Limbaugh on Democrats: "[W]hile they can't trust George W. Bush, they can trust Osama bin Laden"
Rush Limbaugh characterized Osama bin Laden's recently released audiotape as an echo of Democratic criticisms of President Bush, saying that Democrats would "eat ... up" bin Laden's message. Limbaugh said: "Here comes bin Laden actually suggesting a truce," adding: "Well, the Democrats will eat that up because, while they can't trust George W. Bush, they can trust Osama bin Laden."
During the January 23 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh characterized Osama bin Laden's recently released audiotape as an echo of Democratic criticisms of President Bush, saying that Democrats would "eat ... up" bin Laden's message. Limbaugh said, "[H]ere comes bin Laden actually suggesting a truce," adding: "Well, the Democrats will eat that up because, while they can't trust George W. Bush, they can trust Osama bin Laden." He also claimed that the bin Laden "videotape that came out right before the election last year [2004] ... could've been a [Sen.] John Kerry [D-MA] speech. You know, 75 percent of it." Limbaugh's comments repeat claims made by other members of the media who have also used the bin Laden tape to denounce critics of the Bush administration's conduct of the Iraq war. As Media Matters for America previously noted, since the release of the tape, Fox News' Sean Hannity and MSNBC's Chris Matthews -- among others -- have made allegations similar to Limbaugh's.
Later in the broadcast, Limbaugh aired a skit featuring apparent impersonators of Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA) and bin Laden, in which the statements spoken in English by the Kennedy impersonator were followed by statements in Arabic spoken by the bin Laden character. When the skit ended, Limbaugh asked: "Wait a minute, who's translating who, there? Sounds like Ted Kennedy telling bin Laden what to say."
Finally, apparently referring to his own comments alleging that Democrats agree with bin Laden, Limbaugh added: "And the little liberal media websites will have conniptions and they'll go nuts and so forth. The same pattern will fall -- or follow as -- as it always does."
From the January 23 broadcast of The Rush Limbaugh Show:
LIMBAUGH: But ... and make a joke, and, by gosh, here comes bin Laden actually suggesting a truce, a stand-down. This is -- you know, this is -- this is right out of the way the communists played the game. Right out of the way all of our superpower adversaries in the past have played the game. "Well, let's call a ceasefire. Well, let's call a truce." Well, the Democrats will eat that up because, while they can't trust George W. Bush, they can trust Osama bin Laden.
[...]
If you listen to Democrats, the focus of evil in the modern world is George W. Bush. And here comes bin Laden offering a truce? Right up the Democrats' alley. In fact, the -- the -- bin Laden, I think, parrots the -- well, I'm not sure about this [sound]bite. No, I'm not -- I'm not -- I'm not going to go to it, 'cause I'm not sure we have the bin Laden [sound]bite.
But I'm told that -- that bin Laden parroted the Democrats right down to ridiculing the "Mission Accomplished" banner -- you know, on the aircraft carrier. Did he do that in the -- in the tape? Did you hear it, or --
Well, at any rate, if he did, the Democrats also did that. The bin Laden videotape that came out right before the election last year, well, 2004, could've been a John Kerry speech; you know, 75 percent of it.
[... ]
We have some more of the Osama bin Laden tape, ladies and gentlemen, and translation. Just listen to it for yourself.
[...]
Wait a minute, who's translating who, there? Sounds like Ted Kennedy was telling bin Laden what to say.
Now, to prove my point, folks, 'cause I've been getting some wide-eyed stares from Snerdley, today, when I say, "The Democrats look at, to me -- to me -- they look to Bush as the enemy." They don't see bin Laden as the enemy. They see Bush as the enemy.
Well, bin Laden and the Democrats sound similar, would you not agree? What is so outrageous about that? It's not -- you know what? It's not outrageous. You just can't believe I'm actually saying it.
You can't believe I'm actually -- well, you know what's going to happen. After I've said it, it's going to pop up on a bunch of other places and people are going to say it for their own since -- since -- since the ice has been broken.
And the little liberal media websites will have conniptions and they'll go nuts and so forth. The same pattern will fall -- or follow as -- as it always does.
The other right-wing media mogul you should worry about
Palin's book and Obama's bow: a media week to forget
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
Let's see. ANY criticism that comes from Americans but is picked up by an ENEMY of America can no longer be used, no matter how valid.
