Rush reports

shortski · Post by **shortski** » Dec 10th, '04, 11:48

Read the following and try to make an argument that the reporter didn't have his own agenda and set this whole thing up, these are his own words, and it sounds like he boasting about what he did, how corrupt is the press? Before nayone chimes in with he did it for the troops thats crap he mentions that only at the end and in passing. Make no mistake, he did it because he wanted to national attention for himself. IMHO.

I believe ethis origionally came from the Druge Report, but I could'nt find it on Drudge.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/ ... guest.html

Original text of e-mail meno from Edward Lee Pitts of the Chattanooga Times Free Press ;

4:44 in the afternoon: " [sic] I just had one of my best days as a journalist today. As luck would have it, our journey North was delayed just long enough see I could attend a visit today here by Defense Secretary Rumsfeld. I was told yesterday that only soldiers could ask questions so I brought two of them along with me as my escorts. Before hand we worked on questions to ask Rumsfeld about the appalling lack of armor their vehicles going into combat have. While waiting for the VIP, I went and found the Sgt. in charge of the microphone for the question and answer session and made sure he knew how to get my guys out of the crowd." So this reporter picked the soldiers to ask the questions and then picked the sergeant to call on the soldiers.

"So during the Q&A session, one of my guys was the second person called on. When he asked Rumsfeld why after two years soldiers are still having to dig through trash bins to find rusted scrap metal and cracked ballistic windows for their Humvees, the place erupted in cheers so loud that Rumsfeld had to ask the guy to repeat his question. Then Rumsfeld answered something about it being 'not a lack of desire or money but a logistics/physics problem.' He said he recently saw about 8 of the special up-armored Humvees guarding Washington, DC, and he promised that they would no longer be used for that and that he would send them over here. Then he asked a three star general standing behind him, the commander of all ground forces here, to also answer the question. The general said it was a problem he is working on.

"The great part was that after the event was over the throng of national media following Rumsfeld -- the New York Times, AP, all the major networks -- swarmed to the two soldiers I brought from the unit I am embedded with. Out of the 1,000 or so troops at the event there were only a handful of guys from my unit because the rest were too busy prepping for our trip north. The national media asked if they were the guys with the armor problem and then stuck cameras in their faces. The NY Times reporter asked me to email him the stories I had already done on it, but I said he could search for them himself on the Internet and he better not steal any of my lines. I have been trying to get this story out for weeks- as soon as I found [sic] out I would be on an unarmored truck- and my paper published two stories on it. But it felt good to hand it off to the national press. I believe lives are at stake with so many soldiers going across the border riding with scrap metal as protection. It may be too late for the unit I am with, but hopefully not for those who come after."

DMC · Post by **DMC** » Dec 10th, '04, 11:50

CAPBOY · Post by **CAPBOY** » Dec 10th, '04, 12:04

Rush has always made my head hurt. One of those type of guys that make me a bit ashamed to be a republican. A big fat pumpkinhead-hypocrite blabbermouth.

shortski · Post by **shortski** » Dec 10th, '04, 12:35

DMC wrote:Still want to hear the soldiers take on the whole thing...

What will that change as far as the reporter's role in the issue, and thats the whole issue here. The issue is the press creating stories and then reporting them as news. Focus on that one issue. If you want to debate another issue, the solders role, the lack of armor on the Humvee, Rumsfeld being a dick, I'll be glade to oblige but lets foucus on one issue at a time and not muddy the water by brining up things to make a wrong a right. OK

shortski · Post by **shortski** » Dec 10th, '04, 12:37

CAPBOY wrote:Rush has always made my head hurt. One of those type of guys that make me a bit ashamed to be a republican. A big fat pumpkinhead-hypocrite blabbermouth.

I find him a little to the right of Attila the Hun myself

, but I do enjoy some of his political parodies. The one about the couple driving a Yugo is hilarious.

DMC · Post by **DMC** » Dec 10th, '04, 13:33

shortski · Post by **shortski** » Dec 10th, '04, 13:57

DMC wrote:The issue to me is not breaking rules of a town meeting - the issue is getting some of politicians to recognize that our troops are not fully supplied with what they need to stay alive...
.

