Limbaugh "respectfully" disagreed with Bush's pledge to not question opponents' patriotism: "We most certainly can. We most certainly should"
SUMMARY: On his radio show, Rush Limbaugh "respectfully" disagreed with President Bush's statement that "I will never question the patriotism of somebody who disagrees with me," saying, "I am going to challenge the patriotism of people who disagree with him because the people that disagree with him want to lose."
On the August 21 edition of his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh stated that even though President Bush pledged he would purportedly "never" criticize the patriotism of his political opponents, Limbaugh would continue to "challenge the patriotism of people who disagree" with Bush and his plan for Iraq "because the people that disagree with him want to lose." Limbaugh added: "It's about time we do challenge their patriotism. The far-left fringe in this country is actively seeking our defeat. A wacko judge in Michigan [presumably a reference to U.S. District Court Judge Anna Diggs Taylor, who recently ruled that the Bush administration's warrantless domestic surveillance program is unconstitutional]: actively seeking our defeat. Jimmy Carter: actively seeking our defeat. Bill Clinton, John Kerry, and Al Gore may as well be seeking our defeat. So should [Connecticut Democratic Senate candidate] Ned Lamont [whose name Limbaugh pronounced like lament]."
Limbaugh's remarks came in response to a press conference Bush had given earlier that morning. When asked if he believed that the Democrats advocating for U.S. withdrawal from Iraq "emboldened Al Qaeda types," as Vice President Dick Cheney similarly stated recently, Bush responded by saying: "I will never question the patriotism of somebody who disagrees with me." Although the issue of patriotism was never raised by anyone else during the press conference, Bush continued to explain that the issue of Iraq "has nothing to do with patriotism. It has everything to do with understanding the world in which we live." Limbaugh "respectfully" disagreed with Bush's statements, asking: "How come we can't question the patriotism of people who are actively engaged in sabotaging victory over this enemy? Why can't we question their patriotism?" Limbaugh then stated that "[w]e most certainly can. We most certainly should. Damn straight, we should. I'm tired of pussyfooting around this so that we don't hurt anybody's feelings and challenge their patriotism."
From the August 21 edition of The Rush Limbaugh Show:
LIMBAUGH: Let's just get to the meat and potatoes of this press conference. This is about Iraq, and this is the president saying that he has no intention of leaving before the job is done. And we're not leaving Iraq while he is president. The answer comes from a question -- an unidentified reporter: "You mentioned the campaigns earlier. Do you agree with those in your party, including the vice president, who said or implied that Democratic voters emboldened Al Qaeda types by choosing Ned Lamont over [incumbent Sen.] Joe Lieberman and then it's a message that how Americans vote will send messages to terrorists abroad?"
BUSH [clip]: Leaving before the job would be done would send a message that America really is no longer engaged nor cares about the form of governments in the Middle East. Leaving before the job was done would be to send a signal to our troops that the sacrifices they made were not worth it. Leaving before the job is done would be a disaster, and that's what we're saying. I will never question the patriotism of somebody who disagrees with me. This has nothing to do with patriotism. It has everything to do with understanding the world in which we live.
LIMBAUGH: I want to respectfully disagree with the president on the last part of what he said. I am going to challenge the patriotism of people who disagree with him because the people that disagree with him want to lose. And I want ask you people a question. What is patriotic about losing? How come we can't question the patriotism of people who are actively engaged in sabotaging victory over this enemy? Why can't we question their patriotism? We most certainly can. We most certainly should. Damn straight, we should. I'm tired of pussyfooting around this so that we don't hurt anybody's feelings and challenge their patriotism. We've said for all these years, "I'm not challenging your patriotism. I'm just challenging your judgment." Well, hell's bells. It's about time we do challenge their patriotism. The far-left fringe in this country is actively seeking our defeat. A wacko judge in Michigan: actively seeking our defeat. Jimmy Carter: actively seeking our defeat. Bill Clinton, John Kerry, and Al Gore may as well be seeking our defeat. So should Ned Lamont.
Why can't we simply say what is patriotic about seeking our defeat? Seems to me we should be saying that. Their judgment is skewed; their judgment is crazy. The president says, "Understanding the world in which we live." Who knows whether they understand the world in which we live? We can't afford to take time to figure that out. We don't have the time to worry about whether they understand them; just like we don't have time to figure out why they hate us. We don't have time to figure that out. That's irrelevant to the mission -- if you want to use that word -- or to the cause. So, let it ring out from the mountain tops here at the EIB Limbaugh Institute. We do question their patriotism. If they want us to lose -- what the hell is it about patriotism that makes us want to lose? What is patriotic about wanting to lose against this enemy? Somebody explain that to me, and if you can, then I might revise and extend my remarks.
[...]
LIMBAUGH: Why can't we question the patriotism of people who actively seek a loss? They want to cut and run? What is that? It's a loss. They want to pull out. They don't want to continue the war on terror. They're running a whole presidential campaign in '08 based on it, a midterm campaign in '06 based on it. Why can't we question their patriotism as well as questioning their judgment? Here's the -- the president continued with these remarks.
BUSH [clip]: It's like the other day, I was critical of those who heralded the federal judge's opinion about the terrorist surveillance program. I thought it was a terrible opinion. Those who heralded the decision not to give law enforcement the tools necessary to protect the American people, they simply don't see the world the way we do.
LIMBAUGH: Stop the tape. Is that right? Do they not see the world the way we do? Or do they see the world the way we do, but they see Bush as worse than those guys? Does their Bush-hatred cause them to have descended into the first stages of literal, utter madness? Is Bush so much the enemy that they do not see the world the way we do? Or do they see it the way we do, but they'll fix it later on? I don't know the answer to this. All I know is: They're actively sabotaging our effort to defeat this enemy. And whether they see the world we do or not is irrelevant to me.
We don't see the world in the overly simplistic and dangerous way they do. And I will challenge Rush's patriotism. I don't think he's ever read the Constitution and he puts the almighty dollar, fame, and ego before our countries real best interests.
of Hitler.
we've already "lost". because, like vietnam, this is not something we can "win". the idea that we were going to make a western style democracy in a country that has no history of it has been proven to be wrong. and you were one of the people that had it wrong. you bought all the bush propaganda. and you and bush have turned out to be spectacularly wrong, while the critics had it right. maybe it's the addictive personalities you share.
I have no interest or authority, and neither does Limbaugh, in assessing someone's patriotism. He does it for hyperbole and playing to his listeners, his schtick, his playbook, his right, his ego, whatever, I guess.
However, one point he does make is the level of Bush hatred that exists today. Whether or not it's warranted is also of little interest to me. I have said many times about how he messed up Iraq, we took a bat to a hornet's nest there and look what we have now? Even Limbaugh and his cohorts can't spin Bush a success of that, despite their unending efforts.
Also, I feel that it is vitally important that the hatred for Bush doesn't blind people to the threat we do face from terrorism today. Many, sadly, in my opinion, fall into that category.
I try and focus not on Bush's success or failure or his poll numbers or any of that stuff, but rather who is best able to lead us against this fight we are in. We are left with two more years of Bush, like it or not. When the next elections come around, I will put my disgust with Bush aside and vote for those who have a plan and a strategy to combat terrorism forcefully and without appeasement.
Whether a Democrat or a Republican, that is what is irrelevant to me - as well as whose patriotism is in question or not.
I think that hatred easily blinds people and there are someon the left that become counter productive because of hatred whether their reasons are valid or not. However, I also think the stigma is over blown by folks like Rush who use blind hatred as an all too convenient excuse for information he doesn't want to hear. He does so here, again and without any merit. I've read the ruling and it's based in case law. It's a solid argument against an illegal program done in the most professional and analyitcal manner. To imply otherwise is an attack on our very system of justice and flies in the face of the Constitution.
Look, giving Limbaugh any crediton this is ridiculous. The unabashed hypocrisy in whining about Bush "hating" after making a "career" out of villifying and slandering the Clintons should make even an apologist like you disgusted.
However, no. You use this as an opportunity to againtry to seemlike the "rational" one.Those of us willing/able to criticize the Bush administration and their litany of criminal and moral offenses, we're just "haters." Please. You admit Iraq is a mess, but when people point out the context of how thisillegal, immoral invasion & ooccupation is apart of awhole neoconservative agenda available to anyone on the web ([link to www.newamericancentury.org] you complain that we can't get over our "hatred."
