failed to provide a backup. But as Helmuth von Moltke, chief of the Prussian General Staff during the wars of German unification, observed

...no plan of operation extends with any certainty beyond the first contact with the main hostile force. Only the layman thinks that he can see in the course of the campaign the consequent execution of the original idea with all the details thought out in advance and adhered to until the very end.
The commander, wrote Moltke in a riff on Clausewitz, must keep his objective in mind,

undisturbed by the vicissitudes of events. But the path on which he hopes to reach it can never be firmly established in advance. Throughout the campaign he must make a series of decisions on the basis of situations that cannot be foreseen. The successive acts of war are thus not premeditated designs, but on the contrary are spontaneous acts guided by military measures. Everything depends on penetrating the uncertainty of veiled situations to evaluate the facts, to clarify the unknown, to make decisions rapidly, and then to carry them out with strength and constancy.
Once the bombing began, Clark compounded the problem by bluffing, making threats that NATO had neither the desire nor capability to carry outto "systematically attack, disrupt, degrade, devastate, and ultimately destroy" Yugoslavia's military and security forces.

Of course, after 77 days, Milosevic did agree to sign the Rambouillet agreements, making it possible for NATO to declare "victory." But the cost was high: thousands of dead Kosovars and nearly a million refugees; widespread destruction in both Serbia and Kosovo; and the potential destabilization of the southern Balkans. It is troubling to realize that the Clark's approach almost failed against a fifth-rate military power and was just about to unravel when, for reasons that are still unclear, Milosevic threw in the towel. This is why we should consider Wes Clark to be a serious candidate for president?

Mackubin Thomas Owens is a professor of strategy and force planning at the Naval War College in Rhode Island and a fellow of the Claremont Institute.



During the September 26 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh characterized service members who advocate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq as "phony soldiers." Limbaugh said to a caller that "[t]here's a lot" that people who favor U.S. withdrawal from Iraq "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 -- keep the troops safe' or whatever," adding, "[I]t's not possible, intellectually, to follow these people." Limbaugh's caller 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." (note the plural, "soldiers". Rush was NOT refering to the individual Jesse Macbeth) The caller, who had earlier said, "I am a serving American military, in the Army," agreed, replying, "The phony soldiers."

I love the histrionic panic as the fruit loop rabid right wing is coming to the realization that they no longer have the cozy confines of the talk radio echo chamber that bolsters their delusional beliefs to themselves any more. The top has been torn off the 55 gallon drum, the cat is loose, and the rabbit is on the run; they won't be able to put Humpty Dumpty back together and the sunlight of reality is causing a run on welding goggles. Since the vast majority of you are sackless eunichs, you won't be able to follow this link:


because it will dash to an infinitely fine dust the last remnants of your meticulously constructed alternate universe. Click only if you think you've got the minerals.

Jack Flynn

Pearls before swine Gman. You won't find many, if any, on this site who are interested in the truth. They would rather feel that they are right, which is the higher moral standard of right wing Repubs.


I know it's a thankless task Jack (I've seen the relentless ad hominem attacks you've endured from others here), but the defense of truth demands our duty. And the surety many of the cons affect is only a front. Though some truly suffer from total cognitive disconnect, more often I see their presumption of infallibility and unwillingness to cede any error as a form of adolescent antagonism, and not coincidentally that is Rush's stock in trade. Which explains his success.

J. Pierpont Finch

Yes, it's a thankless job defending the truth!



Sorry J. Pierpont, Rush is dissembling through his stogie in that youtube dittocam excerpt-You OBVIOUSLY did NOT read the Media Matters page which irrefutably details point by point EXACTLY what Rush meant by his comment. The truth...you can't handle the truth.

J. Pierpont Finch

Who go to the George Soros financed socialist propaganda website that called General Patreas a liar in the outragous NY Times ad before he opened his mouth before congress to give the Iraq Surge Report for the truth about what Rush Limbaugh said? They will only support the smear and attempt to further confuse and spread the smear.

VoteVets Spokesman Admits Their Attack Is Not About What Rush Said - admits they smeared Rush on "phony soldiers" because they have lost in the arena of ideas.

And creating a comotion by building a ficticious story around two words is such a perfect way for Media Matters to distract attention away from that abominable NY Times ad smearing General Patreas as a liar.

It's GMAN who can't handle the truth. When you tell a web of lies, you always lose your way!


Limbaugh may be the most galling nemesis of lefty libs. They will stop at nothing to smear and bring him down.

Smear tactics and nit-picking aint going to bring this giant of the airwaves down. When David slew Goliath, God was on his side. This modern Goliath (Limbaugh) happens to have the Almighty on his side.
Jackals may yap at lions, but they are totally incapable of doing them any harm.


J. Pierpont Finch

AMEN, CHARLIE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


RUSH ARCHIVE: It's not possible intellectually to follow these people.

CALLER: 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 spout to the media.

RUSH: The phony soldiers.

CALLER: The phony soldiers. If you talk to any real soldier and they're proud to serve, they want to be over in Iraq, they understand their sacrifice and they're willing to sacrifice for the country.

RUSH: They joined to be in Iraq.

The only thing more shrunken than your brain is your nut sack, because you are obviously too chickensh*t to follow the link I provided. You have only two choices here; either explain exactly how Rush was referring specifically to Jesse Macbeth and NOT Votevets, or you'll be admitting you're a moron. Don't forget, David slew Goliath, and all it takes is a thorn to cripple a lion...looks like Rush is stuck in a briar patch.


