Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: itssme

Here is the difference: George Washington never met with his British/American enemies in order to broker an agreement to avoid criticism of his actions. Rush undoubtedly did - that’s why he caved.

Had George Washington issued a statement in 1779 saying that he apologized to the British Crown for an inappropriate choice of words when directing his army to defeat the British, he would never have been the father of our country.

Had George Washington repudiated his beliefs and his loyal followers (as Rush did today), he would not have been the General of the Army, he would have been dishonored. He would have been Benedict Arnold.

And here is another difference: George Washington risked his life and all that he held dear. Rush risks a minor drop in advertising revenues. Not his life, not his fortune. His sacred honor? Gone. He bets that you and I will overlook his betrayal. Based on this thread, it appears that he was right.


135 posted on 03/03/2012 11:21:35 PM PST by LifePath
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies ]


To: LifePath

To each his own. We individually must make our own decision on how we will respond. It’s safe to say the public has heard from both of us on the subject. We agree to disagree.


139 posted on 03/03/2012 11:28:43 PM PST by itssme
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson