cicerone imposter wrote:I don't know that.
You should know that already, CI.
Roxxxanne, Did a quick search, and now understand what you mean by the following article - and last line.
The Party of Knaves and Worse
David Horowitz
Tuesday, Dec. 13, 2005
Senator Joe Lieberman is under attack from his own party for this statement: "It is time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that he will be commander in chief for three more critical years, and that in matters of war we undermine presidential credibility at our nation's peril."
Hats off to Joe Lieberman for having the courage, in a party without a moral compass for telling the truth, to tell the truth. Undermining the commander in chief's credibility on matters of war and peace is the work of the enemy and gets our troops killed and puts our citizens at risk.
Of course George Bush has been our commander in chief in this war for four years already, and the Democrats' assault on his credibility - and thus on the security of the nation - has been going on relentlessly, recklessly and without pause since June 2003 - or barely two months since the toppling of Saddam Hussein and the launching of the terrorist war to regain control of Iraq.
Here is a description of how this attack began, with full knowledge that in launching a campaign to destroy the credibility of George Bush the Democrats were attacking the most important asset of the commander in chief of American forces in the midst of a war. It is taken from my book "Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left," which will be released in paperback next month.
"On July 10, the Democratic National Committee released a television ad which they titled, 'Read His Lips: President Bush Deceives the American People.' The subject of the ad - and of weeks of unrelenting Democratic attacks - was a sentence containing sixteen words from the president's State of the Union address of January 28. The words referred to an alleged attempt by the Iraqi government to purchase 'yellow cake' uranium in the African state of Niger: 'The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.' The ad included a clip of the president uttering the second half of the statement, but omitting the fact that he was citing a British intelligence report. The DNC text continued, 'But now we find out that it wasn't true. Far worse, the administration knew it wasn't true. A year earlier, that claim was already proven to be false. The CIA knew it. The State Department knew it. The White House knew it. But he told us anyway.'
"In other words, the commander in chief was a liar, and his deceptions had taken America to a war that was needless and that cost America lives.
"Democrats were certainly aware of the seriousness of their attacks on the integrity of the president, not to mention the possible ramifications for national security. Presidential candidate John Edwards told a New York Times reporter, 'The most important attribute that any president has is his credibility - his credibility with the American people, with its allies and with the world. When the president's own statements are called into question, it's a very serious matter.' The fact that the accusations were being made over such a flimsy claim was thus particularly troubling. The British government continued to stand by its report, making the presidential statement literally true. Moreover, the ad's insinuations in regard to the CIA and the State Department were misleading since both had vetted and approved the president's speech. Neither of these considerations served to restrain the Democrats' attacks.
"A year later, when major damage to the commander in chief's credibility had already been done, a bi-partisan Senate committee investigating intelligence failures leading up to the war exonerated him: 'We conclude also that the Statement in President Bush's State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that "The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa" was well-founded.'"
In short, for two and half years the Democratic leadership, pandering to the anti-American left, has been attacking the credibility of the commander in chief of America's forces in the war on terror, and has done so - in the words of Senator Lieberman - "at our nation's peril." And yet there is no sign that they are about to stop.
In the face of this sabotage of the war on terror, the White House and th Republican Party have been almost speechless. Their strategy in fighting the war domestically appears to have been taken from Mohammed Ali's Rumble in the Jungle - "rope-a-dope," i.e., don't fight back and hope the other guy will grow so tired from beating on you that you will be able to drop him in the late rounds.
Until recently, that is. First Dick Cheney and now the Republican National Committee have begun to fight back. The RNC is running an ad showing Howard Dean waving the white flag (which he has in fact been waving since before we ever entered Iraq) and calling the Democrats the party of "retreat and defeat." Where have we heard that phrase before? Possibly right here.
Oddly, the rope-a-dope strategy may eventually work. If the Democrats keep running to the edge of the limb that the left has provided for them, they will find their way to a poetic defeat - at the polls. And that will enhance Americans' security rather than imperilling it.
Editor's note:
If you love George Bush - you'll love NewsMax's "Bush Collection" - Check it out - Click Here Now
So, lemme get this straight, whoodathought:
You think that being booked and paying bail isn't the same thing as being arrested? Rush may not have been led away in handcuffs, but he was arrested and then paid bail to get out of jail just like any other common criminal.
Don't be dense...
Cycloptichorn
Cyclo, Most of the conservatives don't understand legal process. If he didn't post bail, he'd be sitting in jail. That's a arrest however one wishes to interpret it. If fingerprinting isn't part of an arrest, I don't know what it is.
GlaucomaEye: Why so shrill? Merely citing a legitimate news source ...
cicerone imposter wrote: If fingerprinting isn't part of an arrest, I don't know what it is.
Well, I'll get fingerprinted when I enter the USA on Thursday.
I know that many Americans think foreigners are criminals by birth :wink:
I had already read, of course, the newsweek link.
