context to fully understand the nature of limbaugh's comments full context of the entire conversation must be included in the article on the september radio broadcast of the rush limbaugh show limbaugh received telephone calls from two listeners regarding the iraq war the first caller mike in chicago who identified himself as a republican and former service member told limbaugh i do believe that we should pull out of iraq limbaugh argued with the caller and ended up treating him dismissively after that call limbaugh next spoke to a listener who wanted to retort to mike in chicago the original caller this second caller who identified himself as a soldier complained that the media never talked to real soldiers like himself he was clearly responding directly to the first caller who had told limbaugh he felt the iraq war was a mistake the current version of the article only contains the conversation with the second caller it doesn't make it clear that the second caller's remarks are in response to mike in chicago 's anti war comments this second caller never mentioned jesse macbeth at all with the addition of the first conversation the new york times response that limbaugh's phony soldiers comment was referring to iraq war veterans critical of the war makes sense as is this article is heavily skewed in favor of limbaugh both sides of the controversy need to be presented right now this article is simply a limbaugh fanatic's wet dream