And when Rightwingers use hate propaganda, smear fellow citizens with being "just like terrorists", target dissent and demonize entire groups of Americans, THIS cannot be historically noted as being "JUST LIKE WHAT THE NAZIS DID."
Well, guess what? Democrats and Liberals are CORRECT about GW Bush's disasterous policies, and they have the RIGHT to dissent.
It doesn't matter if Bin Laden or anyone else chooses to recognize the same issues concerning our deeply flawed "leader". Bush LIED when he posed in codpiece under the "Mission Accomplished" banner. That is FACT. Bin Laden noticed Bush's LIE too? Tough, it's still a FACT. (Bin Laden wouldn't be pontificating about ANYTHING, if Bush had captured or killed him like he initially PROMISED ... ANOTHER Bush lie!)
And Rightwingers increasingly are using NAZI tactics (as the failures of Bush continue to mount, and ever more corruptions come to light).
And it doesn't matter a whit if they don't like the comparison. Nazis famously demonized dissenters to Hitler's rule, and the Bush regime employ the same tactics. Live with it, the comparison is apt.
What is also an apt comparison is the analogy between the Democrat's rhetoric and bin Laden's taped message.
It is an undeniable fact, like it or not, that any War's dissention feeds into enemies hands - there is nothing partisan about that. The same can be said of any conflict we engage in, whether there is a Democrat or Republican administration.......that is a "casuality of War", so to speak. Of course, dissention is not unpatriotic, but it does have consequences that are not always in America's best interest......don't be so naive or disingenuous to sit here and post otherwise.
However, calling Bush every vile name in the book, including the world's greatest terrorist, not only feeds into the enemies playbook, but legitimizes them as well.........that is the consequence of reckless and irresponsible vitriol from some on the left.
And that is shameful.
Every despot wants the citizens to tow the line. Every horrific leader (ones we all agree upon) insisted that the citizens not dissent. They want the people to believe 100% in what they are doing, and anyone who says otherwise is a traitor. This is exactly what history will show you if you would read a book... any book, by any party or affiliation.
What has China been doing for centuries? What did Germany do? How do intelligent citizens get sucked into believing lies by, well, liars? How does this happen?
We know how this happens. Unfortunately, the US is now living the lie, and we see how the politicians and media play right into the "for us/against us" attitude.
Simple.
It is an undeniable fact, like it or not, that any War's dissention feeds into enemies hands
It most certainly IS deniable. And I most emphatically DO deny it. The burden of proof is on YOU bro.
Good luck. I'll be over here...
it was a private citizen who called bush a terrorist, not a member fo the democratic party. you appear to be unable to tell the difference.
Good point. When I was in Ireland last March, I heard on Irish radio someone call George Bush the "biggest mass murderer in history." So how does the rest of the world respond to our fearful leader?
This kind of hyperbole is really annoying. Bush is more of the world's most mediocre terrorist. He isn't the "greatest" at anything he does.
Your assertion that comments of dissent aid the "enemy" is what the Brits call "rubbish."
And "vitriol" from the "left?" You mean, like Murtha? Then there's chicken hawks...like Deferment-clad Limbaugh, and deferment-clad bill o'lielly (et al) who are labeling those who dissent from their narrow views as enemies themselves? (In various vitriolic terms, I'm sure you know.)
An irony that they call themselves "conservatives." They'd make up a sold bloc of the higher cadres of the Soviet Communists: the STATE is right! (And to oppose it is to be anti-Soviet....err, anti-American...err.....)
I've posted this before.
Thomas Jefferson wrote: "Dissent is the highest expression of patriotism."
Limbaugh denigrates dissent. I honor it. So did Jefferson. There is nothing more American than dissent. Dissent isn't just inevitable in democracy. It is the surest sign of democracy.
You missed the point Holly, nobody's patriotism is in question here, at least not by me.......but rather their judgement, due to the fact that those comments have consequences and ramifications.........both on our troops and our enemies.
You missed the point, Tommy. When you say that Democrats trust bin Laden (as Rush did) and that Democrats do not see bin Laden as the enemy (as Rush did), you are darn sure impugning the patriotism of Democrats.
Please show me where I even mentioned Rush's name or where I said the Democrat's trusted bin Laden, or where the Democrats don't see him as an enemy?
