Replies

First off you need to apologize for your post #491 in which you took what I said out of context and gave it your own perverted meaning because you could not deal with the reasoned contents of my original post. You seemed so upset when this was done to your post so I would think you would want to correct your mistake when you purposely did it to someone else.

Secondly quit ducking the issue and point out what Rush has done wrong. Just because he has not read this letter on his show does not make him the problem. And since you don't listen to his show you don't want other people to listen to Rush's show because he is a cino in your own words what difference does it make to you if Rush reads this letter?

Thirdly if Rush is not reaching enough people as you say then why do you insist on him reading the letter if your new media web site is reaching more people?

Fourth Rush has mentioned Kerry on Form 180 on his radio show. And since he did it before the election when it really counted like Mr. Bud Day then what is your problem with Rush? Here is part of two transcripts from Rush’s show:

Political Disaster Brews for Kerry

October 29, 2004

Listen to Rush…
(…play very some very revealing Kerry answers to Tom Brokaw)

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: What happened to Kerry last night on the Nightly News, sticking with the explosive story as the centerpiece of his campaign by telling Brokaw it's not unfair to blame Bush for this. Now, keep in mind here: What Kerry did was accuse the president of not having a plan to secure the weapons. Today thanks to the Pentagon briefer and that Army major we found the president and the military did have a plan to secure the weapons. They not only had a plan, they executed a plan to secure weapons! They did it! They were competent. Brokaw's question, "This week you've been very critical of the president because of the missing explosives in Iraq. The fact is, senator, we still don't know what happened to those explosives. How many for sure that were there; who might have gotten away with them. Is unfair to the president just as you believe he's unfair to you, to blame him for that?"

KERRY: No. It's not unfair. Because what we do know from the commanders on the ground is that they went there as they marched to Baghdad. You can read stories today that they broke locks off of the doors, took photographs of materials in there -- there were materials -- and they left.

RUSH: Nooooooo, they didn't, senator. We have just learned today, senator, they didn't just take photographs of the materials in there and leave. They didn't leave, senator. Well, they left, but they took weapons and explosives with them when they left. That's why this is a political disaster brewing for Senator Kerry today, because a totally believable major in the United States Army, Austin Pearson, clearly explained how he went in, found stuff at this dump, and removed 250 tons of it. He just didn't "take pictures" of it. The next bite, Brokaw follows up with this, "But the flip side of that is if you had been president, Saddam Hussein would still be in power."

KERRY: Not necessarily at all.

BROKAW: Well, you have said you wouldn't go to war against him.

KERRY: That's not true, because under the inspection process Saddam Hussein was required to destroy those kinds of materials and weapons --

BROKAW: But he wasn't destroying.

KERRY: -- and we would. That's what you have inspectors for.

RUSH: Stop the tape, stop the tape. This is where Kerry is stepping in it all over the place. Congratulations, Tom Brokaw. Brokaw says, "But he wasn't destroying them," and Kerry says, "Well, that's what you have the inspectors for." The inspectors left! The inspectors didn't destroy anything; they tagged things! In fact the inspectors were ordered to destroy things, we're talking about all the way back to 1995, and the IAEA didn't do it. Inspectors ordered these very weapons that we're talking about, these explosives, were ordered destructed in NBC, and Mohammed ElBaradei and Hans Blix didn't think they were big enough and important enough because they didn't think they had any relation to WMD programs so they didn't destroy them. The inspectors ordered the IAEA; Kerry's most favored place in the world, the UN, didn't destroy them. And so this answer -- go back to the top of this. This whole answer is just, it's just a gold mine to illustrate John Kerry's incompetence. Again the question: "But the flip side of that is, is that if you had been president, Saddam Hussein would still be in power." Well, it's still cueing up but when it gets cued up I want to play this whole answer from the top because you will hear contradictions here in Kerry's first five or six sentences.

KERRY: Not necessarily at all.

BROKAW: Well, you have said you wouldn't go to war against him.

KERRY: That's not true. Because under the inspection process, Saddam Hussein was required to destroy those kinds of materials and weapons --

BROKAW: But he wasn't destroying them.

KERRY: But... and that's what you have inspectors for. And that's why I voted for the threat of force because he only does things when you have a legitimate threat of force. It's absolutely impossible and irresponsible to suggest that if I were president he wouldn't necessarily be gone. He might be gone, because if he hadn't complied we might have had to go to war and we might have gone to war. But if he did, I'll tell you this, Tom, we'd have gone to war with allies in a way that the American people weren't carrying the burden and the entire world understood why we were doing it.

