Democrat Rush bashing starting to backfire

jimpeel said:
Sorry if I was wrong but the stories at the time were that he was never actually arrested but was processed into the system after agreeing to do 18 months probation on a deferred prosecution. I don't remember anything at the time about a bailment being paid.

With the exception of the bail, this seems to contradict that.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/mugshots/limbaughmug1.html
Click to expand...

It's OK, nobody is perfect and nobody expects perfection.

:cocktail:
 
jimpeel said:
It seems that while the press raises a cacophony of outrage over Limbaugh wishing that Obama's policies fail they have conveniently forgotten this poll on the policies of President Bush.
Click to expand...

Seems suspicious that there's no link to the poll data and they don't even give you the exact question that was asked in the poll.

Not that it excuses Rush in the least for his antiAmerican crap.
 
Anti-American crap revisited:



49763923.jpg


"This war is lost and the surge is not accomplishing anything....."



28529540.jpg


"And let me be clear, the violence in Anbar has gone down despite the surge, not because of the surge. The inability of American soldiers to......"



26255524.jpg


"Study hard and you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq.'

32407232.jpg



"Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them, and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood."


325pxdemocratobamadurin.th.jpg


"That requires us to have enough troops so that we're not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians...."
 
I suppose Cerise thinks the truth is "anti-American" too.

ABC News said:
White House Doesn't Return Sanchez's Fire
White House Representative Only Responds Briefly to Critical Comments on IraqBy JOHN COCHRAN
Oct. 13, 2007

Faced with sharp criticism from a former U.S. commander in Iraq, the White House has chosen not to return fire.

(ABC News)
Responding to accusations from retired Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, Kate Starr, spokeswoman for the National Security Council said, "We appreciate his service to the country."

Speaking Friday to the Military Reporters and Editors' Conference just a few miles from the Pentagon, Sanchez, who commanded American forces in Iraq for a year after the March 2003 invasion, lashed out at the administration's strategy and competence. He called the Bush plan for war "catastrophically flawed."

"There has been a glaring, unfortunate display of incompetent strategic leadership within our national leaders," Sanchez said.

The White House chose to answer Sanchez through the NSC spokeswoman, perhaps appropriate because some of Sanchez's harshest criticism was aimed at NSC officials, whom he called incompetent and negligent.

Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards said on Saturday, "Gen. Sanchez is telling [the American people] what they already know and what the Bush administration and George Bush refuse to recognize."

Some analysts have been critical of Sanchez's leadership skills. He was the ranking U.S. officer in Iraq when the abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison occurred.

On Friday, Sanchez complained that the news media unfairly accused him of being a liar and a torturer. His assessment of the news media was no higher than his regard for the Bush administration. He said some in the press corps have, without ever having met him, accused him of being "inexperienced" and, "dictatorial and somewhat dense."

Sanchez offered no solution to the problem of Iraq besides saying more skill and resources are needed.

"The president's recent statement to America that he will listen to military commanders is a matter of political expediency," he said.

The White House seemed to have that criticism in mind in its short statement from the NSC spokeswoman, who referred to the present U.S. commander in Iraq: "As Gen. [David] Petraeus and Ambassador [Ryan] Crocker have said, there's more work to be done."

But, she did not attack Sanchez. In fact, she never mentioned him by name.

Other retired officers also have been critical of administration decisions. Each time, the White House has decided there is little to be gained from attacking a man who has worn stars on his shoulders.

A senior administration official told ABC News, "There is no point in getting into a fight with him."

Still, the harshness of Sanchez's remarks set him apart.

"There has been a glaring, unfortunate display of incompetent strategic leadership within our national leaders," Sanchez said. "As a Japanese proverb says, 'Action without vision is a nightmare.' There is no question that America is living a nightmare with no end in sight."

Sanchez did not limit his criticism of official Washington to the White House alone.

"The administration, Congress and the entire interagency, especially the State Department, must shoulder the responsibility for this catastrophic failure," he said, "and the American people must hold them accountable."
Click to expand...


ABC News
 
randomJACKASS said:
I suppose Cerise thinks the truth is "anti-American" too.
Click to expand...

Oh there's no question about that she thinks it's way more American to stick your head in the sand rather than make any negative assessment of what's going on. Of course if you're making negative assessments about something started by a Democrat than that's still American. Any anti-Amercian crap that Limbaugh says becomes American through some sort of derangement. :laugh:
 
Silence from the gallery about the how the left supports the troops but not the mission?? :shrug:
 
Cerise said:
Silence from the gallery about the how the left supports the troops but not the mission?? :shrug:
Click to expand...

Silence? You must mean the silence from those who say President Bush kept us free from further attacks. You know, the same ones who ignore and refuse to hold him responsible for the fatal attacks on September 11, 2001. That silence is deafening.
 