I merely pointed out the consequences, unintended or otherwise, of dissention.
Nice try.
Tommy, you have yet to substantiate your claim that dissent "plays into enemy hands". Please explain how. Does it make them bullet proof? Does it make them laugh, therefore raising there endorphin levels? Do you think a person who is willing to blow himself into red mist really cares what we think of Bush? You're the one being disengenuous; you're implying that dissenters are traitors while giving us that "Who, me?" facade. It's nice rhetoric, but you can't back it up with facts.
Imagine for a minute that you are a terrorist or an enemy of the War we are engaged in, which of the follwoing is more to your liking? More in which to recruit other terrorists?
A) The people you are fighting speak with one unified voice against you, support our efforts to destroy you, are behind our leaders in the effort to defeat you.
Or,
B) The people you are fighting are squabbling within their own debates, calling your enemy a terrorist and an unabashed villian and a liar......dissenting voices opposing your enemies mission, perhaps weakening the resolve and morale of those you are fighting against.
You tell me which scenario you'd rather be facing as our enemy? ....................I thought so.
When a terrorist is facing an M-1 Abrams tank, do you really think he cares whether we at home are squabbling? I think it would be somewhere around #456 on his list of concerns at that moment.
Here's a question for you: What has inflamed the violence more in Iraq, the presence of American Troops, or war protesters here at home? Take your time.
Even you can't be that thick - you know exactly what I meant. Let me spell it out for you again.
Irresponsible dissention leads to a weakening resolve among our troops - human nature leads one to question one's efforts and one's committments when those they are fighting for are engaged in such activities, ask any service member. A weakening resolve leads to a weaker military which feeds into enemies hands. I didn't say we couldn't overcome it or even win in spite of it, but don't sit there and say it doesn't amount to a hill of beans.
You just show your continued ignorance.
Right TOMMY? No matter how bad it gets, no matter how dishonest our administration is with its citizens, no matter how many people die. Better not say a word.
If no one here gave a damn... no one would take the time to comment, think about the issues, or even try to figure out how we got into this horrific mess. You claim to be a patriot TOMMY... but, your just an apologist for a soon-to-be dictator.
Tommy, you are 100% correct on ALL counts here. The fact that most around here let their partisan emotions and frustrations impede their ability to recognize the OBVIOUS!!
Right on Brother!!!!!
Then he must be right about "irresponsible" criticism. But, I'm still waiting to hear what exactly "responsible" criticism might mean? Can you please provide an example?
But, I'm still waiting to hear what exactly "responsible" criticism might mean? Can you please provide an example?
I couldn't find anything from a real credible source, so I'll send over the statements from the former Democratic nominee for the office of Vice President of the United States and currently a three term Senator from the Great State of Conneticut.
He says, in part:
The President’s description of our “clear, hold, and build” strategy for victory in Iraq and the tactical response of most Democrats suggests that there may be more agreement here than meets the eye and ear in the dueling partisan press conferences that characterize public discourse in Washington today. What I am suggesting here, as I listen and read the statements made, is that there is broad bipartisan agreement on the goals, on the strategic interest we have in the successful completion of our mission in Iraq; there are disagreements about tactics. Accepting this reality and the urgency of the moment in Iraq calls us, I believe, to remember the famous counsel of Senator Arthur Vandenberg, Republican of Michigan that “Politics must stop at the water’s edge.”
You should read the whole thing, its very informative on how to be the "loyal opposition.
[link to lieberman.senate.gov]
Lieberman agrees with Bush about Iraq. What is he "criticizing" here? How is it possible to criticize Bush, or to criticize the war, "responsibly"? To claim Lieberman as an opponent to the war is completely absurd.
Did you really think that example was relevant? LOL!
Is when you pretty much agree with the President. Yeah, right. What you seem to be saying is it becomes responsible opposition when you jetison that pesky opposition part
For all you righteous brothers out there who believe blind-devotion versus realistic discourse is the way to go... i'm sure Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Coulter, Beck, etc all have websites where you can enjoy that happy warm feeling of inclusion. Go for it and good luck.
Tommy wants us to "accept responsibility" for our actions and words. Fair enough. I'll accept responsibility for the results of criticizing Bush if Republicans will accept responsibility for the mess he's made and the thousands of lives needlessly ruined by his actions. Deal?
