WHY IS DOUBLESPEAK NEEDED BY BUSH? RUSH WANTS TO KNOW

Because there is more going on than just the middle east...there are issues we know nothing about and Bush is trying to stop an all out war over there that we would be involved in.

Because there is more going on than just the middle east...there are issues we know nothing about and Bush is trying to stop an all out war over there that we would be involved in.

This is a different variey of argument for Bush, unlike the usual "Grand Plan" argument, this argumenet falls into the "Too complex, possible Apocalypse" argument.

Caller now says Rush is just Bush basher! Tells Rush job is to inform and not bash Bush! Yep Bush can do no wrong. CFR and all the other stuff.

Incredible. Rush’s merely saying what other conservatives have been saying, including Alan Keyes and Sean Hannity.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is an issue the world is divided on. Certainly we could expect disagreement in the party ranks over how it should be handled. We shouldn't consider a little disagreement with the President some sort of heretical "bashing."

WHY IS DOUBLESPEAK NEEDED BY BUSH?------

Here's why -------

Rush is dedicated to freedom and liberty. He is diametrically opposed to big government and its proponents. Rush recognizes that the people of our once great nation are now well on the way to serfdom.

Rush is also a realist. He believes that the Republicans are the only political party that can defeat the real enemy of the people, the Democratic Party. Historically that is true. He is puzzled as to why Republicans have seen gradually increasing levels of political power, but we are still enacting the Democratic agenda rather than the conservative agenda. I don't think Rush has realized how corrupting the Washington scene or the reigns of power actually are. Do not abandon your faith in Rush. He is a very important link in the chain that is preserving what little freedom we have left. In fact, Rush could be our last best hope of freedom. Is there anybody who doubts that Rush would make a fine president? Would he compromise with the Democrats, crush them or go down fighting? I am pretty sure he would have no compunctions about shutting down the government unless they could over-ride his vetoes. I don't see Rush as compromising on principles. When he discusses running for President, he always couches his reasons for not trying as being economically driven, "he can't afford to take the pay cut." I don't know that my theory is correct. It is still untested and unproven. My track record is very good. While I am not always right, I am seldom wrong. People, in fact most people, may frequently disagree with my views, that does not prove them wrong. There is great truth in the old statement that the majority is almost always wrong, and in the few instances where the majority is right, it is for the wrong reasons. Bottom line, my theory has an excellent chance to be right. If it is right, it is worth billions of dollars to someone like Rush. It would more than pay for his campaign and his loss of income while in office.

If you have a way to communicate with Rush send him a link to this web site. Excellence in golf is his for the asking. Are you willing to leave any stone unturned in the fight to save America?

Where is the picture?

"...Certainly more than long enough to develop and even discover new energy technologies."

I'm under the distinct impression that we already have the means to develop sufficient oil and non-oil sources of energy to render us independent. The entire GOP should make this a major issue for '02 and '04 elections. For once in their life go public and tell it like it really is.

BIBI BLASTS BUSH

Just before Wednesday's kickoff, the once-and-future Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, gave a speech to several U.S. senators. I sat riveted watching the speech, because

Bibi drew the line. He answered every question we've raised. He spoke about what's on everybody's mind without camouflaging anything, and drew a response from White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer.

Netanyahu - who I interviewed for the upcoming Limbaugh Letter - spoke a little bit more harshly than is the diplomatic norm, but wasn't angry. There was some frustration, but it was just matter-of-fact. To paraphrase, he said that the Israelis are not the guilty party.

They don't understand why they're being told to stand down when Americans attacked by terrorists aren't standing down at all. Netanyahu feels that the Bush doctrine has been diluted, and therefore no longer exists.

We had great moral clarity in two historic Bush speeches - September 20th and January 29th. Now we have moral ambiguity. In the face of this, Mr. Netanyahu said that the nations condemning Israel can go on condemning, but they're wrong, and Israel is going to do what it must do.

If the rest of the world doesn't have the courage to follow along, so be it.

Netanyahu isn't just visiting the United States.

He's here as an emissary of the Israeli government, so this speech comes straight from that nation's leaders. It's a direct assault on the Bush administration and the American media. It's a challenge to them to get it right, and to put in perspective what's happening in that region of the world. Israel is involved in a fight for the survival of their nation. They have no room for failure, folks. None at all.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_041002/content/truth.guest.html

Now, why is double-speak necessary? Why is it necessary when embraced by Bush but reprehensible when practiced by, say, Bill Clinton? There was no double-speak in Bush's speech to Congress nine days after September 11th. There wasn't any double-speak in his State of the Union. On both occasions, the president spoke unequivocally about our moral responsibilities and about this being a war between good and evil.

Why suspend the president's Churchillian announcements of September 20th and 29th of January, even temporarily? Mr. Blankley contends that the president's backsliding is temporary and is needed to help quiet our European and Arab critics as we try to build support for an attack against Iraq. The irony is that the same Colin Powell pushing this Bush 43 position, urged Bush 41 to leave Iraq before wiping out Saddam Hussein and his regime! Nothing has changed, and so we learn nothing.

Tony Blankley's Washington Times column "Playing to an Audience of Fools." Now, I know how things in D.C. work, so I believe this column is the White House answer/explanation to critics of its Israeli policy. I could be wrong, but I don't think so. Say's Rush Limbaugh

Escorted by U.S. Senator Joseph Leiberman, L, (D-CT), former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (2nd L) shakes hands with Sen. Jesse Helms (R-NC) before addressing a group of U.S. Senators on Capitol Hill, April 10, 2002. Netanyahu called for the removal of Arafat from the region and said the United States must stand by Israel in its fight against terrorism. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque

On Capitol Hill yesterday, about 20 senators gave a warm reception to former Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu, who expressed concern that Israel "is being pressed to back down just when it is on the verge of uprooting Palestinian terror." He asked whether the United States is preparing to "selectively abandon" its principles and asserted the pointlessness of further negotiations with Arafat.

Several lawmakers praised Netanyahu's remarks, suggesting that Bush erred last week when he asked the Sharon government to end the military incursion.

The intensity of feeling surrounding Powell's trip reflects the enduring clout of Israel and its American allies on Capitol Hill. It could also limit Powell's diplomatic maneuvering room by exposing the administration to criticism from its conservative base and others that its approach to fighting terrorism is inconsistent.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28981-2002Apr10.html

Agree