By the way - you never answered my questions fromthe Colson thread:
"So, did you not vote for Bush? Have you not apologized/excused the very voices and ideas that led us into this ceomplete disaster of an occcupation? Or are you just attempting to deflect by declaring that I don't 'know' that about you?"
Oh, and:
"Your vote for President Moron has helped kill thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. Feel safer? I hope all the blood was worth it. "
Begin your deflection . . . . NOW!
the voice of authority. now he recognizes iraq is a complete disaster. although that wasn't what good ol tommy was saying after the various elections in iraq. he couldn't get on here fast enough. "bush was right, we're on our way, you libs were wrong."
Isn't that a good thing? At least a good start? Unless you're implying Tommy is being disengenuous with his current view of Iraq (which I doubt since he's not running for office here), I really don't see any point to using his past statements to criticize his current view.
Although democracies have elections, it is a major logical fallacy to think that elections and democracies are precisely the same thing.
That is a problem I have voiced since the very first election caused many Bush apologists to praise the good news. An election is not good or bad news....the results and outcome are. So far we have seen at least 3 elections, each praised as being great news and yet the outcome is still not known in the sense that they are no closer to democracy and freedom than they ever were. Especially considering elections give people just as much voice to elect another anti-American dictator as it does a pro-American model.
Praising elections as meaningful completely seperate from the outcome and result is stupid and short sighted. You may as well praise someone for having a job without realizing they are a drug dealer...or praise the Klan for their strong sense of "pride".
We must confront this reality -- that past elections were fixed, and the 2006 elections are just as vulnerable. These findings deserve front-page treatment and they are not getting it. Electronic voting machine failure must have prominent and continual coverage. The people must address the serious ... catastrophic... issue of unreliable, unsecure and unverifiable voting machines. Two presidential elections have been stolen. If this trend continues America will be an empire not a democracy.
Errr...wrong reply button?
'a strategy to combat terrorism forcefully and without appeasement.'
I think you fail to understand the paradox that is the 'war on terror.' We put terror in the lives of many innocent people for the sake of a 'war on terror.' We insight so called 'radicals' to undertake 'terrorism' by our false concern for 'spreading democracy.' 'American interests' have created terrorism, not absolutely, but to a large degree. This idea that we fight terrorists with 'force' is not just ignorant, its extraordinarily dangerous.
Lets say I lost a family member in 9/11. The first thing i would want to know is why 19 Muslim men wanted to do what they have done. I would not entertain the idea that they 'hate our freedom.' This is rhetoric plagarised from childrens books. I would also realise quite easily understand that bombing another village in another part of the world is not any sort of solution, but an amplification of the problem.
This understanding is the first step to 'combating terrorism.'
'‘We are not hated because we practice democracy, value freedom, or uphold human rights. We are hated because our government denies these things to people in Third World countries whose resources are coveted by our multinational corporations. That hatred we have sown has come back to haunt us in the form of terrorism…Instead of sending our sons and daughters around the world to kill Arabs so we can have the oil under their sand, we should send them to rebuild infrastructure, supply clean water, and feed starving children….In short, we should do good instead of evil. Who would try to stop us? Who would hate us? Who would want to bomb us? That is the truth that the people need to hear.”
In the context of the last 200 years of American 'foreign policy,' this makes far more sense than 'a strategy to combat terrorism forcefully and without appeasement.'
'but rather who is best able to lead us against this fight we are in.'
What fight? who is the enemy? what is the purpose? define a 'terrorist' without using the rhetoric of the illiterate man who has escalated the problem.
A war on terrorism? Its a contradiction in terms.
I wrote about this in another thread here on MMfA, but it is just as pertinent here as it was there.
This administration has used FEAR in an attempt to control the masses for their own gain. I'm sure that Tommy and others on the Right would agree that when we invaded Afghanistan after 9/11, we felt justified. And we were. We still are - in Afghanistan. A year and a half later, Bush takes it upon himself to take unprecedented unilateral action to invade a sovereign nation, Iraq, under the guise that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Bush further argued that these weapons of mass destruction were an imminent threat. To this day, no matter what people like Hannity and Santorum say, there have been no credible discoveries of weapons of mass destruction which pose an imminent threat. NONE. Here's where Bush begins his FEAR tactics. Then, Bush begins an assault on the Constitution of the U.S., giving himself and others in his administration executive powers which they do not deserve - and by law - they should not have. He and his administration eroded the separation of powers and have side-stepped Congressional oversight on EACH AND EVERY issue possible. He claims this is all needed in order to combat terrorism. He uses FEAR - FEAR of TERRORISM - to keep his stranglehold on power.
