Limbaugh asserted that "the Islamofascists are actually campaigning for the election of Democrats"
SUMMARY: Rush Limbaugh claimed that "the Islamofascists are actually campaigning for the election of Democrats" and that "Islamofascists from [Iranian President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad to [Ayman] al-Zawahiri ... Osama bin Laden, whoever, are constantly issuing Democrat talking points." Limbaugh previously asserted that Ahmadinejad's May 2006 letter to President Bush contained "Democratic talking points."
On the April 15 edition of his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh asserted that "liberalism is the greatest threat this country faces, not Islamofascism, because if the liberals dominate and win, and are in power for four, eight years or more, they don't take Islamofascism as a threat." He added: "And we know this because the Islamofascists are actually campaigning for the election of Democrats. Islamofascists from [Iranian President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad to [Ayman] al-Zawahiri ... Osama bin Laden, whoever, are constantly issuing Democrat [sic] talking points."
Limbaugh made a similar claim on the May 10, 2006, edition of his show, during which he asserted that Ahmadinejad's May 2006 letter to President Bush contained "Democratic talking points," and "even some liberal Hollywood Jewish people talking point."
From the April 15 edition of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:
LIMBAUGH: Let me finish this global warming riff, as it has to do with the theme I established in the previous half-hour. And that is, liberalism is the greatest threat this country faces, not Islamofascism, because if the liberals dominate and win, and are in power for four, eight years or more, they don't take Islamofascism as a threat. And we know this because the Islamofascists are actually campaigning for the election of Democrats. Islamofascists from Ahmadinejad to al-Zawahiri, Oba -- Osama bin Laden, whoever, are constantly issuing Democrat talking points.
So, liberalism is the big threat. One of my big pet peeves, and it's more than a pet peeve, is that in addition to nobody anywhere, Republican or Democrat, speaking about American exceptionalism, trying to inspire the American people, motivate them, [inaudible] to be proud of their country, to tell them the truth of this country and how they live in the greatest place ever on Earth, and that their opportunities -- even economic downturns -- are greater than any other person's on this planet, rather than do that, liberals advance a premise. And somehow, in our defensive nature, or our inferiority complex nature -- or in the politician's case, a desire to get something done, to be seen as being a person of action -- we accept the premise and then try to tweak it while opposing aspects of it and trying to make a conservative notion out of the premise. Now, global warming is one of these circumstances where we have accepted the premise.
Look over there! (Where?)
There's a party that I used to know
They're dipsh!ts now or right wingers or so I am told...
Hey, never seen you do Joe Jackson, Snoop.
Is he really carrying water for them?
Limbaugh asserted that "the Islamofascists are actually campaigning for the election of Democrats"
Probably because they might be thinking that the Democrats will get us out of their countries, change America's foreign policy into one that doesn't allow puppet dictators and murderers running their countries and that they can finally live in peace without America sticking its nose where it never belonged in the first place.
History says that Dems and Repubs are as guilty as ever but I think that the last seven years of Bush and a constant reminder of Reagan by the conservative leaders has opened up the minds of enough Americans to demand this to be the case?
Ok....maybe I'm dreaming..... but I do have the audacity to hope!
Ok....maybe I'm dreaming..... but I do have the audacity to hope!
There you go quoting more of those outrageous statements from Wright. Why are you so anti-white and anti-American? ;-)
BILLJ,
WHY DO YOU HATE ME SO MUCH? WHY DO YOU HATE AMERICA, THE TROOPS, AND BUSH? WHY DO YOU WANT YOUR COUNTRY TO LOSE? WHY DO YOU WANT THE TERRORISTS TO WIN? WHY AM I SHOUTING, ITS NOT LIKE I DIDN'T NOTICE THE WINKING SMILY FACE OR ANYTHING AND KNEW YOU WERE JUST KIDDING!......... ;)
Boy.....shouting like a blowhard radio right-winger sure can hurt the old voice box! How do these guys do it everyday? Riccola?
If Democrats are so evil, why is Rush Limbaugh plugging Hillary Clinton all the time?
Oh yeah, he's a dumb-ass opportunist who makes sh*t up and paints it as facts. He should look up Ronald Reagan financing the Taliban to fight the Russians in Afghanistan.
When Limbaugh open his eyes to see, all that is visible in his dark life are his bowels. **Attention dittoheads..that means his head is up his arse**
Rush, we heard this song before the election in November 2006...remember what happened then? Do you hate the Republan Party that much to topple them from your insider position? You know this is blather but allow the Democratic Party to rally around your lunatic views.
