Replies

In Rush's Friday show, he made a very interesting comment about Hillary's statement:

In the first part of Hillary's question, right before we came out of the break, she was saying that you don't need these pictures to be revulsed. That just reading descriptions of these pictures is enough to revulse anybody.
I'm going to tell you, folks. Mark the date, May 7th, 2004. She and others who say that are going to regret that they said it. I will say no more. I'm just telling you there's a good chance that if we learn all there is to know about this, that describing this as revulsing is going to be really offensive to some people.

Anyone care to opine on what Rush meant?

419 posted on 05/08/2004 11:01:44 AM PDT by COBOL2Java (If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you are reading this in English, thank a soldier.)

I think Rush was referring to the homosexual aspect of this. It may come out that the soldiers who did this are practicing homosexuals, and the militant homo lobby will resent that characterization of their lifestyle. They may pull support from HIllary.

Does that sound like it fits?

Of course I know that the real issue here isn't gay rights, it's the destruction of America. So they may forgive her as doing what is necessary to acheive a larger goal.