I submit to you all that the Bush administration is no better than the terrorists he is claiming to protect us from. If you question his authority or his decisions, you are labeled unpatriotic and unAmerican. Sorry. I just don't buy it.
To me, any politician, on the Right or Left, who subverts the Constitution of the United States for personal gain is the one who is unpatriotic and unAmerican. One of the most American things you can do is stand up and criticize our government. And you should be able to do it without being chastised by people like Limbaugh. So, for those of you who call people on the Left "unAmerican or unpatriotic" because the Left doesn't agree with the president and his inept leadership skills, shut the hell up and let us exercise our rights to protest.
CLS
A student who doesn't do any of the homework, studying or assignments continues to fail at every single test the teacher gives him. Do we then say that the teacher must HATE that student because she keeps pointing out his mistakes? Do we say that the teacher is "on the fringe" and simply out to baselessly attack a student she doesn't like for no reason? Or do we as a rational society take a second to look at the kids test, realize he hasn't done his homework or studied and then tell the kid to shape up or shut up about the teacher failing him?
That is the situation we are in. Hell, even if there are people out there that genuinely feel hatred for G.W., does that mean they can't hate him for the exact same reasons that make him such a horrible President? You can't just seperate emotion from the reasons behind it and still hope to accurately psychoanalyze them. That is what is happening. Either (A) the right and the apathetic playing pseudo-intelectual would rather not look at the reasons and simply attack the emotion, or (B) they refuse to look at the kids "work" and would rather attack the teacher who realizes there is no knowledge without correcting mistakes.
And let's be perfectly honest. The biggest flas in your comment, as I see it, is this myth that we live in a different world and that terrorism is a new threat to AMerica. It isn't. Not even close. The world is absolutely no different than it always was. Life is no different than it ever was. The THREAT is not one single iota greater than it ever was. Bush dropped the ball that other Presidents managed to carry because he simply didn't care. He ignored the warnings, he ingored the intelligence, he ignored Clinton's advice and as a result we have 9/11. It is Bush's fault, plain and simple. All he had to do was listen to someone else's opinion/advice and he didn't and still doesn't.
So maybe you will say I hate Bush and maybe you and Limbaugh would say I'm anti-AMerican and anti-patriotic. But tell me this? What is more patriotic? Hoping to learn from mistakes, become wiser and grow and become an even stronger country because of it...attacking the messenger without ever thinking about the message, sewing dissent and anger and distrust amongst the citizens, taking away freedoms under the guise of protecting them, living in constant fear and panic, torturing the innocent and continually bumping into a wall because you think it would be weak to go another way and "tough guys" would just keep bunping until they bust right through?
Before you answer remember what a PATRIOT once said..."those willing to sacrifice freedom for safety deserve neither."
I feel that it is vitally important that the hatred for Bush doesn't blind people to the threat we do face from terrorism today.
I agree. Human nature, unfortunately, is to be a contrarian with respect to the ideas of those we dislike, even when their ideas have merit.
However, in Bush's case, I don't find his basic strategy with respect to terrorism to be worthy of merit. The administration's foreign policy has increased global terrorism, not reduced it. We may have been fortunate to avoid attacks on U.S. soil since 9/11, but all evidence suggests reasons for this other than the competence of administration strategy.
Specifically, the administration strategy addreses two aspects of Clausewitz's "remarkable trinity," specifically, the realms of the military (chance) and government (reason), but largely ignores a third, the "blind natural force" which "mainly concerns the people."
Yet, terrorism - in the modern context - would seem to be mostly a product of "the people." Unless we engage in genocide, which I do not advocate, we need a radically different approach to address terrorism.
When the next elections come around, I will put my disgust with Bush aside...
That's very practical, considering Bush can't run again.
... and vote for those who have a plan and a strategy to combat terrorism forcefully and without appeasement.
As I've implied above, military force alone cannot combat terrorism unless you're prepared to authorize genocide. Nor can you appease an irrational force. However, I do believe there are ways to bring many "terrorist" elements into the realm of reason and law. Whatever remains should be considered criminal.