Rush, you and Karl Baby cost the R's dearly last time around and by God, you are doing it again.
"RUSH LIMBAUGH POLITICAL ASSASSIN" slays the Republan Party AGAIN.
He should look up the fact that McCain was part of the Keating five...
Or the fact that when McCain's wife Cindy was hooked on pain-killers (like Rush's OxyContin days), she stole pills from the medical non-profit organization that she founded. Her own personal version of Rush's "doctor shopping"....
"Rush Limbaugh is a Great American!" George W. Bush upon learning of Limpbrain's drug and ESPN troubles.
Bush "the uniter" calls one of the most hyperpartisan media figures in the history of U.S. broandcasting "great." And the dems sit on the sidelines and miss the opportunity to exploit the relationship and insist that GOP candidates distance themselves from this big fat idiot.
Limbaugh's offenses are too numerous to list but I do respect that he speaks unapologetically about his absolute hate for all things liberal and especially democrats.
USA! USA! USA!
I'm here to help!
In another thread, your "USA" chant was much longer than this one.
Are you getting tired or are you becoming a communist?
Or worse, an Islamofascist?
Or worse yet, a Islamofascist Red Commie bastard?
I vote for that one. I always had the gnawing feeling that the colonel's secret herbs and spices were code for some dastardly radical leftist plot.
Your hypocrisy is showing.
Aw shucks it's true, I like & respect most of the Libs here.
And I "ruv" you too :-)
You always know just what to say, don't ya ;-)
Good night my sweet Julia.
No heart attacks on my watch there, J2. Must calm the savage beast :-) Grr. Now back to talking with OBL and the crew to give them tomorrow's talking points :-0)
If Obama is to be held responsible for his supporters' views (Wright?), then conservatives are to be held responsible for Limbaugh's views.
The fact that Limbaugh still has an audience at all is an indictment of the entire conservative population.
(Sorry, I'm feeling a little inflammatory tonight. Maybe I should have a beer or something...)
Deez, you're nuts.
And that concludes my temper flare up ;-)
I have no problem with stereotypes if they are actually true about a large majority of the group in question.
If you voted for Bush, you fit right into my idiot block. If you didn't, there just aren't enough of you to make your party respectable or to form a new party. Conservatism is dead with the republican party.
That's what I noticed too - he slipped up and said "Democratic" instead of ""Democrat".
What I love is when I heard him try to justify his use of "Democrat" instead of "Democratic Party". It was totally bogus and self-serving.
One of my big pet peeves, and it's more than a pet peeve, is that in addition to nobody anywhere, Republican or Democrat, speaking about American exceptionalism, trying to inspire the American people, motivate them, [inaudible] to be proud of their country, to tell them the truth of this country and how they live in the greatest place ever on Earth, and that their opportunities -- even economic downturns -- are greater than any other person's on this planet
Yeah, damn those politicians trying to get people to talk about real issues rather than just saying "USA! USA! USA!". Limbaugh wants a Republican ostrich for President.
Liberalism is the greatest threat this country faces, not Islamofascism
Well, first of all, why is Limbaugh knocking fascism? Seriously, the man wants fascism in any other name. Second, gimme a break. Every single advancement in American society has been thanks to market-friendly liberalism. Conservatism has NEVER prevailed, and it;s thanks to this "greatest threat" that the US is where it is today. Limbaugh would have been protesting against both the Declaration of Independence and the constitution if he had been around at the time. He would have been kneeling at the feet of the British, begging for the King to tell him what to do. The man is disgusting.
I hope some day he has to flee to Canada.
What did Canada do to deserve THAT???? :-)
Eric,
Pardon the interruption but when has Limbaugh EVER even come close to endorsing any sort of FASCIST doctrine? Can you find any quote anywhere on Earth that makes you believe this?
Here is a definition of Fascism--perhaps you should review it. Fascism includes: a disdain for human rights (torture, anyone?); scapegoating an enemy ("Islamofascists"); using fear as a tool to justify the governnment's actions in the name of 'national security (terrorists will kill you as you sleep if you vote for Democrats);' protection of corporations (apparently it is NEVER a good time to tax, say, the oil industry); and cronyism ("Brownie's doing a heck of a job"). Limbaugh has defended ALL of these.
The lefties do see Bush as a more serious threat than any Al-Quieda operative. Look at Pelosi's trip to Syria to support the Kurdish fascist fighting Turkey and then saying that we needed to call the Turks genocidal for events that were a century old. Any coincidence that almost closed our airbases in Turkey? Cutting off supplies to our soldiers in wartime...how to you spell treason Madam Speaker?
