Times - Limbaugh A "Victim", Like MoveOn

Carl Hulse and the NY Times finally (and belatedly) sidle up to the phony Rush Limbaugh "phony soldiers" story, adopting a moral equivalence pose and explaining nothing:

October 3, 2007
Congressional Memo

Limbaugh Latest Victim in War of Condemnation

By CARL HULSE

WASHINGTON, Oct. 2 — Having abandoned for now their effort to force President Bush to withdraw troops from Iraq, Democrats are not giving ground against a lesser nemesis: Rush Limbaugh.

With the help of liberal advocacy groups, the Democrats in Congress are turning Mr. Limbaugh’s insinuation that members of the military who question the Iraq war are “phony soldiers” into the latest war of words over the war.

A resolution introduced by 20 Democrats urges the House to condemn the “unwarranted slur” made by Mr. Limbaugh, though it does not condemn the broadcaster himself.

Their push, not coincidentally, comes after House and Senate Republicans maneuvered some Democrats into voting to condemn an advertisement by MoveOn.org in The New York Times last month that referred to Gen. David H. Petraeus as “General Betray Us.”

“What’s good for the goose is good for the gander,” Representative Steny H. Hoyer, Democrat of Maryland and the House majority leader, said Tuesday.

The back and forth on the Petraeus advertisement and, now, over Mr. Limbaugh’s remarks, illustrates how both parties are turning miscues into fodder in the run up to the 2008 elections, particularly in the absence of serious legislative accomplishment when it comes to the war.

Republicans used to be considered superior at drumming up a quick controversy over some actual or perceived Democratic outrage. But Democrats and sympathetic advocacy groups are catching up fast. And the political exchanges are being amplified by the reach and power of the Internet and the repetition of the 24-hour news cycle.

“Maybe Rush got away with smears like this in the past, but he’s not going to on our watch,” said Jon Soltz, an Iraq veteran and chairman of VoteVets.org, a group closely aligned with Congressional Democrats that is behind a new advertisement taking on Mr. Limbaugh.

Eight paragraphs in and no real bacground on the phony controversy.  Instead, this is presented as simply the flip side of the MoveOn coin - MoveOn annoyed Republicans, Limbaugh annoyed Democrats, and here we are.

Just to inspire in Times editors the belief that this controversy can be summarized briskly, let's cut to the AP story of Sept 28 by Holly Ramer:

CLAREMONT, N.H. -- Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards criticized Rush Limbaugh on Friday for referring to some members of the military as "phony soldiers."

For his part, Limbaugh said he was referring only to one soldier recently convicted of lying about his service.

See how easy that was?  The allegation and the response, in the first two paragraphs.  But nothing is easy in Times world if conservatives are under attack - in their story the allegation is presented in the second paragraph as "Mr. Limbaugh’s insinuation that members of the military who question the Iraq war are “phony soldiers”, but Limbaugh's defense is still MIA after eight paragraphs.  Of course, Times editors have the option to pretend that "insinuation" was meant to soften the charge, but that is absurd - by itself, "insinuation" does not carry the connotation that this is simply a misunderstanding, and plenty of righties know that there are truly phony soldiers out there (even ABC News knows it.) and presumably took Limbaugh's intended meaning the first time around.

The Times eventually provides a bit of background in paragraphs ten to twelve:

The broadcaster has accused critics of distorting remarks he made last Wednesday when a caller said the news media liked to focus on antiwar views raised by soldiers. Mr. Limbaugh then said, to the caller’s approval: “The phony soldiers.”

After the liberal media watchdog organization Media Matters sounded the alarm about his comments, Mr. Limbaugh said on subsequent shows that he was talking about only one discredited man who claimed to be a wounded veteran. “I was not talking about antiwar, active duty troops,” he insisted.

Yet analysts for Media Matters noted that Mr. Limbaugh’s first reference to the discredited man came nearly two minutes after his plural reference to phony soldiers. That group and like-minded Democrats have refused to back off. More than 40 Democratic senators signed a letter sent Tuesday to the company that syndicates the radio show, asking that Mr. Limbaugh’s remarks be repudiated.

That is quite a misleading summary of the exchange.  Here is a bit more context, with emphasis for the benefit of the Times researchers:

CALLER: No, it's not. And what's really funny is they never talk to real soldiers. They pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and spout to the media.