The issue I was debating was the press creating stories and then reporting them as news, you interpreted that to "breaking rules of a town meeting " see not the same issue, anyway you have now stated an issue we can debate on "the issue is getting some of politicians to recognize that our troops are not fully supplied with what they need to stay alive"

OK, I'll start;

I believe it's a tragedy that some politicians put their own personal gain before the safety of our troops under fire. To think that a Presidential candidate would vote for a bill that would allow for the armoring of vehicles that were never to designed to be used in close in battle,then with-hold his vote in the final voting a travesty.

Now stay on topic, your turn.

DMC · Post by **DMC** » Dec 10th, '04, 14:22

shortski · Post by **shortski** » Dec 10th, '04, 14:55

Debating Point wrote:The issue is getting some politicians to recognize that our troops are not fully supplied with what they need to stay alive

DMC wrote:
shortski wrote:I believe it's a tragedy that some politicians put their own personal gain before the safety of our troops under fire. To think that a Presidential candidate would vote for a bill that would allow for the armoring of vehicles that were never to designed to be used in close in battle,then with-hold his vote in the final voting a travesty.

Now stay on topic, your turn.
To think that a President would send our kids into combat without the proper equipment to a war that HE determined the timeframe is a travisty...
And to totally blow off his Secretary of States(and his fathers) warning about it is a travisty...
And 1/2 of the the 1,020 troops killed in Iraq due to unarmoured humvees is a travisty...

Now - as far as your Kerry jab is concerned... That 87 billion dollar bill was totally inflated... Only $300,000,000 was destined for body armour.. If I remember - and please check my facts -
$800,000,000 was for training 1500 Iraqi police officers...
$400,000,000 was for prisons..
$200,000,000 to develope a ciriculum for training Iraqi soldiers..
$1,400,000,000 to pay coutries that helped us out in Iraq..
I forget the rest...

Bush himself treatened to veto the bill if the reconstruction money for Iraq it included was in the form of loans rather than grants... this was also the SECOND appropriation bill... The first bill didn't even HAVE body armor included!!!!! whats up with that!!!!

I'm so glad I didnt vote for Bush... I couldnt live myself...

I quoted the topic so we don't drift off topic. I would also like to ask the moderator if my esteemed fellow debater would refrain from mentioning names during this debate, it is a debate about ideas not people. I would also like the moderator to admonish my esteemed fellow debater for saying I took a jab at Mr. Kerry, I never mentioned Mr. Kerry my opponent only assumed I meant Mr. Kerry. I would like to further ask the moderator that my fellow debater not interject his personal voting preference into the debate as it has no bearing on the topic. Back to the debate.

The constitution is structured that the Legislative branch is responsible for voting the funding to supply what is necessary to accomplish the actions they vote on. The vote to go to war was ;

House 296-133 http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/10/iraq.us/

Senate 77-23
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/10/iraq.us/

To Monday morning quarterback and place the blame at the feet of the Executive branch shows a lake of understanding in how the United States Government is structured.

Asking for advice doesn't commit you to taking that which was sought. Gathering all available information and then making a decision that you feel is best in the given circumstance is a sign of leadership and should be admired. Using the threat of a presidential veto to insure that the monies you feel are necessary to complete the reconstruction and to insure that the Iraqi people have the security necessary to vote in their own leaders is again, a sign of leadership and of knowing how the system works.

DMC · Post by **DMC** » Dec 10th, '04, 15:02

shortski wrote:I would also like to ask the moderator if my esteemed fellow debater would refrain from mentioning names during this debate, it is a debate about ideas not people. I would also like the moderator to admonish my esteemed fellow debater for saying I took a jab at Mr. Kerry, I never mentioned Mr. Kerry my opponent only assumed I meant Mr. Kerry. I would like to further ask the moderator that my fellow debater not interject his personal voting preference into the debate as it has no bearing on the topic. Back to the debate.

WTF !?!?!?! Look at your quote !!!! You totally implied Kerry... Your a friggin loser... A big cry baby... Whos now going to fall on the Kchat status quo - big baby.......

I believe it's a tragedy that some politicians put their own personal gain before the safety of our troops under fire. To think that a Presidential candidate would vote for a bill that would allow for the armoring of vehicles that were never to designed to be used in close in battle,then with-hold his vote in the final voting a travesty.

Go ahead and ban me - see if I give a flying fuuuuck...
I'm sick of your sh*t...
You are by far THE lamest Conservative and person I've ever dealt with... Next to Dr No that is...