The Right is just trying to setup a fall-guy for insurance if we end up failing in Iraq. Throughout history Right-wing war mongers have ALWAYS done this.
After WWI, many ethnic Germans (including Hitler) wrongly blamed the liberal Jewish political leadership for the failure of the war. Hitler called them the November Criminals.
After Vietnam, conservatives blamed liberal politicians and the "liberal media" for broadcasting the war unfavorably.
This blame game is necessary for them. If they were to have to face the real reasons for failure, they might have to question their own ideological premises. Such introspection is too painful for many conservatives. It is easier to just blame things on the liberals than it is to really understand the limits of our ability to impose our will on other nations.
You've been asked this before, Tommy, but have consistently refused to answer: "Did you serve in the U.S. Armed Forces?"
If you did, then that gives your pronouncements some level of legitimacy. If not, then your opinions are of no great value.
You said "ask any service member." Well, we have a right to know: when we ask you something, are we asking a service member?
By this logic if Bush tommorrow decided to invade Canada we would not be able to criticise him because it would give resolve to whatever enemy he had used to justify the invasion. It is a prescription for turning people into a bewildered herd with NO RIGHT to have input into policy. I am sure this would fit right into the far rights plans but it is a prescription for the end of democracy. Bush works for US. We have more than a right but also an obligation to demand he be constrained by the ideals we associate with this country. I also submit that this is in the best interests of the troops. There is only ONE MECHANISM that exists to protect the troops from unscrupulous politicians like Bush lying and decieving to take us to a war that is NOT protecting us or what is crucial to our nation and that is Public Opinion. YOUR willfull denial of this obligation to our troops would eviscerate that ONLY PROTECTION. No other mechanism exists. Surely the troops themselves would not have this only check on a pompous powermad President using their lives cheaply taken away from the public. IF this prescription were followed we might STILL have troops dying in Vietnam. It certainly serves the purpose of warmongers everywhere but whether it serves the interest of the country as a whole OR of the troops is a dubious proposition at BEST
Is it being spawned by our presence or the thought that the democracy might just work? I have talked to some men who have recently returned from Iraq (a small sample to be sure) and they gave a lot different account of what is happening than I normally read or hear in the media. Wouldn't/couldn't tell me exactly where they had been or what their missions were, but the message was certainly much different than what I have been used to hearing.
I have heard the same thing from first hand accounts as well. Both sides of the debate should all keep an open-mind about what is really going on over there.
I understand it is a difficult task by the media to convey exactly what is happening on the ground over there. What is pervasive and what is isolated. What is a typical experience compared to some of the more extreme horror stories.
I often wonder what archaeologists who dig up our civilization might think of our everyday lives if they only have access to our newscasts.
Five people in a video store can't agree on a movie. Do you believe that nearly 300 million Americans can agree on the occupation of Iraq?
Nerzog is right: dissent matters far less than you might imagine.
Imagine our prior enemy rises again: the Soviet Union. And they build a lotta missiles and aim them at us. And some Soviet citizens dissent. Are you gonna think, "Sure, they've got 10,000 nukes aimed at me, but let's rush those Russians. After all, some of their citizens protested in Red Square yesterday."
Ahh the classic republican tactic...make it a binary choice. How about if we expand the choices to include protesting to the government for proper military protection for our troops. Is that poor judgement?? Do we protest irresponsible tax cuts in wartime?? Or has "guns and butter" somehow become a viable economic strategy?? Iraq will become the quagmire that Bush Sr. and Brent Scowcroft said it would be when they made the choice not to proceed further in 1991 even if there was total unanimity on our actions there. As in Vietnam we have invaded a country which we don't understand and have no consistent ability to control and it was done without even the most basic attempt to understand the full ramifications. The current administration proves every day that their mantra is not competency but purely political expediency.
I think you're forgetting something here. The terrorists "hate our FREEDOM". It drives them insane. That's how this whole thing started in the first place - they attacked us because they "hate our FREEDOM". You know that! So, the very fact that in the U.S. we are allowed to excercise that freedom through protest, even while we are at war, must drive them absolutely crazy. I'd even go so far to say that it must be DEMORALIZING for THEIR troops. So, I suggest that we yell even louder and show them what freedom is all about. Crush there will to go on, you know.