RUSH:  The phony soldiers.

CALLER: 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.

Was it really the case, as described by the Times, that the caller's remarks could be characterized as "the news media liked to focus on antiwar views raised by soldiers", and that it was Limbaugh who volunteered the concept of "phony soldiers"?  In that case, how does the Times interpret the callers mention of "these soldiers that come up out of the blue"? 

ABC News had a piece about what they called "phony heroes", headlined at their website as "phony war vets", which ran two days prior to the controversial Limbaugh segment.  Yet Limbaugh's critics are certain that he could not possibly have had that in mind when he mentioned "phony soldiers", even though the caller was alluding to soldiers that "come up out of the blue" and even though Limbaugh went on to cite a specific phony soldier, Jesse MacBeth, two minutes later?  Further, if we understand the Limbaugh explanation, he had previously noted Macbeth in a "Morning Update", which I infer is emailed to subscribers [ but see UPDATE].  Yet Limbaugh's critics are certain he could not have meant what he says he meant; geez, if they would only use these vast psychic powers to tell us who is going to win the Series I could be spared a lot of agita.

Eventually the diligent reader has the moral equivalence spelled out:

The Limbaugh furor is just the latest episode in how each side has sought to paint the other as unpatriotic or unsympathetic to the military by focusing public attention on various comments that lawmakers might wish they had phrased differently or could take back.

...There is certainly nothing new in trying to use political opponents’ words against them. But in the current environment, efforts to out-condemn one another are becoming a proxy for a more substantive fight over the war and cannot be dismissed as one factor in the low public approval ratings for Congress.

Left unmentioned - although the Times credits Media Matters with promoting the Limbaugh story their investigative effort apparently flagged once they decided that Media Matters is a "liberal media watchdog organization"; apparently, the claim of the leading Democratic candidate for the Presidency that she helped to establish it is not newsworthy (Newsbusters, Newsday).

UPDATE:  Byron York chats with Rush Limbaugh and lays out the timeline.  Apparently the Morning Commentary in which Limbaugh first mentioned Macbeth is is taped for later broadcast.

Comments

[kim]

Pere Ubu Alert.
==============

[kim]

We're about to be treated to the absurdities of arguing the polarities of 'Patriotism'. Actually, I'm glad the issue is front and center; I'm sorry it's already demagogued.
================================

[kim]

What's nice is the irony that this is a discussion the luxury of which is afforded by the fact that the war is nearly over. The corollary of 'Who lost China', it's 'Who won Iraq'.

So, I guess we can rejoice that we are all patriots, after all. It's a big tent.
==============================

[Sue]

Republicans used to be considered superior at drumming up a quick controversy over some actual or perceived Democratic outrage. But Democrats and sympathetic advocacy groups are catching up fast.

Where the hell was I when the Republicans were superior at drumming up controversies?

[Jane]

It's hard to get a handle on it but I think the Rush controversy doesn't really resonate with the middle of the road people. I do however think the Move-on ad did.

Of course that could be wishful thinking.

[bio mom]

What should outrage all Americans on either side is the fact that the United States Congress in both houses is issuing denunciations against a private citizen. Not a politician, not a 527 political group (Move on), not a member of the administration or the military. AN AMERICAN CITIZEN, A PRIVATE CITIZEN. What comes next? Gold stars that people must wear to point them out as people with opinions that are not to be listened to? What a total disgrace our legislators have become. And so dangerous to democracy.

[bio mom]

What should outrage all Americans on either side is the fact that the United States Congress in both houses is issuing denunciations against a private citizen. Not a politician, not a 527 political group (Move on), not a member of the administration or the military. AN AMERICAN CITIZEN, A PRIVATE CITIZEN. What comes next? Gold stars that people must wear to point them out as people with opinions that are not to be listened to? What a total disgrace our legislators have become. And so dangerous to democracy.