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/04/pelosi-perfidy.html
You forgot to get to the part where you showed that Dems consider Bush the bigger threat, Plowedcon.
Just like Rush forgot to get to the part where he reads the Democratic talking points from the letter.
Do you think non-dittoheads are as easily fooled as you are?
It's a little weird to decide whether Bush or Al-Qaeda is the bigger threat, because they're interdependent. Al-Qaeda is only a big threat if there's an incompetent boob in the white house.
Remember in the 90s when terrorism wasn't constantly on everyone's mind because our government was actually doing the only job that conservatives think it should do?
Steeve posted:
"Remember in the 90s when terrorism wasn't constantly on everyone's mind because our government was actually doing the only job that conservatives think it should do?"
_______________________________________
Great point Steeve! Terrorism WASN'T on the lefts mind especially the philander in chief's mind. Remember he was too busy chasing porcine princesses through the WH.
Meanwhile in the REAL world;
-Car bomb in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia killing 5 US Servicemembers
-Khobar Towers bombed.
-US Embassy bombed in Tanzania
-US Embassy bombed in Nairobi
-USS Cole bombed
-US Intel was briefing possible hijack attacks by (you guessed it) OBL...Slicky did NOTHING to try and prevent this
In fact Slicky and company did next to nothing during ANY of these attacks which accounted for over 50 US personnel killed and over 500 civilians killed.
Thanks again steeeve for reminding us just how incompetent the clinton's were!
My guess is the anthrax attacks were of the home grown variety, and since there have been no other attacks the case has gone cold.
Once again, it happened on Bush's watch, he gets the blame, fair enough.
I take it you have a conspiracy theory in mind, no?
SFNomad posted:
"Then again, those attacks were aimed at Democratic Congressmen, so I'm sure it's not high on the FiC's priority list to solve. "
_______________________________________
That looks conspiratorial to me...:)
Hog,
Will you please reply to Julia's post?
One. 9/11. Over 3000 innocent US civilians killed.
How long did clinton have to work on OBL intel? Want to add that up or do you want me to do the math for you. I've already started it for you I just didn't add the dates...guess I should spell it out for you next time.
Bush was in office less than a year. The problem with that is it happened on his watch so the Buck stops there. I'll own up to that...
You dems need to own up to clintons sleeping at the wheel.
Deal?
No deal. Bush was warned. Condosleeza Rice was warned. They all knew something was coming and did nothing. Remember something called a Presidential Daily Briefing entitled, "Bin Laden Determined to Strike U.S.." (or something along those lines)? Oh wait, Bush did do something: he went to his ranch in Texas and started digging.
And while planes were crashing into buildings, Bush continued doing what he does best: ignore the situation. "My Pet Goat" was much more interesting than protecting the nation.
Even though Bin Laden and al Qaeda are responsible for 9/11 (not Iraq, mind you), Bush still had the responsibility on his shoulders. He did NOTHING. So no, Hogprint, no f**king deal.
No deal huh? Let's be clear on one thing. The clinton administration knew about possible hijacking/used as bombs plot as far back as 1997. That intel was disseminated within every branch of the service, so If my pay grade was privy I know the PIC (philanderer in chief) was privy.
You are correct, NO F'ing deal. Slicky did nothing about it or any of the other terroist attacks I posted above. Because of his inaction, the terrorists became more emboldened and far reaching.
If you lay the blame on Bush for attacks during his tenure, then you HAVE to lay blame for attacks during clinton's run.
The majority of dems don't lay ANY blame on Willie, so your argument is impotent.
The majority of dems don't lay ANY blame on Willie, so your argument is impotent.
Your brain is obviously impotent, PigBreath, because you don't know what the hell you're talking about.
The clinton administration knew about possible hijacking/used as bombs plot as far back as 1997.
Wow. It really is easy to refute wingnuts.
The Clinton Administration had that intel. They gave it to the incoming Bush Administration. The guy who presented the intel was told by W, "OK, you've covered your ass. Now watch this drive." (OK, I made up the last part.)
Richard Clarke warned everyone about the threat. Cheney had as one of his jobs chairing the Anti-Terrorism group meetings. They held a grand total of zero meetings before 9/11.
Remember the "wag the dog" junk the GOP was screaming when Clinton sent missiles into a base where Osama bin Laden had been only hours before? That was more done against terrorism than the entire W Administration did before 9/11. And probably since. W invaded a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, lying all the time that they really did, if you ignore all the evidence showing they really didn't.