Anyway, you might want to apologize to some of those bloggers you said mean things to. I'm sure you just forgot the whole "hate our Freedom" thing. Innocent mistake.
Take Care.
Careful readers will see that I never said you said the things you imply I said you said. Instead, I said Rush said those things, as anyone can see. (This MMFA item is after all about what Rush said.) When Holly, responding to Rush's equation of dissension with support for terrorism, wrote in defense of dissension as a form of patriotism, you did object.
Tommy: nobody's patriotism is in question here, at least not by me....
PJT points out that the patriotism of the Democrats is most definitely impugned.
Tommy (paraphrase): But I didn't question anyone's patriotism!
In sum, Tommy was totally wrong with his statement that no one's patriotism is in question, and the fact that he didn't personally question anyone's patriotism is stunningly irrelevant.
Tommy: Nice try.
It was better than a nice try. It was a direct hit, and Tommy--as usual--has been knocked out.
We should just have the judgement not to. Which amounts to the same thing. Giving Bush a blank check to continue lying and to cede our OBLIGATION as citizens to demand our nations policies uphold the values we associate them. No, you dont get to decide YOUR judgement is better than ours. WE have used our judgement to decide that Bush needs to be criticised. ANY attempt to stifle that just criticism by your standard of we should use judgement or Limbaughs abject stupidity is WRONG. As Teddy Roosevelt said to say we must support a president right or wrong (which is what you are saying when you say we should use our judgement and not criticise because of the consequences YOU are claiming) is not only unpatriotic and servile but morally treasonable to the American public. I say you should STOP being unpatriotic servile and morally treasonable. Have you looked at the consequences of NOT criticising? Thest things are done in MY name and with MY tax dollars. When they do NOT uphold the values of my country I become complicit in the destruction OF those values. Bush should NOT be allowed to get away with lying, incompetence, torture, and the other things he is doing just because our enemies will also note he is acting scandalously. Once again, the rightwing wants to demonize the messenger. IF our enemies are getting comfort it it from the FACT Bush is doing these things which are wrong, NOT that we are noticing and airing the fact he is doing these things. Why do you guys always want to ignore the original problem and attack those who are TALKING ABOUT THE PROBLEM
"due to the fact that those comments have consequences and ramifications"
Just like ineptly bringing us into an unnecessary war has ramifications? We wouldn't have to be concerned if this dissent has consequesnces if we weren't in this ridiculous war in the first place. Place the blame where it belongs.
Tommy, democracy is dangerous.
Here's my other fave quote, by Ben Franklin, and I gotta paraphase, 'cause I don't have the original here:
Those wanting freedom and safety deserve neither.
Perhaps we are made less safe by dissent. Perhaps dissent does embolden bin Laden's bunch. But what's the alternative? That we foresake our critical faculties? That we mutely oblige those with authority, like Bush? Then we foresake democracy.
FYI, Tommy, I consider you to be a patriot, for you're engaging in discourse here. I also consider myself a patriot.
I don't, however, believe that Limbaugh would frame me as a patriot.
Timid men prefer the quiet of despotism to the boisterous sea of liberty
I think it's more like "Anyone willing to trade freedom for security deserves neither."
Seems that most Conservatives fall into this category these days.
The actual Franklin quote is:
"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither loberty nor security."
I'm not sure which is correct but this is the quote I was able to find.
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."
I don't question your patriotism at all........but you and solon want to frame this debate by quoting Franklin and the rest regarding dissention and patriotism. THAT IS NOT THE ISSUE. It is about consequences for one's actions and words......of which there is.
Please keep on point.
Your point results in every citizen keeping quiet on matters such as lies from the president himself. Do you realize what kind of society we would be living in if we all thought like you and Rush? We would soon have a military state with King George at the helm. Doesn't that scare you?
Lets put this in terms that any conservative/Repub could understand. Would you like it if Clinton somehow smashed his head sufficiently or snorted enough coke to cause him to want to rule the world? Even though the economy would be up, inflation down, poverty down, and most indicators would be in your favor, I fail to see how you could want this.
I don't want this from any president. I want a President, not a Despot.
The "consequences" for dissent aren't what you think they are. You have absolutely NO proof that a few bush-haters here at home affect our enemies one iota.
If you DO have proof, I would wonder how you got it? Been making any loooong-distance phone calls lately?