[kim]

It won't Jane for two reasons. The middle know where Limbaugh stands. This is a volunteer military. It is inauthentic to be anti-war in this military, no matter how legitimate it is, in fact. It is a measure of the desperation of this anti-war crew to think this point will resonate with anyone but themselves. Yet, you see the media tote that bale.
===============================

[kim]

That's it, MSM's minds are enslaved.
================================

[kim]

Media Matters cracks the whip. Who owns the overseer?
==============

[kim]

And, bm, I do think that point about the effort to make Congress censor a citizen for speech will resonate. I surely suspect Limbaugh will find all the resonating frequencies, Kenneth.
======================================

[Jane]

The problem is since the MSM carries the dems' water, the non-paying attention part of the country is beginning to think we are headed toward McCarthyism. I actually agree with them, but we disagree on which side is imposing that standard.

[kim]

Jane, it is a deception so fundamental it must fall, but in the meantime, it is worsening. I don't know what to do.
=============================

[ann]

National Review's Byron York and Andy McCarthy are must reads today.... Delicious!

[Rick Ballard]

Tom Maguire,

Thanks for an excellent skewering of the Times, for the 387th time.

Kim,

"The middle know where Limbaugh stands."

IMO, it's important not to overestimate the intelligence of the bread and circuses, free lunch muddle in the road. I keep thinking about the fact that by November '08 there will be an entire group of 64 million that have passed completely through the national indoctrination process since the Clinton's first rented rooms in the White House.

Working from an assumption that a group that has had the importance of "feeling deeply" inculcated, rather than any development of critical thought will possess the acumen to distinguish propaganda from fact is perilous ground.

The electorate is ever changing and the educrats have made damn sure that it's not for the better wrt basic logical skills.

[Gmax]

I thought it was out of bounds to question someone patriotism? I am certain I had this very same discussion with the likes TT or AM not so long ago. Did it suddenly become fashionable?

Rush BTW is loving this. He picks up listeners and gets to tie Hillary to Media Matters and smears, so its a big twofer.

[ann]

Perceptive and affectionate observers of Wesley Clark, who missed his interview this morning with Meridith Vierra need to go over to Newsbusters.org. What a Hoot!

[Semanticleo]

From the October 2 broadcast of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:

LIMBAUGH: "VoteVets.org has -- they describe themselves as an organization comprised of veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns who oppose current policy in Iraq. They've put together a TV ad that takes aim at me. This ad's going to run on Fox News, on CNN, it's going to run on WMAL radio in Washington, $60,000 ad buy that's going to run, I think, on our local West Palm Beach station down here. And there's a man identified as Brian McCoff -- McGough -- it's M-C-G-O-U-G-H, I'm not sure how he pronounces it, McGo, McGuff -- I haven't watched the ad.

He discusses his service in Iraq, the wounds he suffered there, and he says to me in this ad, "Until you have the guts to call me a 'phony soldier' to my face, stop telling lies about my service." You know, this is such a blatant use of a valiant combat veteran, lying to him about what I said, then strapping those lies to his belt, sending him out via the media in a TV ad to walk into as many people as he can walk into."

You can't make this shit up.

The Vet, btw, has shrapnel in his head suffered at the hands of a suicide bomber.

[kim]

Cleo, you are deluded enough to miss the point of that irony.
==================

[Gmax]

Who told lies about his service? Unless he recently changed his name from "Jessie Macbeth".

Have you seen the list of Board of Advisors of VoteVets.org? Wiki has it if you search. See if any of the names shock you.

How did this organization raise $60K within days for a media buy? HMMMMM.

[MayBee]

Seman- I know. To think that vet with the tragic shrapnel wound doesn't understand that Limbaugh did NOT call him a phony soldier is really sad. Or perhaps he understands, and is being manipulative for his cause.

[Rick Ballard]

Kim,

See. There are heretofore unplumbed depths of stoopid yet to explore.

Don't worry, Tic's fully capable of reaching bottom and reporting back.

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

Actually leo, you did just make it up, Limbaugh was talking about these guys:

U.S. Attorney Jeffrey C. Sullivan today announced some of the results of “Operation Stolen Valor,” a year long effort to investigate and prosecute those who lie about their military service for financial gain or other reasons. Sullivan and Doug Carver, Special Agent in Charge of the Veteran’s Affairs Office of Inspector General detailed eight prosecutions in the Veteran’s Affairs Northwest Region in 2007.

