Posted on 10/03/2007 10:12:07 AM PDT by Petronski
Fred Thompson on Harry Reid’s attacks on Rush Limbaugh
Congressional Democrats are trying to divert attention from insulting our military leader in Iraq and pandering to the loony left by attacking Rush Limbaugh. He is one of the strongest supporters of our troops, yet Democrats claim he is not being strong enough. I wonder who General Petraeus and his troops think is most supportive?
heres an example of Freds response to dimwits...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdAm6UY4xOE
snickers.
Still lying about me, eh? I expect more from FR than DU tactics....quite pathetic of you.
Whoever my candidate will be, he will not have infringed upon my 1A rights.
just for your edification, romney or giuliani as the nominee could convince me to stay home or cast a write-in vote......for the time-being I will hold my nose and vote for freddie if nominated. I know it is unrealistic that Hunter could ever be the nominee, but he is the only (R) that I trust.
But your idea of “standing up” for Rush as freddie supposedly did is just an indication that you (and many others, admittedly) are happy with a (R) with a serious spinal problem.
I call em as I see em.
I asked you a direct question and you spewed an unrelated (partial)quotation. I sidestepped nothing because your comparison was disingenuous on it’s face.
Hugh’s comments are hilarious. Here is one of the best ones. I posted this on another thread but will do it again here.
Hugh and Mitt going to dinner:
WAITER Can I take your order sir?
MITT I think that’s certainly a possibility. Were I to order, I would choose food and something to drink as well.
WAITER Yeah, but what do you want?
MITT I don’t think I can put it to you any more clearly. I meant exactly what I said.
HUGH You want a turkey sandwich and a cup of coffee, right, Mitt?
MITT Thank you, Hugh, I believe in this circumstance you best represent what I might choose under certain conditions.
Whatever ...
He's toast.
LOL
BOOOO ROMNEY!
“I asked you a direct question and you spewed an unrelated (partial)quotation.”
I’m sorry, I must have missed your question.......in which post is it?
You brought up Boehner as a good example. Tell me how Boehner’s comments are substantially different than Thompson’s? And please be sure to use Thompson’s entire response, as it’s not particularly long, you know.
Boehner: "Moveon.org and its cohorts on and off the Hill would certainly like to change the subject away from the slanderous advertisement they placed in the New York Times about U.S. General David Petraeus"Thompson: "Congressional Democrats are trying to divert attention from insulting our military leader in Iraq and pandering to the loony left by attacking Rush Limbaugh."
Oh PUH-PEASE, let's not sound EXACTLY like liberals with all the Bush bash remarks. Bush Denounces Ad Mocking General Petraeus
Boehners response is very direct and does not mischaracterize what is happening or even state that (as freddie does) that dems have said that Rush needs to “be stronger” in supporting the troops.
I asked you waaaay upthread to cite a quote of a dem who states that Rush needs to “be stronger” in supporting the troops........you have yet to do so, and I presume that you cannot. Then from your own link to the Dem letter, I quoted exactly what they affixed their signatures to, and it doesn’t come even close to what freddie pretends that they say.
It appears that your interpretation or inference (whichever) is consistent with whatever is convenient.......but remember it is Rush who often reminds us that “words mean things”. Even freddie knows this, and that is exactly why and how the dems etc aren’t at his fanny today with the dry corn-cobs.
Well, here are Rush's own words on the subject [emphasis mine]:
"RUSH: Here's Fred Thompson's statement that he put on his website this hour: "Congressional Democrats are trying to divert attention from insulting our military leader in Iraq," that would be Petraeus, "and pandering to the loony left by attacking Rush Limbaugh. Limbaugh is one of the strongest supporters of our troops yet Democrats claim he's not being strong enough. I wonder who General Petraeus and his troops think is most supportive?" It's a great question. Do you think Petraeus would rather have me on his side or Tom Lantos or any of these -- forget that -- have me on his side or some of these Looney Toon fringe groups that make up the Democrat base? A searing point made by Fred Thompson on his website."
Well, Romney apologists.
We’re an hour and a half into Rush’s show and he’s once again played Thompson defending him. He’s played statements from people like McConnell defending him. He’s even allowed that McCain reversed his inital position and says this is a dead issue. And we all know how he feels about Mccain.
Mitt Romney? Dead Silence. Guess Rush wasn’t impressed at Romney’s weaselly performance on an inferior radio show, one he had no intention of appearing on until Hewitt made it clear he had to.
and your *new* freddie uttering is from exactly where and more importantly WHEN?
October 03, 2007
Read More: Iraq
Boehner defends Limbaugh
House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) offered an impassioned defense of conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh on Wednesday, stoking the embers of a “controversy” that won’t seem to go away (in large part because we won’t let it).
He even pledges to marshall his members in support of Limbaugh if Democrats bring a measure to the floor condemning his comments about “phony soldiers” that the radio host argues were taken way, way, way out of context.
“All it takes to conclude that this is a manufactured controversy is a simple, cursory review of Mr. Limbaugh’s remarks, so pardon me if I am not moved by the crocodile tears shed by left-wing activists in recent days,” Boehner said in a statement released by his office.
“MoveOn.org and its cohorts on and off the Hill would certainly like to change the subject away from the slanderous advertisement they placed in The New York Times about U.S. General David Petraeus, but they are not going to distract anyone with a controversy manufactured out of whole cloth. Frankly, there can be no comparison.
“Limbaugh’s strong support of and charity for U.S. troops is well-established and was even recognized by the Marine Corps Law Enforcement Foundation. Unlike Democratic leaders, Rush’s goal is to boost troop morale, not depress it by stalling the resources troops need to complete their mission. Should House Democrats decide to bring forward a ludicrous resolution condemning Limbaugh, Republicans will take to the floor to set the record straight – and welcome the opportunity to do so.”
http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/1007/Boehner_defends_Limbaugh.html
Excellent
So Rush is a wimp too because he sated Fred’s remarks were a “rare act of courage”? #433
I’ve had a problem with Hugh since Harriet Miers.
Straight shooter? Honest? Yeah, as much as Lindsey Graham is.
To: Vn_survivor_67-68
So Rush is a wimp too because he stat6ed that Fred’s comment was “A rare act of courage”.
433 posted on 10/04/2007 12:10:08 PM EDT by traderrob6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 425 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
8888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888
adding a question mark NOW as you did means what? I see your attempt at stating an if/then using your own logic, but please!........not even close to a “direct question” as you claimed when accusing me of not answering.
Maybe it would be best if you start over......ask a direct question, and try not to load it so much that you forget what you’re doing and wind up in the swamp again :)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.