I'll take Capboy and Xjib any day of the week over you...

shortski · Post by **shortski** » Dec 10th, '04, 15:10

DMC wrote:
shortski wrote:I would also like to ask the moderator if my esteemed fellow debater would refrain from mentioning names during this debate, it is a debate about ideas not people. I would also like the moderator to admonish my esteemed fellow debater for saying I took a jab at Mr. Kerry, I never mentioned Mr. Kerry my opponent only assumed I meant Mr. Kerry. I would like to further ask the moderator that my fellow debater not interject his personal voting preference into the debate as it has no bearing on the topic. Back to the debate.
WTF !?!?!?! Look at your quote !!!!

I believe it's a tragedy that some politicians put their own personal gain before the safety of our troops under fire. To think that a Presidential candidate would vote for a bill that would allow for the armoring of vehicles that were never to designed to be used in close in battle,then with-hold his vote in the final voting a travesty.

Go ahead and ban me - see if I give a flying fuuuuck...
I'm sick of your sh*t...
You are by far THE lamest Conservative and person I've ever dealt with... Next to Dr No that is...

Temper, temper...I never mentioned a name, you assumed I was referring to Mr Kerry, are you sure that there never was another presidential candidate that also voted against a defense appropriation while running for office, check carefully. I would never ban you your just too much fun. To be considered in the same circle as the esteemed Dr. No pleases me to no end.

Are we finished with the debate? If we are I'd like to put it up for a vote if that's OK with you.

DMC · Post by **DMC** » Dec 10th, '04, 15:12

shortski wrote:
DMC wrote:
shortski wrote:I would also like to ask the moderator if my esteemed fellow debater would refrain from mentioning names during this debate, it is a debate about ideas not people. I would also like the moderator to admonish my esteemed fellow debater for saying I took a jab at Mr. Kerry, I never mentioned Mr. Kerry my opponent only assumed I meant Mr. Kerry. I would like to further ask the moderator that my fellow debater not interject his personal voting preference into the debate as it has no bearing on the topic. Back to the debate.
WTF !?!?!?! Look at your quote !!!!

I believe it's a tragedy that some politicians put their own personal gain before the safety of our troops under fire. To think that a Presidential candidate would vote for a bill that would allow for the armoring of vehicles that were never to designed to be used in close in battle,then with-hold his vote in the final voting a travesty.

Go ahead and ban me - see if I give a flying fuuuuck...
I'm sick of your sh*t...
You are by far THE lamest Conservative and person I've ever dealt with... Next to Dr No that is...
Temper, temper...I never mentioned a name, you assumed I was referring to Mr Kerry, are you sure that there never was another presidential candidate that also voted against a defense appropriation while running for office, check carefully. I would never ban you your just too much fun. To be considered in the same circle as the esteemed Dr. No pleases me to no end.

Are we finished with the debate? If we are I'd like to put it up for a vote if that's OK with you.

F you - you know what you meant... dont patronize me.... It really pisses me off

Friggin short ski ridin loser..... Ban me PLEASE!!!!!

XtremeJibber2001 · Post by **XtremeJibber2001** » Dec 10th, '04, 15:25

DMC wrote:
I'll take Capboy and Xjib any day of the week over you...

I've been good lately. I haven't had time to debate much.

DMC · Post by **DMC** » Dec 10th, '04, 15:27

XtremeJibber2001 wrote:
DMC wrote:
I'll take Capboy and Xjib any day of the week over you...
I've been good lately. I haven't had time to debate much.

At least you don't go crying like some bitch like shortski does...

XtremeJibber2001 · Post by **XtremeJibber2001** » Dec 10th, '04, 15:31

DMC wrote:
XtremeJibber2001 wrote:
DMC wrote:
I'll take Capboy and Xjib any day of the week over you...
I've been good lately. I haven't had time to debate much.
At least you don't go crying like some bitch like shortski does...

awww...that's not nice

But I can see where both of you are coming from. I think it's messed up the guy planted a question, but judging by the cheers from the soldiers it's obviously a concern of theres. I can see where the soldiers are coming from too. Having a g/f who's friend was killed last week in a roadside bomb that may have lived if the armor on the humvee's was better puts things into perspective. But I agree to a degree that one can't always go to war with what we want, just what we have. My views on this really aren't that storng because I feel for both the soldiers and the armor issue. So I won't really debate this time...sorry ladies and gents.

however, I like Hannity over Limbaugh, both of them have their "bad" moments, but hannity is a funny guy at times. Nothing beats "moron trivia" with flipper