“As a Vietnam Veteran, and the father of a decorated Army officer currently serving, I feel very keenly the damage done by Jesse Macbeth and these other fakes,” said Jeff Sullivan, U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Washington. “Macbeth’s lies fueled hostility to our servicemen in Iraq and here at home. Those who falsely claim medals for heroism, cheapen the recognition of our true war heroes.”

“The ‘phony war hero phenomenon’ plagues the American landscape and tarnishes the service of thousands of veterans who have served honorably. It strangles VA resources from providing critical care and benefits to deserving veterans returning from war,” said Douglas J. Carver, Special Agent in Charge of the VA Office of Inspector General, Western Field Office. “It all boils downs to this: these phonies submit claims to the VA for compensation and medical benefits they are not entitled to, and it takes away valuable resources from those who are entitled.”

In a dozen cases under investigation in the northwest, the fraud totals more than $1.4 million. Eight of the cases have been publicly filed and are in various stages of being adjudicated:

*Jesse Macbeth, 23, Tacoma, Washington, sentenced today in connection with his fraudulent claims of military service. Macbeth sought medical benefits claiming to suffer from PTSD related to service in Iraq and Afghanistan, in fact, Macbeth was discharged from the Army about a month after he joined. Macbeth never traveled outside the U.S. with the Army. Macbeth duped reporters, claiming to be a decorated Army Ranger who had witnessed war crimes.

*Reggie Buddle, 60, Puyallup, Washington, sentenced July 30, 2007, for Unlawful Wearing of United States Military Medals and Decorations. Buddle posed as a decorated Marine Corps Chaplin presiding over weddings, funerals and baptisms. Buddle was sentenced to 500 hours of community service and two years of probation.

*Larry Lewis Porter, 52, Seattle, Washington, sentenced April 19, 2007, for Mail Fraud in connection with a scheme to fraudulently obtain disability benefits from Veterans Affairs. Porter was sentenced to 37 months in prison. Porter claimed he suffered PTSD from experiences in the Navy, however investigation revealed the events were fabricated. Loss Amount: $134,000

*Roy J. Scott, 71, of Port Angeles, Washington pleaded guilty August 31, 2007, to Use of an Altered Military Discharge Certificate to obtain VA Compensation and Medical Benefits, and Unlawful Wearing of United States Military Medals and Decorations. Scott claimed he had served in the Marine Corps in Korea, that he was wounded in combat in Korea, and that he had been awarded the Korea Defense Medal, Korea Star Medal, and a Purple Heart (due to alleged gun shot wounds sustained during combat in Korea). Scott claimed to be honorably discharged, when in fact, he never earned those medals, never served in Korea or any foreign country and was Court-Martialed out of the Marine Corps. Loss Amount: $21,960.

*Merrick K. Hersey, 64, of Vancouver, Washington, Hersey was indicted August 1, 2007, for Use and Possession of Forged or Altered Military Discharge Certificate and False Statements. Hersey is a fugitive and is being sought by law enforcement. Hersey applied for benefits claiming he served in 1967-68, was awarded two Purple Hearts (for wounds sustained in active combat) and the Bronze Star (awarded for heroism). Hersey claimed he suffered from PTSD and sought benefits. In fact, Hersey never served in the Marine Corps at all. Loss Amount: $2,688.

*Michael D. Heit, 58, of Harrington, Washington, pleaded guilty yesterday (September 20, 2007) in U.S. District Court in Spokane, Washington to Use and Possession of a Forged or Altered Military Discharge Certificate and False Claims of Military Medals. Heit claimed he was a Vietnam vet who was held as a prisoner of war. He claimed to have been awarded three Purple Heart medals and the Silver Star. None of that is true. Loss Amount: $3,500

*Elvin J. Swisher, 70, of Idaho, is charged with Wearing Unauthorized Military Medals, False Statements, and Theft of Government Funds. Swisher falsely claimed he was wounded in Korea and that he had been awarded the Silver Star, Purple Heart and other medals for valor. Loss Amount: $95,000.

*Carlos Riosvalle, 83, of Portland, Oregon, was sentenced April 9, 2007, in Multnomah County for multiple counts of Theft by Deception. Riosvalle collected benefits claiming to have been “shot down while a pilot in World War II.” In fact Riosvalle never served in the armed forces. Loss Amount: $22,818.

[kim]

Take my point, Cleo; we're all patriots, here, even the suddenly increasingly loyal opposition.
===========================

[Sue]

You can't make this shit up.