We have the RIGHT to dissent we just shouldnt do it. It is a distinction without a difference and you STILL dont get to be the one that decides what constitutes legitimate or illigitimate dissent. Bushs actions have caused the problem not those pointing the actions out. IF you have a problem with what is being said, when you cant really argue that what is being said is wrong, your problem is with Bush for causing the problem not with those pointing the problem out no matter WHAT the other side says about it. IF they are making hay out of it BUSH, not the protesters should not have given them the hay
is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more imporant to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else."
- Theodore Roosevelt, "The Kansas City Star," May 7, 1918
I need to memorize that quote.
It is good to remember that there were good Republicans like Teddy Roosevelt once upon a time. Republicans, who believed in real principles.
I am convinced there are some still out there. Occasionally they visit this very forum. They just don't talk enough. Their party has been hijacked by self-serving, arrogant, egotistical thugs.
Mega-thanks, even. At a time when an increasing majority of Americans are concerned about the powers apparently claimed by President Bush to spy on those he considers to be his enemies -- or even just his potential enemies -- you come along and equate Democratic opposition to President Bush with sympathy for the worst terrorist in the world. And if you can make that equation, what is to say that President Bush cannot make (or already has made) the same equation? His man, Karl Rove, said just the other day that Democrats object to the US spying on al-Qaeda terrorists. That's what he said. Democrats, terrorists -- what's the difference, right Rush?
...and Georgie Porgie Bush reminds us that those who leaked that he's listening in on our e-mail and telephone conversations are allies of bin Laden. And Herr Gonzales seems to endorse that view.
I feel so much more secure now...*beep....beep...*
And a well-argued point, PJT.
And possibly the biggest hypocrite on the planet. I'm sure he was very respectful to President Clinton when we had troops in harms way in Somalia and Kosovo. NOT!
And please, don't tell me "9-11 changed everything."
...the authors, directly and indirectly, of the Constitution. I believe that the Constitution is America's greatest achievement. I also believe that the Constitution is America. So, Tommy, should we be cognizant of the founding fathers' words and are these ideas germane to this discussion? They are. The founding fathers had the Brits, the soldiers of an empire, swarming on American soil. They endured terror beyond our ken. Yet, they found the courage not just to tolerate dissent, but to demand it.
In dogma, Limbaugh is their antithesis and that is telling.
Several years ago Bill Moyers observed that when the US Constitution was written we were a tiny nation huddled on a hostile shore. We had just beaten the mightest military power on earth with one allay - the French. We were surrounded by warriors ready to do us in. Yet we believed in those freedoms so much that we wrote them down and agreed to them.
Today we are the mightest military power on earth. Yet we cower and cringe and are so afraid that we abridge the rights and freedoms in that same Constitution because otherwise we will not survive...
From time to time Sheer Insanity says the "Global War on Terror" is the greatest threat the United States has ever faced. Personally, I wouldn't put it in the top five.
And I like how you extended my point.
thank you for your kind words. I guess great minds do think alike...
Limbaugh is right. If we can't trust one, we can trust the other.
After all, George W. Bush and Osama bin Laden are entirely interchangeable.
(Yes, that's what I said.)
Deez,
Thanks for your comment. I've been saying that for at least a year and I get frowns: that Dubya and Osama are mirror images of each other. Both of them even use their definitions of "God" to justify their violence.
If President Bush had followed through on his promise to get Bin Laden "dead or alive" instead of starting the Food for Starving Military-Industrial Complex Executives Welfare Program in Iraq, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
This whole "aiding the enemy" rhetoric is based on the false premise that our actions in Iraq have anything to do with defending our country.
Has everyone missed the point about Osama's campaign message? The tape he released just prior to the 2004 election WAS critical of Bush in that he said that Bush was weak as a leader and that America would not prevail in the "war on terror" with Bush as President. Considering then Osama WANTED America to fail, he was actually SUPPORTING BUSH in his message. I saw it right away - The headlines should have read: Osama Supporting Bush for President.
--obl has been playing bush like a fine violin. bush has done exactly as predicted every step of the way. the last thing in the world obl wants is for bush to lose power, then he might have to deal with someone with half a brain in his head. he is clever enough to know that denouncing bush would solidify his support, and thereby keep the bumbling, inept adversary who is currently sending him so many new recruits.