I'm amazed that you clowns can come back with lies that were proven to be lies years ago, and start spouting them all over again, just because you don't like the way things are going against your goons in office, thinking you get a do-over.
Clinton WASNT sleeping at the wheel he was doing a lot. Bush was doing NOTHING. He was getting what the CIA called hair on fire warnings Clinton took them seriously and took action. Bush not only didnt DO anything he used the making of a counterterrorism task force as a photo op in April, then the task force NEVER MET A SINGLE TIME.
Clinton froze the Taliban assets. He tripled the number of FBI agents assigned to counterterrorism. The FBI terrorism budget in 1996 was 78 million in 2000 it was more than 600 million he made an al Queda unit which helped stop several terrrorist attacks I already posted. The spending on National preparedness went from about 40 million in 97 to over one BILLION in 2000. The argument is LUDICROUS hivemind nonsense.
I wish to refute that Bush did NOTHING about terrorism.
He sent $40 million to the Taliban.
He warned law enforcement OFF the Bin Laden family (his dad's buddies and business partners).
He made it EASIER for travelers from the Middle East to enter the country (good for business, don'tcha know ...)
So, Bush hardly did NOTHING. He arguably helped the 9/11 attack successful, by his actions (and inactions).
Hey, PigPrint -
Your lies have been thoroughly debunked on the Snopes web site:
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/clinton.asp
Bill Clinton did everything in his power to combat terrorism during his term - he even set up an anti-terrorism task force, with Al Gore in charge of it. That task force was dismantled by George W. Bush. And since some of those attacks (such as the USS Cole) happened very late in Clinton's term, there was just not enough time for anything to be done during Clinton's presidency. (OTOH, Bush has had over seven years to catch the people who blew up teh Cole - has he?)
The link above is a to the truth. You and the truth are obviously strangers right now....
WZ...did you even read your internet urban legend site? It didn't dispel one of the supposed myths you assert.
First of all, there is no URBAN MYTH about the bombings in Riyadh or Africa. I know you dems would love to forget about those events, but there is a record of it and of what the clinton admin didn't do. Here is some outhouse reading for you to get up to speed:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_16_54/ai_90570240
One piece of advice...less time on on the conspiracy and urban myth sites...more time on the history or current event sites.
And some advice for YOU, Pigbreath - more time dealing with reality, and less time listenting to Rush Limbaugh or visiting cybersewers like NewsMax or World Nut Daily.
Now - go back and re-read the Snopes page I linked to - you will see that it addressed a majority of the items you listed. The USS Cole bombing happened too late in Clinton's presidency for him to do anything about it - but Bush hasn't done anything either. And many of the people who perpetrated those bombings are being protected by the Saudi government. You know - Poppy Bush's business partners....
It's amazing how a person like you can make it through live so clueless and ignorant.
The last time I checked, if something happens on your watch, you are responsible for it. The attack happened on 12OCT00. That gave WJC more that enough time to respond. He was too busy Pardoning criminals though.
As for your U myth site, it brushed off the charge of do-nothing clinton with the "Saudi's were obstructionist" they even didn't go that far to be honest.
Here is a more astute look at these events. Specifically CLINTON'S LOSS...:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1697884/posts
Richard Miniter is a respected journalist. I'll take his advice over Snopes.com any day.
Umm, Miniter is not really a journalist. He's not unbiased, he's extremely hard core right wing, and I would expect anything coming out of him to say republicans good, democrats bad, which when he writes, that what happens.
Funny, how you say Clinton did nothing. Hmm...I seem to remember a bombing attempt in NYC in the WTC that happened when Clinton was in office. Do you happen to know what happened to those guys? Oh yeah, they were caught, tried in a court of law, and tossed into the clink never to be seen again.
Oklahoma City? Hmm, again, got the guys, tried them, and then fried 'em (as they deserved I might add).
Don't forget the indignation of republicans when Clinton did actually try to kill Bin Laden, they claimed he was "wagging the dog" and trying to take away from the glare of Monica. Also don't forget that due to the constant attack, and impeachment of Clinton by, yes, republicans, he had to spend more time defending himself, rather than running and protecting the country during that time. Also don't forget that he tried to say he had executive priveledge, and that he didn't need to testify or make a deposition, and this staff shouldn't be subjected to that as well, only later to recant that one when the HOWLING from the republicans on the hill became so loud it couldn't be ignored.