Odd that we are thinking the same thing Leo.

[Ed]

Selective memory. Just like the selective tape-editing Rush did to try and weasel out from this. Where did that 1 minute and 35 seconds of transcript go that you don't mention above?

The Gun Toting Liberal shows that this is just another in a series of Limbaugh attacks on any soldier that disagrees with the GOP:

"Remember when Specialist Thomas Wilson questioned former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld on the lack of body armor in Kuwait? A PERFECT example of the FACT “El Rushbo” only supports the half of the troops in uniform who are allowed to fully voice their free speech via the UCMJ due to the fact their views are shared by the talk radio show host and their Commander-In-Chief. For those who might have forgotten, not only did Specialist Wilson get a rousing ovation by the majority of his fellow troops that day in Kuwait, “El Rushbo”, “The Truth Detector” LYING LOW-LIFE, called for Specialist Wilson to be busted for “borderline-insubordination” at the time…"

From The New York Times, May 22nd, 2005:

“… The right’s rage at Newsweek is all too reminiscent of the contempt it heaped on Specialist Thomas Wilson, the soldier who dared to ask Mr. Rumsfeld at a town hall meeting in Kuwait in December about the shortage of armored vehicles. Mr. Wilson was guilty of ”near-insubordination,” said Rush Limbaugh… “

[MayBee]

Ed- I'm unfamiliar with attacks on Wilson, and don't agree with any that might have happened. I do remember that a reporter (McClatchy?) had put him up to the question.

However, surely you aren't trying to say that any soldier that chooses to get involved politically can't be disagreed with or their opinions criticized?

It's the way it's done, IMO, that makes it acceptable or not.

[Jane]

Funny no one is talking about Beauchamp in this whole incident. It would seem like the perfect segue.

[MayBee]

Jane- Rush did bring him up.

[Mike Sorenen]

This Times piece is promoting the ‘moral equivalency’ narrative. I agree with Carl Hulse that calling Petraeus a traitor and calling anti-war soldiers “phony soldiers,” are equivalent insults. The fake accusation that Rush voiced that insult in no way affects the accuracy of the comparison of those two insults. So viola, we have another “fake but accurate” story.

[RichatUF]

I see that ed has gotten the updated talking points from Media Matters and they want to dredge up a story from 2005, which was shown then that the question was manipulated by a journalist.

Anyway, happy hunting ed, I'm sure one day Media Matters or MoveOn will get one of the whales of evil talk raido or evil fox.

[Gmax]

OK for the libtards. Here is my quick Dogpile search of the internet for Spec. Thomas Wilson and Limbaugh. The source is Columnist Clarence Page, no conservative apologist he, and here is his reporting of the 2004 commentary by Rush:

"Yet some partisan critics, apparently unable to defend Rumsfeld, attacked Pitts. "He created news in order to cover it," said conservative political commentator Rush Limbaugh. "... We found out the whole thing ... is a setup." Setup to do what? Tell the truth?"

Pitts in this case is the embedded reporter who admitted the questions asked were his. He did not question Wilson or call him anything like a "phony soldier".

Nice try though. Shame that the internet has made it harder for libtards to lie like Persian rugs ( or Persian Presidents, which is it?).

[Sue]

Ed,

I'm sure I'm missing the segue from phony soldier to insubordination but what exactly is wrong with Rush saying it was near insubordination? Anyway, this entire controversy with Rush has been set up to hide the fact that democrats have funded the war, again.

[Appalled Moderate]

Gmax:

Was not going to comment on this topic, but you brought my initials up...

Congress should not be in the business in condemning exercises of free speech in the media. This goes for both the MoveOn resolution and the Limbaugh resolution. Given the government regulation of radio, and recent moves to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine, I think the resolution on Limbaugh is a larger abuse. The goal of Reid and company is to get Clear Channel to do to Limbaugh what was done to Imus. That's a disgrace.

I have no thoughts on Limbaugh's patriotism, and think the "did not serve in Vietnam" argument cheap. Those who make it would not want to live in a USA where only veterans of foreign wars get to make policy.

Sorry to bother you all. You may resume your regularly scheduled commenting.

