Posted on 05/15/2004 3:30:47 PM PDT by wagglebee
Edited on 07/12/2004 4:15:23 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Six years ago, the national drama revolved around a heavily investigated leader, his allegedly partisan prosecutor, and the media's fervent desire to save the leader from the prosecutor by hailing the leader as essential to the country and demeaning the prosecutor as a sleazy menace. That was then, and this is now. The current legal situation surrounding Rush Limbaugh does not involve lying under oath, abusing public office, and inappropriate adultery with the much younger help. But now that he has admitted his dreadful addiction to prescription pain-killers and made the painful steps of recovery, Mr. Limbaugh faces a sleazy and reportedly duplicitous Democratic prosecutor in Palm Beach County: Barry Krischer. Where on Earth are the press corps who so despised the alleged use of the prosecutor's office for political gain six years ago? In the May issue of the American Spectator, Sam Dealey, a reporter for The Hill newspaper, lays out the whole Limbaugh story, including the scandalous or questionable tactics of the Limbaugh-haters. Start with former housemaid Wilma Cline and her crooked husband David, who became Mr. Limbaugh's drug suppliers. David Cline skipped bond on a cocaine-trafficking charge for seven years, and then served five years in prison. He was arrested again in 2000 for drug and fraud convictions that earned 18 months probation, which was no doubt violated by feeding Rush's regrettable addiction. Do you remember all those network news reports breathlessly relaying the Clines' story last fall? Where are they now? The Clines sold their story to the National Enquirer for $250,000. Mr. Dealey reports the Clines tried to blackmail Rush, demanding $4 million to keep their mouths shut. Remember all the splashy news magazine stories last fall? Where are they now? Unlike Bill Clinton, Rush Limbaugh never tried to dismiss the story as nothing but lies for cash. But the press that so passionately underlined the tabloid payoff for Gennifer Flowers in 1992 made no attempt to scrutinize Mr. Limbaugh's accusers about low character or outsized greediness. Then there's Barry Krischer, the Florida state attorney for Palm Beach County. Mr. Krischer initially suggested there would be no prosecution of Mr. Limbaugh, since the usual pattern was to target the drug sellers, not the users. But once liberals around the country smelled the political potential of legal trouble for Rush
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
Look, I'm only applying what Rush considered fair and just to him. (of course tounge in cheek).
did we chop somebody's head off? Hopefully not. However, we are investigating deaths now at the prison that look as if they were from "natural causes." Of course, was the head chopper Iraqi or some other vermin who crossed the border?
It doesn't say anywhere that prisoners get special treatment. It does make clear that rights are endowed by the Creator. I don't think the creator uses borders to determine who gets his special treatment.
ping
Right ON Brent!!!!
Anyone who heard/read Rush's comments in their proper context would know that Rush was not attempting to justify prisoner abuse.
He was simply putting acts like making Iraqi prisoners wear women's panties, or go naked in front of women on leashes and embarrassing them, into a rational perspective when it comes to the REAL torture that has gone on the other side, and what we are up against.
Rush is right. When compared to Saddam's thugs feeding people into shredders, dropping them in vats of acid, chopping of limbs and tongues, to terrorists sawing off people's head's on video tape...what the American prison guards did is child's play.
Rush was trying to make a defense for the administration cause this was gonna be a stinky and sticky situation for them. He goofed.
Why should what 7 to 10 prison guards did be "a stinky and sticky situation" for the military let alone the administration?
Only the most naive would think that none of the hundreds of thousands of military personel could possibly commit crimes, and if they do it's Bush's fault. How childish.
You're not really a conservative, are you?
You probably think that if you are arrested in Brussels you can appeal to the US Supreme Court, too.The Declaration of Independence asserts that "all men are . . . endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights." The Constitution codifies the way those rights are to be respected by American government in peacetime in America. Which is not the same as what happens under martial law, which is the situation in Iraq. There is no Iraqi government, no Iraqi law - but there are American troops imposing as much order as practical, under the president's direction. But, I suspect, in Iraq if you look at a soldier the wrong way, you could wake up dead.
Did Bush personally sanction this? Hell no. Did he ignore some of the findings of organizations like the Red Cross? How about conservatives who put down as a bunch of nosey do gooders last summer and fall? Did the admin do the same?
No, but we are trying to implement a civil society in a very sick part of the world. Anal light sticks don't seem to be the way to do it. Niether does a chick ( and a not very attractive one at that) pointing at men's genitals giving a thumbs up.
Of course Burkeman and JoeBuke are not conservatives. They are here to bash and try to change someone's mind to the liberal point of view, which we all know equals believing lies.
Any true conservative, whether they agree with Limbaugh or not, will certainly give him the respect he deserves for all he has done for the conservative voice.
A conservative bashing Rush is about as believable as Barney Franks slamming Ted Kennedy because of Teddy's support of baby murders. Rush Limbaugh is not a voice any conservative (read "normal/sane") person would want to condemn or silence.
First of all the pictures of the "wired" man were staged and there is no evidence whatsoever that the prisoner was actually subjected to electrical shock torture.
Secondly I didn't see this photo until a couple of days after the first ones came out, so the same is probably true for Rush as well.
I listen to Rush everyday and he did NOT refer to this photo in his "frat" hazing comments.
Thirdly Rush never disagreed that these things "should have never happened", but merely put them into their proper perspective when compared to the REAL torture by our enemies and Saddam.
And Rush is absolutely right. The terrorists must be laughing their heads off to see the hand wringing and undermining of the US war on terrorism over the acts of a few prison guards. It's ridiculous.
Oh, so when Rush is in error, we just keep quiet? I'm not saying he should be silenced. But he stepped on his you know what with his golf shoes and now is trying to back pedal and spin it. He spent more time spinning than clarifying and explaining.
"Appears to be"? So far only few prison guards have actually been indicted. Show me something to support your claim.
Now there are reports from other Iraqi detention centers, Afghanistan and Guantanamo.
Are there really?
If this is true then post those "reports" here for all of us to read.
I watch the news nearly all day and haven't heard of any such "reports".
It doesn't matter if the wires were hooked up or not. Frankly, we really don't know if they were, do we. And yes, the psychos in the mid-east and elsewhere are laughing cause we don't stand for what we stand for.
http://news.myway.com/top/article/id/403633|top|05-15-2004::18:06|reuters.html
http://news.myway.com/top/article/id/389736|top|05-15-2004::05:47|reuters.html
"Oh, so when Rush is in error, we just keep quiet?"
You got that right! Have you not learned a thing from the liberals? Never let go of the wheel!
I understand DU is having a training seminar tomorrow from 4 till 6:00 eastern.
you leading the session?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.