RUSH LIMBAUGH LIVE THREAD, WEDNESDAY August 23, 2006

Reuters

[angcat]

SOME WEDNESDAY SPIN! Most in US see no tie between Iraq, terror war: poll Tue Aug 22, 10:29 PM ET A majority of Americans no longer see a link between the war in Iraq and Washington's broader anti-terrorism efforts despite President George W. Bush's insistence the two are intertwined, according to a New York Times/CBS News poll released on Tuesday. Fifty-one percent of those surveyed said the war in Iraq was separate from the U.S. government's war on terrorism. The findings were a considerable shift from polls taken in 2002 and early 2003, when a majority considered the two to be linked, The New York Times said. As recently as June, opinion was evenly split, with 41 percent on both sides of the divide. Now only 32 percent considered Iraq to be a major part of the fight against terrorism, the newspaper said. According to the poll, 46 percent said the Bush administration had concentrated too heavily on Iraq and not enough on terrorists elsewhere. Fifty-three percent said going to war in the first place was a mistake, up from 48 percent in July, The New York Times said. Bush's approval ratings remained unchanged at 36 percent. His popularity has been damaged by the unpopular war in Iraq, in which the U.S. military death toll is 2,610. As recently as Monday, Bush defended the invasion of Iraq as crucial to preventing more domestic terror attacks. "If you believe that the job of the federal government is to secure this country, it's really important for you to understand that success in Iraq is part of securing the country," Bush said during a news conference. The unpopularity of the Iraq war has many Republicans nervous about the party's chances in the November midterm elections in which Democrats are seeking to retake control of the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate. The Times/CBS News poll of 1,206 adults was conducted Thursday through Monday and had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

[LibertyLee]

I believe that George Soros or those of his ilk are financially sustaining liberal media. Don't the Saudi's own Fox News?

I believe that's not correct. Murdoch still has a majority of shares in News Corp., the owning company. I have no doubt that Soros has his tentacles in many of the media companies, and Lord knows, I'm not excusing it, but I really do believe that it's not Soros that's "running" the drive by media, but a mind-set that goes back really far back..

[TexasPatriot8]

Yeah Rush is just so out of touch. Highest rated radio show ever, most listeners ever, highest percentage of educated listeners ever. Yeah. Our of touch. Out of touch with stupid liberals maybe. :)

[TexasPatriot8]

NOW you understand what I'm saying. I knew we agreed with each other, I just wasn't comming across right. :)

[TexasPatriot8]

I kept responding because I know I'm right. The fact that you "cut and paste" so much indicates your argument is kinda weak and can't hold water under tight scrutiny. :) But I love you too. :) You're lost as a Hogan's goat, but I love ya'. :)

[TexasPatriot8]

No need to march against them. The NYslimes has tanked losing half their profits in the past two years, that is the march. :) And the courts are being fixed by the conservative majority. That's one reason that I will not support a RINO like Giuliani for President. He would never have nominated Roberts or Alito for SC. No President in the history of the country has ever nominated people for the SC that they know disagree with them. The only time that happens is people like O'Conner and Kennedy who say "oh yeah, I'm a conservative, fer sure, totally, really I am" and then vote the way they REALLY feel. Clinton and Carter put up liberals, Reagan and Bush 41 and W Bush put up either conservatives or people who they believed to be conservative, and Giuliani would put up Kennedy and O'Connor types, because he's a middle of the road riding RINO like they are.

Just once though, I'd like a Democrat President to put up a SC nominee that they believe to be a liberal, and then they turn out to be a moderate or a constructionist conservative. THAT would be funny, but it would require there actually being another Democrat President, and I'm not willing to go for that for a pipe dream closet conservative Democrat Judicial nominee. :) Conservatives are neverin the closet, everyone knows they're conservatives because they're not ashamed of it. Liberals are the only ones in the closet because they know that their values didn't help create the country.

[TexasPatriot8]

I'm sure leaning Allen. That whole "Maca" thing is "caca". Like I said the other day, my wife is quarter Cherokee and has full blooded Indians in the family and she never even heard that term. And while Allen gets roasted in the news for that, Hillary gets off scot for saying Ghandi works in a 7-11, and Biden gets off for saying that you can't walk into a gas station without someone talking like a Pakistani, and the other racist Democrat comments. It's such filthy hypocrisy and won't matter. At least Allen is a real conservative. Unlike Giuliani.

[Jo Nuvark]

You're right. The media don't need Soros to feed their lustfuly desire to kill America. They already dance to that beat.

I need to research who is funding the ACLU. Would not be surprised to find Soros' odor wafting from that pile of dung.

[Jo Nuvark]

http://www.northcarolinaconservative.com/archives.php?subaction=showfull&id=1123542168&archive=1123543715&start_from=&ucat=&

Roger Nash Baldwin was the founder of the American Civil Liberties Union and a notable American Communist. These are facts. Now, read his words:

“I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class and sole control by those who produce wealth. Communism is, of course, the goal."— Harvard Class Book of 1935, spotlighting Baldwin's class of 1905 on its thirtieth anniversary.[1]

“Do steer away from making it look like a Socialist enterprise...We want also to look like patriots in everything we do. We want to get a good lot of flags, talk a good deal about the Constitution and what our forefathers wanted to make of this country, and to show that we are really the folks that really stand for the spirit of our institutions.”— Baldwin's advice in 1917 to Louis Lochner of the socialist People’s Council in Minnesota. [1]

...snip...

George Soros funds the ACLU. Certainly you all remember George Soros?

“Soros may be the biggest political fat cat of all time. Convicted in France of insider trading, Soros specializes in weakening or collapsing the currencies of entire nations for his own selfish interests. He is known as the man who broke the Bank of England. His power is such that his statements alone can cause currencies to go up or down.

[KevinDavis]

I agree.. I trust Allen than I do Rudy...

[Roccus]

Several times today I've admitted my shame for that vote. I can't change the past. But I can make sure I don't make that mistake again. Those who say here that they will vote third party or sit out if the Republicans don't give the nod to the person of their choosing are making the same mistake that I, and many Republicans made in 92. Hell, I didn't have to admit to it on this forum. I chose to so that others might see the foolishness of what they are saying. Learn from my mistake. You don't like Giulliani, fine. You don't like McCain, fine. But what are you gonna do if one of them gets the nod???

Learn also from the way the libs have brought this country to the point it's at. INCRIMENTALISM. You most likely will NOT get everything you want in one shot. So take what you can. You have to differentiate between your wants and your gots.
As to whether or not the War is the be all and end all, IT IS!!!!! Take all your morals and culture and see how far they get you when these bastards start to do to us what they do to Israel. When the rockets start flying into San Diego from Mexico, or an LNG tanker goes boom in a major port, or airliners drop into cities, culture and morals won't mean squat.

[roses of sharon]

If Newt thinks it's WWIII then why is he dissing his CIC on TV with boots on the ground, if he has complaints or ideas for the Pres he can tell him privately.

As for Rudy, I asked if he can be a ruthless SOB, because I don't know.

So far I haven't heard him diss the President and the war effort in public, it remains to be seen, but if he does, I will refuse him.

[DCWonk]

Discussing '08 when '06 is imminent is TAKING YOUR EYE OFF THE BALL, Rush.

Of course, if you WANT the Dems to win, say, the House, in '06 so that you wind up scaring the 'spit' out of the Country so that Reps become motivated to get it back in '08, well, then it's OK.

McCain is DAMAGED GOODS, a commie Manchurian Candidate, too unstable to elect to the executive office.

George Allen, much wiser choice. He's 'my commander-in-chief choice', or, sounds like "mycocho", for short.