[Gmax]

And said they want to increase taxes through a war "surcharge". The Daily Double for Progressives. Defund the troops and get a new tax passed.

[MayBee]

Sue- they had to fund the war. Their patriotism was under attack by Rush Limbaugh. Don't you see?

[Rich]

Tom,
FYI, Rush's "morning update" is a one minute piece broadcast on various stations at various times in the morning.

[Gmax]

Perhaps it was TT but I had the discussion.

to your comments, calling MoveOn anything other than a branch of the DNC is pretty disingenuous. Which Democrat politician said they weren't going to attack Petraeus personally, they would leave that to their surrogates? It was definitely quoted widely.

In my book it aint the same and no about of mumbling through some equivalence argument is going to make it so.

[MayBee]

Did the so-called Move On resolution actually mention MoveOn? The draft I saw only included support of Petraeus.

[Bill in AZ]

Ed is also using the tired talking points of the libtards regarding the missing 1 minute 35 minutes of the transcript. err... it was from the previous days show - you can listen to it yourself if you're not lazy, stupid, or intentionally continuing the lie of Harry Reid and Media Matters. By the way, there is nothing new or exciting for you there - too bad.

[RichatUF]

Sue-

Anyway, this entire controversy with Rush has been set up to hide the fact that democrats have funded the war, again.

Drats, foiled again

I'm sure most of the crap [like the Kennedy amendment] will get stripped out in conference and with all the huffing-and-puffing the Democrats will pass a defense budget bill that will keep US soliders in Iraq well past the end of Bush's term in office.

[boris]

even though Limbaugh went on to cite a specific phony soldier, Jesse MacBeth, two minutes later?

As Rich points out the cite was Rush replaying his morning update, brodcasted the previous day. The spin about plural when it clearly was a legitimate example Rush referenced before and after the caller's comment is despicable.

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

Remember when Specialist Thomas Wilson questioned former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld on the lack of body armor in Kuwait?

That would be a neat trick, since he didn't. He mouthed a question--planted by a reporter from, iirc, Newsweek--about why the troops were having to add armor to their Humvees by their lil ol' selves, rather than have them shipped back to the factories to have it done.

It was a stupid question, the answer to which is 'logistics'.

[Gmax]

The reporter, Pitts, was with the local Chattanooga paper. He was embedded with the Guard unit, primarly from Middle Tennessee. He admitted he planted two questions with soldiers, including Thomas Wilson.

[Ed]

Except Patrick, we're not talking about the question about body armor, we're talking about how Rush has a history of attacking any soldier who disagrees with his view.

[Enlightened]

Wow - Rush sure took it to the GOP and conservatives as well. As usual, the spineless leaders of the GOP rolled over. They should have jumped to Rush's defense on the premise alone that the rising tide of fascism, and the efforts to crush free speech, that Hillary Clinton and her ilk represent must be stopped.

Rush's history of personal gratitude and honor, and unwavering financial support towards the military precedes him, and for the leftard morons to think for a moment that he is disinegenous about his military support is absolutely laughable. This is about the funniest thing I have ever witnessed. The leftard morons are flagellating themselves over a lie - and are foaming at the mouth in a near orgasim over a lie. It defines their side splendidly.

It has literally - as Rush has also found - energized me back solidly into the right. The fascist manifesto has got to be stopped. By all means possible.

[boris]

attacking any soldier who disagrees ...

The soldier did not diagree with Rush Limbaugh, he voiced an MSM challange to Rumsfeld.

Rush did not "attack" the soldier, he expressed an opinion regarding the appropriateness of the soldier's PUBLIC comment.

[Enlightened]

"we're talking about how Rush has a history of attacking any soldier who disagrees with his view."

Hahhahahhhahhhh - Leftwing idiots that have a history of attacking all soldiers, in all war, mainly with fake but accurate facts are now trying to prove Rush Limbaugh is really just one of them.

Priceless.

[MayBee]

Well then, Ed-- why don't you give some examples of Rush's history of attacking any soldiers that don't agree with his view? Show me his quotes attacking Wilson.

[Rick Ballard]

"we're talking about how Rush has a history of attacking any soldier who disagrees with his view."

Ed,

Lay a foundation for your baseless assertion or be consigned to "deeply stoopid troll" status - you'll have to sit next to Tic at the back of the short bus.