This brings me to a final point regarding the subject line of my post...the phrase "war on terror," while appealing to politicians for creating fear and securing votes, may actually do more to legitimize terrorism. Do you think this has a positive or negative effect on our ability to reduce terrorism?
Notice that the men arrested rcently in the UK for plotting acts of terror were under surveilance for over a year by the British Intellegence then arrested by policemen. As Kerry said, and was swiftboated partly for this insight, we should treat terrorists as criminals, not invade a country unconnected with the terrorists as "retaliation".
I certainly question Rush's patroitism. At a time that we could use a little bit of national unity, he's busy getting rich by making one set of patriotic Americans fear and loathe another set of patriotic Americans. Not just that, but he's doing it mostly with misrepresentation, innuendo, and outright lies. What are Rush's real alleigances after the almighty dollar and his big mouth? Just who is paying his salary, anyhow?
The almighty $$$$ is driving most of the rhetoric out of the ultra right (RashL, Shamity, Bull OhReally?, et al). While I consider myself more to the Red side of the political spectrum, I know that extremism from either side of the aisle does more to alienate the majority of those that decide each and every political race in this country (the roughly 35% who claim to be Independent) than anything else that is happening at the present.
Where do they get off thinking their opinion is the only one that matters? Here we are, an economy in the sh&ts (yeah, service and support jobs galore at median income rates. wahoo.), a war started over revenge, another war forgotten, the man responsible still running free to live and fight another day, and these bumbleheads think we should keep quiet? Tell me, we were told to keep quiet when the pot was being stirred, we're being told to keep quiet while the pot comes to boil, are these slander monkeys going to tell us to shut up when dinner is served and the meal really does suck? At what point in time do these "patriots" review their results and say "well, THAT didn't work"...
It's something he's grown since his youth. He had the chance to show everyone exactly how patriotic he was, but that damn Pilonidal cyst!
Here he is a rich, old, overweight man, willing to send someone else's kid to die. Somethings never change. As long as it's someone else doing the dying. I know of no one who is a bigger hypocrite than Limbaugh.
There are serious problems in the world today that will never be solved by questioning the patriotism of anyone who isn't all for eternal war. Times like this demand all views to be expressed. Limbaugh is a traitor, plain & simple.
This point needs to be repeated over and over again. People like Limbaugh had their chance to show their patriotism and instead he cut and ran.
Now he cheerleads from the sidelines in his comfortable office. Hells bells, let's not pussy-foot around this folks - Limbaugh is not only unpatriotic, he's a certifiable coward.
all he sees is evil waiting to take everything he has. Limpo is part of the man is basically evil crowd. I'm part of the man is basically good crowd. Correct me if I'm wrong, but time has shown that almost all evil acts are perpetuated by prior evil acts. Break the cycle, break the problem.
After all I question Rushs honesty, sobriety, and humanity. As for integrity well there really isnt any question there at all...is there?
H. I hate this fat bastard.
Who is he to question our patriotism? A pig with deferrments when the time came to prove his.
Anyone that takes this gasbag serious and roots him on must have emotional or mental problems.
I cannot think of a bigger hypocrite than Rush Limbaugh.
Rush hates the Bill of Rights and wants a far-right fascist dictatorship that tortures and murders for political purposes. He's a traitor to the nation.
.................from a guy who actively sought to avoid serving in the military during vietnam. so, what else is new?
Unlike you...MR.ALL ABOUT PATRIOTISM! Kerry, Murtha, Gore...served in the name of thier country while you were eating your krispy kreme donut.
But in all Seriousness I understand his dilemma. This is a guy who spent all his life running around doing absolutely nothing important at all. In his two dimensional mind he has to draw everything in black and white terms....
Too bad we can't vote on who get to serve.
This slimeball has the nerve to say anyone who questions Dumbya should have their patriotism questioned?
While he avoided Vietnam because of a boil on his butt? The same one who constantly said Clinton was a draft dodger and un American?
The same hypocrite who railed that all drug abusers whether street drugs or prescription drugs should do hard time UNTIL of course he got caught and then only HE should have prayers said for him until he recovers, but everyone else should go to prison.
THAT hyprocrite?
Seems to me that Osama BinLimbaugh is the one who most hates America and it's democracy. He believes in total fascism. He believes that democrats and any party that opposes Dumbya and the Greedy Old Party is traitorous.