I suggest you read a different book. One called Ghost Wars by Stephen Coll. You want to know what really happened from an actual real live journalist? Read. That. Book. Put down the book by Mr. Miniter, as what he's written is screed, and not truth.
Miniter is not a journalist? You're kidding right? Let's do the math together Mag:
-2 new york times bestsellers
-published in the NYT, Washington Post, WSJ, Christian Science Monitor, The Atlantic Monthly, The New Republic, Readers Digest, The American Enterprise, National Review, Reason, Policy Review and newspapers in the EU, Asia and Australia.
-associate producer of the PBS series Technopolitics in the early 90's
-producer of PBS series Enterprising Women
I could go on, but I hope you get the point. I guess in liberal land if one speaks out against the clintons, then their whole body of work is erased?
As for your other posts about the intrepid clinton sending bombers to jail, well I've documented those on this site several time, but just to keep it short for this debate in both the WTC 1 bombing and OKC bomb plot, field officers and agents and lowly beat cops busted those perps.
Yes clinton treated these as law enforcement investigations and NOT as terrorist attacks, thus shutting out some of the governments intell agencies. By taking this route grand jury protection was afforded and law enforcement could not talk to intell side of the house.
"Nobody outside of the prosecutors team and maybe the FBI had access. It was all under grand-jury secrecy."-James Woolsey CIA Director
Pres clinton also ignored intel that linked the first WTC bombers with a central command. He instead insisted that it was a "loose network" of people that did "a stupid" thing, in an interview on MTV of all places.
You dems and clinton ignored the warning signs then and you still are apologizing and defending his inactions to this day.
Hog,
Do you blame George H.W. Bush for the first WTC bombing? Why or why not? Prior to 9/11, can you point to any actions by GWB to combat terrorism?
Perhaps you should check out this article and look who opposed anti-terrorism measures:
http://www.cnn.com/US/9607/30/clinton.terrorism/
In your opinion, has the Bush regime done enough to fight terrorism? Since this seems to be a big personal issue for you, what have you done personally to contribute to our nation's efforts?
Richard Miniter is a respected journalist. I'll take his advice over Snopes.com any day.
If you have to link to Free RepubliKKK to back up your argument, HogBreath, your point is not valid.
SNopes is non-partisan - Free RepubliKKK is very right-wing biased. Period.
One piece of advice...less time on on the conspiracy and urban myth sites...more time on the history or current event sites.
A better piece of advice. Less time listening to Rush and more time spent wiping the drool off your chin.
BALONEY. He tripled the counterterrorism budget. He tried to kill Ben Laden, he froze Taliban assets, even Reagans counterterrorism Czar said overall he gave him good marks on terrorism and only criticised him for being TOO focused on Ben Laden. Richard Clarke praised his terrorism efforts. On his watch the Millenium bombing was stopped. An attack on the Isreali embassy attacks on the Lincoln and Holland tunnels. That brainwashed hivemind nonsense is just stupid. Especially since it was BUSH that was deeply committed to Operation IGNORE Terrorism. He did ZILCH. You guys keep pushing this stupidity. Its bogus. He could have done more and THAT can be argued but to say Clinton ignored terrorism is outright stupidity. They had regular cabinet level meetings on the subject. It isnt true just because the Limborg keep repeating it.
Oh Solon, I was wondering when you’d enter the fray! I know I can count on your misinformation, so let’s break it down point by point, shall we?
-Clinton Tripled the CT budget.Not in this budget that I could find;
http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2000pres/20000207.html
OK…I’ll be fair, I did manage to find a couple of things but they both come to the same conclusion: It was to little to late. The budget came up $24mil? That’s not very big but since he did it, score one for you;
http://www.counterpunch.org/christison03302004.html
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9907E4DE1639F930A15752C0A96F958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all
-He TRIED to kill OBL! This one’s a joke right? Do I need to remind you that bombing aspirin factories doesn’t count? Killing the janitor at said aspirin factory is not killing OBL. Clinton claimed SOF troops shot his proposal down, but come on…he’s supposed to be the CIC!