Need further proof? Answer this: Why did Rush spend almost every minute of every show since he made the comment "defending" himself? He NEVER spends more than a few minutes talking about what others have said about his commentary. Not even during the Michael J. Fox/Stem Cell controversy did he discuss it for more than one segment per show. He KNOWS he stepped in it, and is desperately trying to scrape his shoe clean.


And the idea that Rush is a patriot is ludicrous-He used the pathetic excuse of anal cysts after he was drafted to worm his way out of military service, but has spent the rest of his life ensconced on his cankerous, corpulent posterior.

J. Pierpont Finch

GMAN just can't handle the truth. So to distract and confuse, he pulls out of context quotes from Rush's archives. He adds to the smear by citing inaccurate past charges against Rush about Michael J Fox. Why it would not be a surprise to learn he was on the payroll of MEDIA MATTERS because he doth protest so much.

I know what Rush said because I heard that show LIVE - that's the proof! Did GMAN hear that show live? From his posts, he appears to get all of his information from MEDIA MATTERS. No wonder he's so confused!


When you tell or spread a bunch of lies, you always lose your way.


J. Pierpont-The quote of Rush I used is unedited and came directly from his website. I listen to the bloviating gasbag every day (old Sicilian saying: Keep your friends close and your enemies closer) and my memory is obviously much better than yours because I know EXACTLY what he said, and EXACTLY what the context was...don't fret though, I understand why you would rather avoid the substance of what Rush said-the evidence is too damning and you'd rather remain comfortably numb. Nevertheless, we are listening, so you won't be able to hide any more.

J. Pierpont Finch

GMAN. Your arguments make no sense and you know it. Because of that, you attack me personally. Your out of context quotes from Rush's website prove nothing - I know what I heard that day!

I feel sorry for people like you who are useful idiots being taken advantage of by the Moveon.org zeolots and those who fund that and other like nasty operations.

If people like you get power (and if Hillary wins, that's likely), our great county is in deep trouble at best.


Hey Gman, does the G stand for girly?

You miserable malcontents are making a mountain out of an anthill.

Rush had every right to call those traitors phony. I know some other hosts who would not have been so lenient.
When you're a member of a family or team, you don't go around trying to publicly humiliate and drag the others down.
In some other countries, soldiers behaving that way, are summarily shot or hanged.

You've got to get your priorties in order. There are much weightier matters at hand. Pretending to be chagrined over someone calling petty minded cowards PHONY, is ludicrous.

Jack Flynn

Have you noticed Gman, that the people who say "God Bless America" the most, are the ones who screw it up the most? There is no one in America who says "God Bless America" more than George W. Bush and just look at the death and destruction that man has wrought.

J. Pierpont Finch

Have you noticed GMAN that in Mr. FLYNNSKINT fails to mention that we liberated Afghanistan in reaction to Al Qaeda's attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001 just a few months into President Bush's administration? Have you noticed that he fails to mention the unanimous worldwide intellegence consensus that Iraq was developing WMD's preceding our liberation of that country? Have you noticed that he fails to mention that much of the current Iraq violence is due to Iran supplying deadly weapons to Al Qaeda terrorists in Iraq and that Iran has been fighting a proxy war against us through the terror organizations they fund (Hamas, Hezbollah...)?

In FLYNNSKINT's world, nAmerica is a force for bad in the world. Entanglement in war is never justified. In his world, we never would have joined the fight to defeat the axis powers of fascism during World War II in response to the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor. We would have allowed North Korea to overrun the Korean Peninsula in the early 1950's. We would have stood by and allowed Berlin to fall to the East Germans. We would never respond to any terrorist attack on U.S. interests domestic and abroad - we would just keep a stiff upper lip and take it like an abused wife. We would appease every dictator around the world like Jimmy Carter and some of the Hollywood idiots (ie. Danny Glover and Sean Penn) do today.

AH, WHAT A DIFFERENT WORLD it is in Jack's alternative universe. Could Jack or America even ezist in such a place? Would our economy be what it is today? Would our technological and medical advances have occurred in such a sick world? I doubt it.


Hey J Pierpointless, did you notice that your partner in cretinism Charlie totally agrees with Media Matters reporting that Rush WAS in FACT referring to soldiers who do NOT support the "war" in Iraq. You guys need to get your story straight. Actually it appears that if Charlie had his way, the United States would become a totalitarian fascist dictatorship where any who dissent from the party line were executed. You both should move to Russia-Putin would be happy to accomodate a couple of good, mindless apparatchiks like yourselves. China or North Korea would probably work well for you guys too.

Jack Flynn

Wake up and smell the poppys Pierpuppy.

"we LIBERATED Afghanistan"?????????????

I challenge you to walk down the street for fifteen minutes any where in Afghanistan without losing your head.
I suppose you could hide in a poppy field for a short while before they got you.

You put forth the argument that "unanimous world intelligence" justified our invasion of Iraq. Don't you found it strange that 23 Senators and 133 House members saw that same intelligence, deemed it specious, and voted against the Iraq War Resolution?
Were they "FLYNNSKINTS" too?

J. Pierpont Finch


I don't got no "partner" Charlie!

You smokin poppies again?


Hey Girly,

Do you have any clue what soldiering is about? Its about fighting and killing.

Those chumps voluntarily joined the army. Then when they are called to fight, they start wimping out.
You don't join the armed forces to dissent, (unless you've been deliberately planted), but to follow orders--pronto!!
Obviously those naive morons thought they were going on a picnic.

As per your lame-brained notion that it appears that I want this country to become a TOTALITARIAN FASCIST DICTATORSHIP--go look in the mirror. The way you creeps talk and behave, it would seem that that is your main intent and purpose.
Beware!! Sometime people rue the day their wishes come true.

The comments to this entry are closed.