This is supposed to be a big victory to cheer about?
All I saw in that transcript was Rush putting words in the caller's mouth and generalizing about him/her because she happened to have valid questions about the war.
If this war is supposedly so valid, why do facts about the war have to be proven with generalizations?
Ringo
Hello sleeper... nice knowing ya'...
Oh, just looked at your post history... not a sleeper but an honest-to-goodness bleeding heart lib... wonder if the mods will let you stick around?
There were no valid questions, just liberal talking points. Rush was spot on and you won't be around here long with your MoveOn spin.
The facts have been out since the war started, bozo. Try to keep up, will you?
What's with you trolls tonight? Are you trying to save the Casey Funderally? Has your party over Casey's dead body gotten too boring for the press these days? Are you just looking for something to kill time until your government checks come in?
Because slow learners like you, need it spelled out...again and again. Verrry slooowwwllyyy. Go beat a drum somewhere else, RINGO. sheesh!
May I suggest you read 
. Just click on the picture to order a copy from Barnes and Noble.com.
"Germs: Biological Weapons and America's Secret War is one of the most documented books that you'll find on the subject.
Only liberal communist pinkos try to suppress thought with the "You can't use generalizations" speech. Generalizations are either two ways. They will hit the nail right on the head or they miss their mark entirely. In this case, they correctly apply. The logic of Rush's generalizations pegs you so hard, you can stand it. The truth is still ringing in the void between your ears. They only response you have is to parrot the liberal mantra on positions you can't argue.
Ringo ... your courteous response to the flames thrown your way have moved me to point out a couple of things to you.
It was the caller to Rush who was not only generalizing, but stating falsehoods when he said there are no sons of our elected representatives serving in the war ... there is no valid point in what he was saying.
The caller's statement that the war is not a noble cause is merely his opinion, and is a clue to where his thoughts and sentiment lies ... against the war.
I would argue it is a most noble cause, this war in Iraq ... we have liberated 25 million people, freeing them from the yoke of terror and brutality that was Saddam's regime. All the al quada-types flooding into that country are seeking to reimipose that terror upon those people, and to restore Iraq to its former status as an agent and exporter of terror.
The war itself is only a battle in the larger War on Terror, which will be ongoing for a long time ... though on the surface it is a military conflict, it is primarily a contest of ideas ... medieval vs. modern ... facist vs. democratic.
Saddam's Iraq supported and sponsored and instigated terror throughout the world.
The new Iraq fights and will continue to fight terror.
The world is full of harsh realities ... it is the way of life.
Many good men and women have wished it were otherwise, and have died trying to make it so. They each have made a difference, small or large.
We eitiher let evil shape the future, or we stand up and take the reins in hand and do our best to shape it ourselves.
It ain't pretty, but it's glorious and noble and really the only game in town.
You need to lay off the laxatives, you've poo'd yer brains out already.
Generalizations? We've heard the truths of success from the Iraqis, from the mouths of our courageous Soldiers and seen it proven in the massive growing list of scumbag Al Queda dead.
Or are you referring to generalizations like "War for oil", "Unjust War" and my personal favorite "BUSH'S FAULT!"?!?
The one major flaw in your comment? This is Earth...
If it acts like a troll, smells like a troll and posts like a troll...