RUSH: The entire world understood why we were doing it. The question is... The entire world, very small portion of the world, two of the three countries that you hold dear didn't agree with what we were doing, senator: France and Germany. You would have stopped this because of France and Germany. Your global test would have prevented you in going in there. You can sit here and use hindsight all day long and say, "Well, Saddam only reacted to the threat of force." You didn't want any threat of force back in 1990 with the first Gulf War. You voted against that threat -- not only the threat but the use of force back then, senator. It is very responsible to suggest that if you were president you wouldn't necessarily have gotten rid of Saddam Hussein because you've just said in this same bite you would have let the inspection process and sanctions play out, and you wouldn't have gone in there anyway because you'd have never gotten France and Germany to go with you because they were on the take. Saddam was paying them via the oil-for-food program to vote against us, Senator Kerry, your precious United Nations. One more bite. Brokaw says: "You know, somebody has analyzed the president's military aptitude tests and yours, examine they've concluded that President Bush has a higher IQ than you do, senator."

KERRY: That's great. More power. I don't know how they've done it because my record isn't out in the public, so... But I don't know where you're getting that from.

RUSH: Oh, really? Your record isn't public, senator? I thought you had made your military records all public. I thought they were all on your website, senator. Now you admit that your records aren't public? See, this bothers him. Brokaw says that military analysts have concluded Bush has a higher IQ than Kerry. So Kerry, he can't handle this. So he screws up by saying, "I don't know. My records haven't been released." Yeah, senator, and why not? Is it because there's a questionable passage there on your discharge, senator? Is that why you won't sign Form 180 to release all your records? Is there some question about your honorable discharge, senator? ( 1 | 2 ) Hmm?

END TRANSCRIPT

Press Buried Kerry Facts

November 8, 2004

Listen to Rush…
(...list some of the vote-changing Kerry facts the partisan press simply didn't report)

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

I mentioned a minute ago, we went through some of the media myths that were passed off as media truths. I'm gonna go look at some things here via our friends at the AmericanThinker.com, a great conservative blogger site out there, and the column here is called, "Reading Tea Leaves." It's by "Nathan Hale," and this is all about the things that the media knew about John Kerry, but weren't interested in -- and believe me, folks I left this out, the media got Bush a lot of votes. The media organized a lot of Republicans. The media contributed to this notion that this was not fair, that there was a bunch of cheating go on, and it steeled the resolve of people who didn't agree with them rather than persuade them. Another reason why I tell you you ought to be confident about where your country is right now. Here are a few stories the mainstream press couldn't have cared less about.

"John Kerry was quite possibly less than honorably discharged by the Navy. The facts surrounding this case have been documented by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and The New York Sun [ 1 | 2 ].... Kerry refused to sign the Standard Form 180 and at least 100 pages of his military record remain hidden from view." The question ask yourself is: "Can anyone seriously contemplate a Republican managing to run for office as a war hero without releasing such records?" Do you know what Dan Rather and Mary Mapes would have been spending their time on trying to find, and when they found it, do you think they would have just kept it a secret? If there was a rumor that Bush had been dishonorably discharged that's all we would have heard about. With John Kerry, there was no interest whatsoever in the mainstream press.

"John Kerry is a cancer survivor who refused to release his medical records," and Clinton didn't either. The press didn't care. "The fact that Kerry is a cancer survivor who did not release his records, after the death of Paul Tsongas during what might have been his presidency, is entirely germane to voters' consideration of him. If Rudy Giuliani runs for president in '08, and he doesn't release his medical records, do you think the press is going to let him get away with it? (pause) Doubt it. A third one: "John Kerry and Teresa Heinz released less financial information than any candidate in history. We all know about the 'failed Arkansas land deal' and the trauma that caused our country. What would have happened if...links between Teresa's fortune and radical Democrats and their 527s had been documented only after the election? We do not have enough proof to declare Ms. Heinz guilty of anything. But the appearance of impropriety certainly follows her around like a cloud...

"The simple fact is that no one knows how many of Kerry's 55 million voters would have voted for Bush or simply withheld their vote for Kerry had they had better information," about where she was spending her money and what her full tax burden was and how few and little taxes she was paying. The mainstream press did not report the stuff about her tax rate being an effective 12.8%. They were not interested in that story -- and, of course, they were never interested at all in what the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth had to say. So there are a number of things that were big news out there but that the media was not interested in. So they constructed a bunch of myths that were not true about Kerry, promulgated those, and ignored a bunch of things that were -- or at least were curious and had they been items of a Republican candidate, no money would have been spared digging to the bottom of it to find out what it was.

END TRANSCRIPT

Once again I do not see the relevance of your bashing Rush as it relates to the contents of Mr. Bud Day's letter. On one hand you insist that Rush is meaningless and then other you want him to be your spokes person. Which is it?