http://www.salon.com/news/1998/09/23news.html
-Richard “Dick” Clarke praised efforts
Looks like Dick had plenty of praise for both administrations till he started hawking his book:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115085,00.html
-the Millennium bombing plotAs I’ve gone over this before (with you I think) I find it hard to believe you’re still pushing this position. The Mill plot was actually three plots, but we’ll focus on Ahmed Ressam’s capture at the US/Canadian border. He was captured by an alert Customs inspector named Diana Dean. Clinton had nothing to do with this foiled plot. Don’t believe me, believe the 9/11 Commission:
The 9/11 Commission Report concluded about this episode (emphasis mine):"It appears that the heightened sense of alert at the national level played no role in Ressam’s detention."4"As one of [CTC Richard] Clarke’s staff noted, only a ‘chance discovery’ by U.S. Customs had prevented a possible attack."5 -Bush did nothing 2 July 2001 President Bush sign executive order maintaining economic sanctions against Afghanistan and its ruling Taliban movement. (New York Times, 3 July 2001, A7)30 July 2001 UNSC passes resolution setting up monitoring groups and sanctions enforcement support teams along the border with Pakistan to ensure that no arms or military support is provided to the Taliban. (UN Security Council Resolution 1363, 30 July 2001; CRS 18)I forgot, Clinton did freeze assets in the Avalon Projected it totaled up to be $24 million. Mainly Afghan rugs and some jewelry. This occurred in '99, so once again at the tail end of his run and symbolic in nature I think you'd agree?
I also forgot the PDB, that the left likes to harp on so much. Remember this was a PREDICTION and as a warning was near worthless. The mid '01 briefs had no "new" info and in fact the latest was from '98. It lacked SPECIFIC intel (persons, dates, specific airlines or flights), so how are you going to raise the level of security at airlines with no SPECIFIC intel? You keep in place the security we had at the time. The report also didn't mention the WTC, just that OBL wanted to "bring the fight to the US".
So your argument is just trying to beat the Bush team with a cudgel. Even Nostradamus couldn't have predicted that one.
Lastly Solon, I think with 20/20 hindsight we can place enough blame over both administrations. This report is the most even haded I've read yet:
http://www.eisenhowerfoundation.org/formulate_security.php
I posted the specifics. The preparedness budget went from 47million to more than a billion FAR more than tripling. HE tripled the FBI agents in counterterrorism he took the FBI budget from 78 million to more than 600 million there just isnt any way to argue this is ignoring terrorism. Whatever the appropriation for specific counterterrorism was THESE things cannot be considered anything else BUT counterterrorism and he far more than tripled their budget. Your claim is ludicrous. I named four different things credited to the heightened awareness. They say it had nothing to do with Clinton heightening awareness? How could they know this did they ASK the border agent? Do they read minds? It sounds like partisan spin from the republicans to me. Even if you are right there is still the Lincoln and Holland tunnel plan and the attack on the Israeli embassy in Washington. There were high level cabinet meetings and high level government officials that disagree with you. ALL of this argues that you are repeating BS propaganda that cannot be supported.
Clinton signed orders to have him assasinated did you expect him to go Rambo take an M-16 and go after Ben Laden himself? They blew up the training camp in Afghanistan they were ready to take a special forces unit into Pakistan and get him when the Mushareff coup made that plan too risky. He DID SOMETHING. Bush really doesnt think about Ben Laden much anymore and that is AFTER 3,000 dead on 9/11. No one blamed Bush the smarter for the first WTC bombing though he had been out of office about two months but you want to blame Clinton for 9/11 after he had been out of office for about NINE MONTHS. Ya got nothin but a stale talking point only the most brainwashed hiveminder could possibly take seriously. Actually it wasnt even a good try. BUSH ignored terrorism. Clinton didnt.
You posted SPECIFICS? Please show us the links again please. I went back through and did not see ANYTHING you linked. Just because you ASSERT that your hero did something, that doesn't make it true. I posted the clinton/gore budget for '00. Counter terrorism wasn't in there. Cant find it, yet you throw a fit and still say it's true? And you call me hive-minded?
I linked the 9/11 report for the Mill Plot, which stated that it was an alert agent doing her job and it was a stroke of luck that she foiled the plot. I have seen you reference the 9/11 Commission several times on this forum, are you now saying that report is flawed when it doesn't jibe with your hero worship?
I linked the Eisenhower report which showed there were failures across the board in both administrations yet you still assert that clinton did everything and Bush did nothing. I can only assume you are so blinded by partisan hate that you can't see the woods for the trees.
If you can't post links from credible sources to back up your argument then I'll have to rate you up there with the other screaming banshee's on this site that talk a good game but cant back anything up with facts.
Cite one instance of Bush giving a crap about terrorism before his pants fell down on 9/11.
I can cite many instances of Clinton caring about terrorism, such as when he actually caught the World Trade Center bombers.
What is the statute of limitations on genocide?
How many years must pass before genocide isn't really genocide?
The conservative conscience at work...
