[wardaddy]

I would like (actually not really but you get my point) to see some decisive proof aside from allegations.

But, you both sound like you both feel prudent silence may be in his interest....and not just as an abstract notion.

Is that not unsettling to you guys? It is to me. I have generally given great weight to the majority of Rush's views since the late 80s and am very troubled by what I'm seeing so far. I would place him in the ranks with Reagan and Newt insofar as movement galvanizers and this is pretty ugly stuff even if only part true....and aside from him...it gives our foes inexhaustible ammo.

I do not feel good about this. If he is guilty of nothing and the whole thing is a fabrication by the Clines and Ed Shohat, he could have said so from the second it landed.

I hope you guys are right.

[snopercod]

Is that not unsettling to you guys?

The whole thing is unsettling to me, not so much due to the possibility that Rush might have been addicted to painkillers, but due to the coordinated attack on him by the left and the media (same organization, really).

Rush is largely responsible for slowing down America's headlong dash down the Road to Serfdom. He has given freedom-loving people like me hope that what we used to know as America can still be saved.

But our country is closer to tyranny than we would like to admit if the media and their liberal handlers can orchestrate the destruction of anybody who opposes them, which appears to be the case here.

Regardless of whether Rush had a drug problem or not, what they are attempting is a danger to all of us.

[I_dmc]

One hopes its the "quiet before the storm". One good reason to keep mum is to build your case for a mega-lawsuit. Wouldn't it be cheerful if the Bush/Ahnold/Rush attacks could be traced to a certain "lady" of high ambition? ;-)