I've never been a fan of Rush Limbaugh or of his opinions but would never suggest he has no right to say what he wants. Even if he is full of it. But now that the Congress has officially made statements in both chambers condemning the infamous MoveOn.org ad and any questioning of the character of the military. Limbaugh's comment is just as inflammatory and Congress has sent a precedent in addressing this type of speech. And this illustrates perfectly why it was a stupid and purely political move on the part of the Republicans and an equally foolish move for the Democratic leadership to even allow a vote regarding political speech.

Limbaugh was talking to a caller on his show. He claimed to be a member of the military who claimed the media wasn't talking to the right kind of soldier. In the caller's experience, he said the "real soldiers" were not against the current policies of the Bush Administration. Rush chimed in the media talks to "phony soldiers."

In Limbaugh's defense, he claims he was referring to a specific individual who apparently lied about his service who was critical of the war. And in the context of the audio available on line I have to admit that could fit. However, even if it's true that he really was referring back to that specific "phony" his comment is open to criticism and fodder for a "gotcha" media cycle. One that has made Mr. Limbaugh a wealthy man. He has a track record of taking completely out of context comments of Democrats as well as a swami like "insight" into the psyche of the "libs" as he calls them. He has little credibility for getting his facts straight and his psychoanalysis of the left has always been way off the mark. Though he has millions of listeners I think it's safe to say that he represents a more "extreme" view. After all, he did tell troops in Afghanistan that there were millions of Americans who didn't support them or their mission. An extreme lie.

Ironic then, Mr. Limbaugh would face criticism by a usually quiet and apathetic Democratic leadership, and might actually be taken out of context when he has devoted his career at doing the same. He has a right to say what he wants. Any kind of act of congress will only compound the problem. And normally I would prefer that our representatives in DC only casually broach this kind of speech, misinterpreted or not. As I was for the MoveOn.org ad. Unfortunately some conservatives don't comprehend something until they feel it for themselves. In Limbaugh's case he hasn't learned. A man who railed against drug users then found to be a drug abuser hasn't exhibited that he has learned anything from his experience. But maybe others will see how dangerous it is for Congress to start condemning political speech.

After all, hearing the arguments against the MoveOn.org ad, they were most certainly taken out of context and exaggerated and used for political purposes. A diversion from much more important work and a distraction for the public. As it appears by all accounts that Patreaus was less than forthcoming, only validated the MoveOn.org ad. Every other governmental report contradicted much of his testimony which he gave without being sworn in. So what's good for the goose is good for the gander. So where's the condemnation form the Reoublican party and the White House regarding Rush's comments some have perceived as being a swipe at a good chunk of our military, both active and retired?

Some Democrats have issued statements, capitalizing on the moment. And emphasizing a point. Once the Congress starts deciding what's acceptable speech and starts to officially condemn it the can of worms is open. Speech goes both ways, taken out of context or not, being an honest opinion or not, who the hell is Congress to judge that speech by officially condemning it?