Oh, Anotherconservative, you do know, and or remember that before Pelosi went to Syria a group of REPUBLICANS went to Syria for the same reasons she did, which was to meet with and open up lines of communication with Syria's president, who is, hey, get this, very moderate.
on April 1, Reps. Frank Wolf (R-VA), Joseph R. Pitts (R-PA) and Robert Aderholt (R-AL) traveled to Damascus and met with Assad, two days before Pelosi's scheduled trip.
Don't let facts get in the way of a good democrat bashing though. Just make sure that your side didn't do it as well, and before Pelosi did.
I'll wait patiently for your condemnation of the republican led delegation along with the condemnation of the republicans who went WITH Pelosi when she went.
Isn't it amazing how the "conservative" mind works?
Before the war: We shouldn't question the commander in chief because he has access to information that we don't.
During the war: We shouldn't question the commander in chief because it will demoralize the troops.
After the war: What's done is done, it will only hurt America if we try to re-open that can of worms.
During the Clinton Administration: Question and hamstring the Commander-in-Chief at every opportunity, because he's a Democrat.
Trent Lott famously said, "You can criticize the President and still support the troops."
A few years later, he said the exact opposite. But the GOP said he was right both times.
If that was her intention too bad she didn't succeed, a couple hundred american kids would still be alive.
Over 4,000 would still be alive if it weren't for George W. Bush and his illegal war.
"The lefties do see Bush as a more serious threat than any Al-Quieda operative."---ProudConservative
I heard former Secretary of the Navy, Sen. James Webb questioned about Iraq recently. He talked about the damage being done to our ---I think the phrase he used was “grand strategic interests”. Things like military readiness should something else come up. Like the pressure Iraq takes off of Afghanistan. Like the damage this preemptive war has done to our good will among other governments in dealing with terrorist threats. Like the tremendous drain on the economy, including high oil prices and a weakening dollar and the instability this creates here and around the world.
Bush has shot us in the foot.
What does any of that have to do with Rush Limbaugh? Oh that,s right, NOTHING. As usual, so many of you rightwingers on the site can only say "But... but... Dems suck!" when confronted with facts about your favorite media personalities.
But I guess that limited intellect is a prerequisite for appreciating Rush and his ilk in the first place.
This is some faulty logic, faultylogic! The limited intellect comes from MMfA posting a comment without the whole context so their legions of virtual morons can comment on it.
Rush is making the argument that Liberalism is the greatest threat this country faces (it's deep in the article, but I'm sure you can find it) and the Islamofacism comment was but one of SEVERAL points he made.
I'm challenging MMfA to post the monologue in whole and then let's debate the points, bullet by bullet.
I won't hold my breath.
The limited intellect comes from MMfA posting a comment without the whole context so their legions of virtual morons can comment on it.
From your posts I can see you have the limited intellect and virtual moron thing down to a tee.
Ignorance is curable. You'll take your stupidity with you to the grave.
Ever notince how often right-wing morons use that old "it-was-taken-out-of-context" line? It's the modern-day equivalent to "My puppy ate my homework".
So - what have we learned today, boys and gorls? That HogBreath is an idiot.
I'd be happy to debate every single issue. I still wonder what Nancy Pelosi's trip to Turkey has to do with Rush spewing hatred about a perceived liberal threat to the United States. I'd love for the "context" to explain that.
No wait, I think I just figured it out - Pelosi is a "liberal" so by definition everything she does is a threat to the US? Is that about it?
Rein in your abject stupidity.
Too late - HogBreth's stupidity is out of control.
I spell it George (Yah I like to torture people,so what?)Bush.
Why are you so ready to make the worst interpretation of this. Why do your enemies all have to be beyond the pale. Simple disagreement not enough for you? Charges of treason are based on, and conviction upheld upon, more than suspicion and wishful thinking.
"our inferiority complex nature"
Our what??
"we accept the premise and then try to tweak it while opposing aspects of it and trying to make a conservative notion out of the premise. "
We what?
Does Rush's dog have a flea infection or something?
When I read that, I was confused as well. He was talking out of both a$$holes this time.
Rush, get off the Oxy. You're hurting yourself and your Party.
Actually, you are sort of incorrect.
While there are some factions of Islamic radicals that want to put the world under the foot of Islamic, or Sharia law, by and far, most don't want that to happen, and realize that it's not even realistic for that to ever happen due to the make up of the world and who worships what god, and where. For instance, the majority of radicals know that America will never be an Islamic nation, and there is no way that they can turn it into one, it's just not feasible. Too many Christians, and we own wayyy too many guns. The factions of radicals that want to change the world Islam are a very small minority in an already small minority of radicals.