[link to surrogate.tblog.com]
I recently listened to an audio recording of Rush's first book from ten or twelve years ago. It was hard, but I got through it. Throughout that book as in the above quotes from his show of the 23rd, he may be the most talented person I've ever heard at starting with a flawed (or utterly fictitious) premise and extrapolating smoothly from there.
It's his stock and trade and I take my hat off to him for his abilities. How he sleeps at night or can look at himself in the mirror, I have no idea, but damn if he isn't good at what he does.
When you are not bound by facts. Rush just fabricates his own narrative, and his sychophantic audience laps it up like milk.
It's his stock and trade and I take my hat off to him for his abilities.
Except for just one little problem: Limbaugh didn't write his own book. The Way Things Ought to Be was ghostwritten by John Fund, and it's a matter of speculation whether Rush penned See, I Told You So as well.
Evidently, when it comes to writing, "talent on loan from God" isn't good enough, but talent on loan from John Fund is.
Recently, I spoke with a reservist who recently returned from a one year tour of Iraq. I was curious as to what he felt about the dissent stateside. He stated that it did not affect he or the people he led one bit. The thing that the chickenhawks will never understand due to their allergy to serving in the military is that when your life is in jeopardy, you don't care what any talking head or politician back home says. Your main goal is to survive and make it back home in one piece. You want to fight, win, protect your buddies and make it home to your family. The righties want everyone to believe that dissent hurts US troops morale and boosts the morale of the enemy. The truth is, neither pay much attention. When your fighting a war, that's all you really think about. Tell me Tommy, what was it like when you were in Iraq? Crickets chirping.
Ambrose said that soldiers don't fight for wife, kids, or country. Once the battle begins, they fight for their buddy to the left and their buddy to the right. That's their whole world.
Meanwhile, Limbaugh stays at home, fighting the liberal terrorists. Oh, Captain, my Captain!
All this "dissent-hurts-the-troops" nonsense from the Republicans and "libertarians" like Tommy is a smokescreen to protect Bush from criticism, nothing more. After years of crucifying Bill Clinton, they've suddenly decided that the Presidency is somehow sacred. They pretend that it's to protect the troops from getting their feelings hurt, but don't believe it.
Lack of body armor hurts the troops. Lack of armored vehicles hurts the troops. A War with no real objective and no end in sight, hurts the troops. Lack of support for returning vets hurts the troops. Denigrating the service of Vietnam Veterans hurts the troops. A president who cuts benefits for military dependents hurts the troops. A president who cuts benefits for veterans hurts the troops. A president who makes sad jokes about war, hurts the troops. Citizens exercising their constitutional rights DO NOT HURT THE TROOPS!
will all try to do their level best to destory this democracy. I am more concerned with Bush and Rush as I believe their campaign has been more sucessful. Osama may injure our country but he will not cause the U.S. to fall. At this point in history, there is no outside power that can manage to unseat our Republic. It is ourselves, our fear, and our willingness to abandon our founding principles in the name of that fear that is the greatest danger to our liberty.
Osama has been pretty honest about the way he feels about us...he hates us and wants to kill us.
Bush, on the other hand, tells us he needs to spy on us in order to protect us (only after he's caught doing it). Bush says we don't use torture even though we do use torture. Bush says anyone involved in the Plame leak would no longer be a part of his administration. Bush says he didn't have a litmus test for a Supreme Court nominee. Bush says he doesn't know who Jack Abramoff is even when he's had the guy over to the White House for visits. Bush relentlessly tries to link the war in Iraq with 9/11. Bush says he doesn't govern by poll numbers but then resorts to marketing style publicity campaigns to boost his poll numbers.
Yes, I would say that Osama is more trustworthy than President Bush.
...knowing that their Commander in Chief is a lying, pathetic moron, or hearing people point out that their Commander in Chief is a lying, pathetic moron?
...insulting their intelligence by denying that their Commander in Chief is a lying, pathetic moron.
Fortunately this moron's heyday has long passed. He just has a small flock of sheep who follow him down the path of "contra-dissent." But I'm glad MMA covered this of Limbaugh's nonsense.
Limbaugh would be selling door-to-door if he hadn't found an audience willing to accept his flatulence. We need to reconsider an "equal time" provision, or whatever the FCC used to call it, to counter this idiot's gas.