He believes in the two party system so long as both parties support the GOP and Rethugs. Sort of like the old style Soviet party. Everyone could belong to any party they wanted so long as it was the communist party.
What a hypocrite.
First magnitude too.
I'd love to see a story of him dying from an overdose of Viagra. That would be the best.
In my experience, junkies will say all kinds a' crazy sh*t.
The 11th Commandment says, " Beware the Christian who only gives "lip service". That is Mr. Limbaugh at his finest. Mr. Limbaugh is the type of guy who will tell people what he thinks is best for his zealot ideals behind a microphone while protected by screeners. Mr. Limbaugh, why not debate someone concerning the issues in America? No, not some Senator or politician whose voting record you can quote to your needs but someone else in the media, at a forum of your choice. Why not someone from AirAmerica like Thom Hartmann? If any of you paid Rusheep are reading, ask him or yourself why he cannot do this. Is he afraid or will he expose himself as someone who is uninformed about the real world? Mr. Limbaugh, please consider this...and remember, no deferments based on your apparent fear that you will be forced to comeout from behind the curtain. Please, we would just like to hear you answer a question. Maybe then, your stupid,little condesending laugh and smile will be eliminated from your face. Are you AFRAID?
whenever someone disagrees with the President all one has to do is preface their comment with and I quote, "Rush Limbaugh I RESPECTFULLY DISAGREE." At this point the Cons cannot use their favorite term "Bushhater". Thank you Rush, we knew they there was something good that would come out of your mouth. Didn't someone else just use that line...O'Reilly??
From a survey in March:
Support the troops, Rush!I've never respected Rush "Spineless Junkie" Limbaugh. I occasionally listened to him for a few minutes just to hear how really perverted the Archie Bunker right had become.
Like bill o'lielly, Limbaugh is getting worse.
As usual, I'm not sure what to do. Boycotting those who advertise on his network(s) has done little--though his big day is long gone.
I guess all we can do is rely on MMFA to expose how sick this degenerate thug has really become. And announce it--ANNOUNCE IT--that everything he says is no more than social porn.
Rush better home I don't run across him on the street some day...
Once again, this is a right-wing tactic. The commentators like Rush pursue the outrageous attack, and then Bush says that he is above those type of feelings. It was the exact way they played the "Swift-Boat Game." The book comes out, the pundits attack Kerry mercilessly, and then Bush says that Kerry served honorably. The same game plan for Murtha. Bush praised him to show that he was above the partisan fray while the pundits and lower level Republicans, such as the Congresswoman who said "Marines do not cut and run" (my memory fails me right now as to her name), lead the attacks. This way the attacks get publically made, and Bush looks like he is the voice of reason. The people who respond to the attacks think "this is all true, but Bush just does not want to say it" while those who think the attacks are wrong can say "well at least Bush is not resorting to this type of attack." My only question is, does this still work? It obviously worked with Kerry and the Swift-Boaters, but do people see through this transparent strategy at this point? I sure hope so. By the way, with Bush's ratings dropping, does anyone know if the right-wing pundits' ratings are dropping? Are people catching on and tuning out, or not? If the ratings are dropping, at least it would be evidence that the old tricks may not be working as well. If they aren't, then what will work to wake people up?
Nope. "If they aren't, then what will work to wake people up?" Democratic leadership has to grow a spine. We, like the people here on this site, have to get off our fat lazy a----es and march in the street relentlessly. And loudly. And mercilessly. And constantly. And viciously. And that will never happen either because corporate America controls our lives and our media and our information. This country is f---ed.
IMO, the chief reason the Swifties were so successful in painting Kerry's Vietnam service as a fraud was that Kerry himself never came out and called them on their B.S.
Secondly, the Swifties' allies at Fox News couldn't give them enough free airtime to air their lies and propaganda.
As for Rush "Ass Boil" Limbaugh, he's an utter joke who sucks up to the military, but never offered his patriotic support during Vietnam when it actually mattered.
He and his neo-con ilk are the very definition of the word: "coward."
That was Jean Schmidt, the harpy who narrowly beat Paul Hackett in the Ohio Congressional race (22nd District?).
I sincerely hope she turns out to be a one-termer....what a [INSERT PROFANITY HERE].
So, Rush says "we" should all question the patriotism of any one who disagrees with the President. Rush says he disagrees with the President. So that means Rush is.....