Well Frank, remember; everything bad that happened on Bush's watch was Clinton's fault, where all that is good right and true was Bush's doing. Just like if Obama has any major Victories, we need to attribute them to Bush, but if anything bad happens that all is on Obama. That's the way these prople "think".
 
Carville has BDS:


On the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, just minutes before learning of the terrorist attacks on America, Democratic strategist James Carville was hoping for President Bush to fail, telling a group of Washington reporters: "I certainly hope he doesn't succeed."

Minutes later, as news of the terrorist attacks reached the hotel conference room where the Democrats were having breakfast with the reporters, Carville announced: "Disregard everything we just said! This changes everything!"

The press followed Carville's orders, never reporting his or Greenberg's desire for Bush to fail. The omission was understandable at first, as reporters were consumed with chronicling the new war on terror. But months and even years later, the mainstream media chose to never resurrect those controversial sentiments, voiced by the Democratic Party's top strategists, that Bush should fail.


That omission stands in stark contrast to the feeding frenzy that ensued when radio host Rush Limbaugh recently said he wanted President Obama to fail. The press devoted wall-to-wall coverage to the remark, suggesting that Limbaugh and, by extension, conservative Republicans, were unpatriotic.
Click to expand...
 
Rush Limbaugh EIB Network:

1Q 2009 Revenues up 13.5% over 1Q 2008

Audience up 32% from baseline of 20-22 million listeners.

I hope the Libs keep up the good work.
 
Carville wanted Bush to fail and said so in 2001.

Why is wishing for presidential failure only a bad thing when Republicans do so?

Why is wishing for presidential failure "unpatriotic" only when Republicans do so?

SOURCE

Flashback: Carville Wanted Bush to Fail
The press never reported that Democratic strategist James Carville said he wanted President Bush to fail before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. But a feeding frenzy ensued when radio host Rush Limbaugh recently said he wanted President Obama to fail.

By Bill Sammon

FOXNews.com

Wednesday, March 11, 2009

On the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, just minutes before learning of the terrorist attacks on America, Democratic strategist James Carville was hoping for President Bush to fail, telling a group of Washington reporters: "I certainly hope he doesn't succeed."

Carville was joined by Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg, who seemed encouraged by a survey he had just completed that revealed public misgivings about the newly minted president.

"We rush into these focus groups with these doubts that people have about him, and I'm wanting them to turn against him," Greenberg admitted.

The pollster added with a chuckle of disbelief: "They don't want him to fail. I mean, they think it matters if the president of the United States fails."

Minutes later, as news of the terrorist attacks reached the hotel conference room where the Democrats were having breakfast with the reporters, Carville announced: "Disregard everything we just said! This changes everything!"

The press followed Carville's orders, never reporting his or Greenberg's desire for Bush to fail. The omission was understandable at first, as reporters were consumed with chronicling the new war on terror. But months and even years later, the mainstream media chose to never resurrect those controversial sentiments, voiced by the Democratic Party's top strategists, that Bush should fail.

That omission stands in stark contrast to the feeding frenzy that ensued when radio host Rush Limbaugh recently said he wanted President Obama to fail. The press devoted wall-to-wall coverage to the remark, suggesting that Limbaugh and, by extension, conservative Republicans, were unpatriotic.

"The most influential Republican in the United States today, Mr. Rush Limbaugh, said he did not want President Obama to succeed," Carville railed on CNN recently. "He is the daddy of this Republican Congress."

Limbaugh, a staunch conservative, emphasized that he is rooting for the failure of Obama's liberal policies.

"The difference between Carville and his ilk and me is that I care about what happens to my country," Limbaugh told Fox on Wednesday. "I am not saying what I say for political advantage. I oppose actions, such as Obama's socialist agenda, that hurt my country.

"I deal in principles, not polls," Limbaugh added. "Carville and people like him live and breathe political exploitation. This is all a game to them. It's not a game to me. I am concerned about the well-being and survival of our nation. When has Carville ever advocated anything that would benefit the country at the expense of his party?"

Carville told Politico that focusing on Limbaugh is a deliberate strategy aimed at undermining Republicans.

"The television cameras just can't stay away from him," he said. "Our strategy depends on him keeping talking, and I think we're going to succeed."

Greenberg added: "He's driving the Republican reluctance to deal with Obama, which Americans want."

In 2006, 51 percent of Democrats wanted Bush to fail, according to a FOX News/Opinion Dynamics poll.
Click to expand...
 
Weird how they don't give any citations or context to Carvile's remarks and there's never any link to that poll or the actual question it asked.

Hmmnn....makes you wonder if Fox is making up shit again. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top