As far as radicals not caring about politics in the US, this is where you're incorrect as well. Because by and far, the biggest driving force in the minds of terrorists and why they want to attack us, is the fact that for many years we (America) have been interceding in the affairs of Middle Eastern and Islamic nations around the world. For example, one of the biggest reasons why Osama Bin Laden started making attacks on the US was because of the presence of US soldiers on the ground in Saudi Arabia during Gulf War I, and this is why he also carried out, and his followers carry out attacks on what the radicals consider an apostate Muslime regime in the form of the Saudi Royal Family. Same reason why you see attacks in Pakistan. And so on and so forth. What Bin Laden, and many others like him want is for the US to leave Islamic nations, and to let them decide on their own fate, and to decide what their own path in the world should be. Bin Laden has said so many different times in his little tirades that get published, or played on TV every now and then. Essentially what he wants is the US out now, and for our foreign policy to change to one of non intercession.
This is why terrorists attacked us on 9/11. Not because of any of these silly sound bites we hear about them hating our freedom, and hating our liberty, and things like that. They hate us because of our foreign policy, and because of who we align ourselves with in the middle eastern region.
"Islamofascists"are the new "NAZIS", and having a new enemy to equate to Democrats and Liberals ... ALL Democrats and Liberals ... is simply the way rightwing propagandists work. If you dislike Bin Laden, then you must loathe and despise Hillary and Barack, because THEY ARE ON THE SAME TEAM.
So sayeth Rush.
It's amazing that rightwingers on this site get all in a tizzy when Rightwingers are "stereotyped", simply because the policies they vote for have directed America into the state it is currently in ... which is a very bad state indeed.
Limbaugh is one of thousands of Rightwing foghorns blowing out the same message, that Democrats are "THE ENEMY". Yet, when I post my opinion, based with examples of FACTS, that Bush and his NeoCon rightwingers have done great harm to this nation, it offends the tender sensibilities of some of our rightwing posters. "Don't lump us all together," the cry, "that's so unfair!"
And yet they are here, bashing Dems and Libs, and while they know they cannot help but act disappointed in Bush's reign, they stand ready to CONTINUE his destructive policies by wanting McCain to take over the reins, headed down the exact same paths of destruction.
So, yes indeed, I lump rightwingers together, and stereotype them by condemning the policies they have made possible by voting for Republicans. It's like stereotyping BIRDS as all having WINGS.
So, I tie them to their POLICIES and the RESULTS of those policies, and Limbaugh ties Libs to Islamofascists. The next step, I suppose, is to round up all Liberals and ship them to GitMo. After all, they are MORE DANGEROUS to American than Al Queda, right? Rush says so, so it must be true.
You know, I never thought I'd say this, but logically, Limbaugh may be right.
When speaking about a statement of the form "A implies B," the statement is correct always when A is false. It is only a false statement when A is true and B is false.
Since there is no such thing as an Islamofascist, Rush can say they are doing anything he wishes, even that they are wearing tu-tus and tap-dancing in plain sight on the ice at Madison Square Garden during the Rangers' games, and he would be logically absolutely correct.
That doesn't mean he isn't crazy as a June bug, but at least his statement couldn't be proven false when taken as a whole (or in his case, a-hole).
I caught part of Rush's show yesterday, I love that every time I hear his opening he has added some new grandiose description of himself. I did not know he was,
"The Center of The Radio Universe."
What a tool.
But universes do not have centers.
I suppose he dosn't know that.
According to Wikipedia, this is the definition of “fascism”:
Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology (generally tied to a mass movement) that considers the individual subordinate to the interests of the state, party or society as a whole. Fascists seek to forge a type of national unity, usually based on (but not limited to) ethnic, cultural, racial, and/or religious attributes. Various scholars attribute different characteristics to fascism, but the following elements are usually seen as its integral parts: patriotism, nationalism, statism, militarism, totalitarianism, anti-communism, corporatism, populism, collectivism, autocracy and opposition to political and economic liberalism.
If you consider each of the characteristics listed at the end of this definition, you see that very few - if any - can be applied to the people currently fighting our forces in Iraq. Therefore, Limpball's use of the term "Islamofascist" is as bogus as he is.Conservatives believe in the individual not the government that destroys every entitlement program that it creates. Now we are facing a 53 trillion unfunded liability. The debt will be passed on to our children and grandchildren.
Get real. The government is out of control.