Isn't what you've described the beginnings of the actions of the Soviet government? Doesn't this sound like the birth pangs of national socialism? Didn't the Soviets encourage others to question patriotism and rat out others? Didn't Hitler perpetuate the same?
Again, it's the polarization. The Righties can't live without it. They must always have an enemy. It's too bad the enemy can't be real issues such as crumbling Social Security and massive numbers of people without healthcare. Instead, the enemy has to be other people.
The radio and TV fascists like Rush will do that for him. He can just sit back and smile.
...what happens in November when Democrats take over the House and Senate (hopefully). That will give them subpoena power and we might be able to finally find out what the hell is going on behind the scenes in Washington. If that means we end up convicting our dear leader and his administration of impeachment, then so be it. That's democracy, folks.
By the polls I've seen, the majority of Americans "respectfully" disagree with the policies, the secrecy, the lying, the perversion of the Constitution, separation of powers and attacks against checks and balances which are proscribed by our Constitution. People should see him for the tyrant that he is.
Am I a Bush-hater? I have no reason to hate the person, George W. Bush. However, I have plenty of reasons to hate his policies and what he has done to our nation.
Just as some Christians say, "Hate the sin, not the sinner," I hate GWB's crimes against America and the world, not the man.
So Tommy, enough with perpetuating the polarization of those who "hate" Bush and those who don't. It doesn't help the discussion, and it sure doesn't do anyting to help us solve our problems. I know the Right needs this polarization, they must have this "us versus them" mentality, but dang man, when does it stop?
CSL
I am a registered Democrat. I consider myself a progressive. In fact, in the AZ CD8 democratic primary I voted for a progressive (early absentee ballot). By Limbaugh's measure that makes me a traitor.
I'm also in the US Military; have been for over 20 years. I have a Southwest Asia Campaign Medal, an Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal, a Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal...........so my question to Mr. Limbaugh is "What am I now?" Is my service now open game for "swift boaters"?
If the Fairness Doctrine had not been repealed Rush would still be a music radio disc jockey. Along with many others in talk radio. Most no little more about what they speak than our co-workers where we work. Except that Rush has many listeners who form their world view based on his utterances.
sexual-harrassing, criminally convicted, blowhard the patriotism czar? . . . heck, if he can question my patriotism, I can question his . . . and since a pimple on his a$$ kept him from serving in the military he so loves, I can say he's no patriot, either . . .
because of a cyst on his ass???? HHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!! That's the BEST excuse I have EVER heard!!!! Oh, my ... what a TOOL he is!
"How come we can't question the patriotism of people who are actively engaged in sabotaging victory over this enemy? Why can't we question their patriotism?"
Yeah, like those people who avoided their patriotic service in Vietnam... ? Wasn't Rush, O'Reilly and their ilk actively engaged in sabotaging or victory and responsible for the US defeat in Vietnam? 'Cut & Run,' heck they refused to go in the first place.
I respect anyone who served. I can respect someone who refused induction and took a stand against the War in Vietnam. I can respect someone who went to Canada to avoid it too, as long as they still believe that they were acting on their convictions. But, I can't respect someone who actively avoided service. bush, Cheyney, O'Reilly and Limbaugh worked to get out of it. And now there the biggest war hawks around. There is not a spot in hell hot enough for these traitors.
I am going to challenge the patriotism of people who agree with Rush because the people that agree with him want a dictatorship. And I want to ask a question. What is patriotic about supporting a dictatorship? How come we can't question the patriotism of people who are actively engaged in sabotaging the constitution? Why can't we question their patriotism? We most certainly can. We most certainly should. Damn straight, we should.
Logic and debate 101:
"I am going to challenge the patriotism of people who disagree with him because the people that disagree with him want to lose."
If you accept this premise then the rest of it will make sense. Therefore, challenge this assumption. Note the falacy implied:
Disagreement implies a desire to lose.
Further, question what is the meaning of win or lose in this circumstance? How will we know when we have "won"?
Instead of arguing about who wants to win or lose, imagine a debate about how to protect ourselves and prevent terrorism.
To say there must be no criticism of a President, that we must support him right or wrong is not only unpatriotic and servile but morally treasonable to the American public. So not ONLY do I question his patriotism so does Teddy, wherever he is. I also say Rush should STOP being unpatriotic, servile and morally treasonable