Brilliant Think Piece: How Did Freedom Become So Controversial? (Rush Lits Into Bush Critics)

RushLimbaugh.com ^ | 01/21/05 | Rush Limbaugh

[goldstategop]

Freedom? Why we can't have that! It'll make every one mad at us. And it makes the Left look like pipsqueaks. Here's Rush's brilliant think piece in which he lits into President Bush's critics. You'll never look at the Inaugural Address the same way again after you've seen it through the discerning mind of the Maha Rushie.

[AMadtes]

0nce again, Rush gets it right

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

An additional resource:

**************************************

Unholy Alliance
by David Horowitz
Regnery Publishing, Inc.; ISBN: 089526076X
Hardcover - 256 pages (September 2004)

In this tour de force on the most important issue of our time, David Horowitz, confronts the paradox of how so many Americans, including the leadership of the Democratic Party, could turn against the War on Terror. He finds an answer in a political Left that shares a view of America as the “Great Satan” with America’s radical Islamic enemies. This Left, which once made common cause with Communists, has now joined forces with radical Islam in attacking America’s defenses at home and its policies abroad. From their positions of influence in the university and media culture, leftists have defined America as the “root cause” of the attacks against it. In a remarkable exploration of the “Mind of the Left,” Horowitz traces the evolution of American radicalism from its Communist past to its “anti-war” present. He then shows how this Left was able to turn the Democratic Party presidential campaign around and reshape its views on the War on Terror.

Horowitz’s Unholy Alliance, writes John Haynes, the noted historian of American Communism, “is an insightful, brilliant examination of the mental world of the radical left. Horowitz shows how today’s radicals, unwilling to reflect on the internal flaws that destroyed Marxism-Leninism from within, have embraced an all-consuming nihilism in its place. This has led them to a hatred of American institutions and a solidarity with Islamic terrorists that makes the radical left more properly regarded as dangerous than loony.”

Unholy Alliance is an eye-opening book that should unsettle conventional assumptions and reveals why intellectuals and political leaders who applaud Michael Moore are no laughing matter. As Harvey Klehr, author of Venona: Decoding Soviet Espionage in America, writes, “The world Communist movement may be moribund, but its habits of mind and ideological fantasies have not disappeared. This is a fascinating and depressing account.”

Price: $19.01 - Click here to order:

[My2Cents]

I had the same thought last night -- when did the Democratic Party become the biggest opponent to the spread of democracy?

[68-69TonkinGulfYachtClub]

It's time that Kerry signs Form 180.
Wake up Right Wing Main Stream Media.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1325549/posts

[Soul Seeker]

Rush was on Fire today.

[Edit35]

Rush is correct, once again.

I find it astonishing that so many hard core conservatives are shaking in their boots tonight at the thought that America should be willing to support those seeking to get out from under the boot of despots and dictators.

[liberty2004]

0nce again, Rush gets it right

Rush is the master of logical clarity and passion for what is right.

[My2Cents]

Last evening, Alan Colmes I think it was, was throwing cold water on Bush's "spread democracy" doctrine, saying that "Bush really only has 2-and-a-half or 3 years to get this done...is it even feasible?" Colmes is a small thinker. He assumes that Bush can work at his objective while he's in office, and then the US can dump the policy and move on to something else. But what Bush articulated in his inaugural address is nothing short of the replacement of the Cold War policies. The effort to defend the western world from the threat of Soviet Communism lasted over 50 years -- Truman through Reagan. Every administration, Democrat or Republican, was dedicated to the policy. I think Bush articulated something that may take 20-30 years to achieve, maybe less, but it is something that the US should dedicate itself to, and work on into future administrations. He's articulating the next great endeavor for America, and candidates for president in 2008, 2012, 2016, etc., will likely be judged by how they will promote the policy. It's to the detriment of the Democrats if they think this is a short-term, Bush-only policy. History is on the side of democracy, especially over the past 20 years. It's time we did whatever we can to speed this process along.

[NorCalRepub]

well it is a noble thought but there are some that think we should not be the world's policeman.............I actually see both sides of the issue.....the one thing that bothers me a bit is that Pres Bush says we will back you up if you want freedom.........well we didn't do this for the Shiite's under his father and if Iran decides to revolt right now......do we have the resources to help????... Just my thoughts, no need to flame me, I'm just looking at both sides

[blackeagle]

bump!

[carlr]

I find it astonishing that so many hard core conservatives are shaking in their boots tonight at the thought that America should be willing to support those seeking to get out from under the boot of despots and dictators.

Me too,I have felt my entire life that the US not only had the right but the duty to try to foster democracy and freedom in the world.
Why?Because this is the greatest Nation on the face of the earth.To me this is the conservative position.
Thank God that President Reagan also shared this philosophy.By being a strong force at home and abroad the Soviet Union was defeated.He did not cower from the fight to extend freedom to East Germany,Poland,El Salvador etc.He took the fight to them and left a better world for the effort.

[listenhillary]

WHOO HOO! What a rant!

[listenhillary]

Freedom = economic prosperity that lifts all boats

[Edit35]

the one thing that bothers me a bit is that Pres Bush says we will back you up

President Bush did NOT say we will "back you up" carte blanche if you start a revolt, or whatever it is you imply.

Go back and re-read the speech on the White House web site.

And where are you getting this "do we have the resources? thing. I heard nothing about sending supplies or troops or anything.

Just verbal (moral) support from an American President who thinks the world would be better off with freedom than it would with crazy dictators.

[B-bone]

"How Did Freedom Become So Controversial?"

Rush didn't get to be RUSH without hitting the nail on the hear.

Freedom became controversial because Bush means what he says. If Clinton had delivered this speech, everyone would be gushing all over it because they know he won't do a thing about it. Bush frightens and confounds the Washington establishment because he actually means what he says.

What a concept.

That's why Bush resonates in fly-over country. If your word isn't good, you won't last long.

[NorCalRepub]

well I'm getting this mostly from pundits, conservatives and Republicans on Fox and CNN etc. It is mostly their argument about the fact that we will back your play. Not my words so with that in mind, I wonder and others do to, (not talking about libs here) if given the interpretation, we could walk the walk. It is not a criticism at all

[Arizona]

Freedom became controversial because Bush means what he says. If Clinton had delivered this speech, everyone would be gushing all over it because they know he won't do a thing about it. Bush frightens and confounds the Washington establishment because he actually means what he says.

Exactly!

[26lemoncharlie]

Rush must have been reading my posts about the UN being FIlled with Gangsters, Murderers and Thieves!! I like his addition of Pimps though!! Rush hit the Nail on the Head.

Get the US, OUT of the UN and the UN OUT of the US!!

[Ohioan]

I find it astonishing that so many hard core conservatives are shaking in their boots tonight at the thought that America should be willing to support those seeking to get out from under the boot of despots and dictators.

We are not "shaking in our boots," not at all. Some of us have been in the trenches, fighting collectivist ideology, and fought this sloganized nonsense in the 1960s, when misuse of the same terms, "Freedom and Democracy" was being espoused by the Dean Rusk State Department, and spreading havoc across much of Africa. We also understand why General Washington, who feared no man, advocated a very different approach to other Nations.

No, Sir. We are not "shaking in our boots." We are outraged. There is a very significant difference! Learn to live with it.

William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site