You'll note that I didn't say a word about Newsweek or Newsmax. I am merely concerned with the idea that you don't believe that Rush was arrested; it seems to me that no matter how ya spin it, he was taken to jail, fingerprinted, paid bail, and left, just like any other criminal.
Do you deny this? That's the question; are you in denial of the reality of Rush's situation? Or just trying to rile the liberals up?
Cycloptichorn
Walter, Don't fee so bad; when we were in Brasil, they checked us and our bags after a domestic flight from Igacu Falls to Rio, and twice in Rio after our arrival. Talk about overkill...
Ok y'all, I think I'm gonna go down to the jail, turn myself in, let them fingerprint me and then pay bail just for the fun of it. Mind you, I haven't been charged and they aren't expecting me down there, but I just have this urge to do this. Kinda like what Rush did. Ya know, they were not looking for him or expecting him, but he just did it for the experience.
Sorry MM, but the bottom line is that Rush was arrested. Had he not shown up and turned himself in, a warrant would have been issued and he would have ended up in handcuffs. That said, what's the big deal here anyway? Another human being who made a mistake and became addicted to painkillers. Happens all the time. Heck, the Hollywood liberal elite check themselves in for addictions on a rather regular basis and it doesn't stop people from listening to them and pushing their views of the way things ought to be on everyone. But God help a conservative who falters, right?
Oh well, hypocrisy is live and well in America. Ok, y'all can now go back to making a big deal of this. But when the next liberal icon gets caught with his pants down or checks into rehab, don't downplay it or complain when MM or whoever makes a big deal of it. You've got it coming. (Sigh)
Quote:But God help a conservative who falters, right?
Only those who make a living out of demonizing others. Other drug addicts, especially.
But, like you said, hypocrisy is alive and well these days.
Cycloptichorn
And we agree again Cy. How charming.
Cycloptichorn wrote:Quote:But God help a conservative who falters, right?
Only those who make a living out of demonizing others. Other drug addicts, especially.
But, like you said, hypocrisy is alive and well these days.
Cycloptichorn
By the way Cy, I don't know because I don't listen to Rush, but you and others have claimed on several occasions that he demonizes drug addicts and such on his show. Any quotes around to back that up? Nowhere that I have seen has anyone making or hinting at such claims given any proof to show that, and being a curious clown, I was wondering if there is any of if it is just another example of saying anything at all to justify hatred of a person.
Looking forward to anyone who can give me some examples. (Or just point me to another thread if indeed this has been discussed before. If so, I may just have missed it) Thanks
Cycloptichorn wrote:I had already read, of course, the newsweek link.
Then you know this quote from that article takes most of the wind out of your sails:
" LIMBAUGH ARRESTED was the immediate headline on the wires and on TV, but the word "arrest" was misleading. In fact, Limbaugh had pleaded not guilty, and his lawyer had worked out a deal that would cause the single charge to be dropped after 18 months as long as Limbaugh stayed out of trouble and continued to see a doctor who has helped him with an addiction to painkillers."
Cycloptichorn wrote:Do you deny this? That's the question; are you in denial of the reality of Rush's situation? Or just trying to rile the liberals up?
Well, now that you mention it, it
is fun to throw rocks at the junkyard dog every now and then.
WhoodaThunk wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote:I had already read, of course, the newsweek link.
Then you know this quote from that article takes most of the wind out of your sails:
" LIMBAUGH ARRESTED was the immediate headline on the wires and on TV, but the word "arrest" was misleading. In fact, Limbaugh had pleaded not guilty, and his lawyer had worked out a deal that would cause the single charge to be dropped after 18 months as long as Limbaugh stayed out of trouble and continued to see a doctor who has helped him with an addiction to painkillers."
This doesn't take the wind out of my sails in the slightest. Newsweek was merely pointing out that Limbaugh wasn't taken to jail in handcuffs, but rather came in on his own.
As CR pointed out above, if Limbaugh hadn't come in, he would have been dragged in later just like everyone else. The fact that he turned himself in voluntarily has nothing to do with the fact that he was in fact charged with a crime, fingerprinted, went to jail, and paid bail to get out. Newsweek merely nitpicks with the word 'arrested.'
I'm pretty sure you're being purposefully stupid to rile the liberals up, but it's hard to tell if that's your intention or not. Is it?
Cycloptichorn
Misleading. Okay.
He do you call when an innocent was .... - well, not arrested - and released when his/her innocence was proven?
Why does Merriam-Webster still say that
to arrest means
Quote:to take or keep in custody by authority of law
?
Note, WH, that Limbaugh's innocence has not been proven in any court; in fact, he cut a deal with the prosecutor. This implies a certain amount of guilt on his part.
Cycloptichorn
CHorn: Forgive me for not returning your schoolyard invective, as I understand how you and your ilk are devastated to have your pound of Limbaugh flesh ripped from your grasp just as you were preparing to barbecue it on the national front porch.
Kinda pathetic actually.
I can only imagine the bounty you folks must have on a chunk of Ann Coulter.
