« Mepham Hazing: entering that slippery slope of morality | Main | it must be october »

rush limbaugh is a...nevermind

To everyone who left a comment or sent barely coherent mail yelling at me for posting that Drudge link about Limbaugh last night: react much?

I didn't even make a commentary. I just posted a link and put a question mark at the end of my statement.

For the record, I hate Rush Limbaugh. I think he is a blowhard. Doesn't mean I wish scandal upon the guy. But seriously, folks, the way you came out and defended him (talking mostly about emailers here) gave me a good laugh this morning. I didn't even make an accusation and you went off ranting and screaming at me. Imagine if I really said what I feel.

As for his leaving ESPN, does anyone really care? Are there still people who leave the sound on while watching sports on tv?

Oh, the Daily News picked that drug story. Rush will hold a press conference later today.

TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference rush limbaugh is a...nevermind:

» Limbaugh Roundup from SportsBlog
Here are some links to the reaction on the Limbaugh resignation. [Read More]

Comments

I agree; Limbaugh is a dickweed of the First Order. I was prepared to feel some sympathy for him (his comment really wasn't denigrating McNabb for his race, but the media for their attitude towards the subject) until he blamed his situation on the "Liberal media". Talk about not getting it....

didn't he also lambast Hilary Clinton for her whole "vast right wing conspiracy" thing?

Mr. Pot, Kettle is on line 2 for you....

I consider myself a conservative but I cannot stand Limbaugh. He is such a self-aggrandizing, full-of-himself blowhard that it makes my skin crawl to listen to him (so I don't, but sometimes I'm subjected to it, like when I'm traveling with a friend/relative who's a fan)

Im neither here nor there on Rush. But his comments were definitely not denigrating to McNabb. Had it been a black commentator that opined as such there would not have been such a hullabaloo.

I agree. I recall an article in Sports Illustrated a few months ago where they suggested that a certain white NBA player was getting more attention than he deserved because of his race. No scandal about that story, nor should there have been.

But if Rush gets taken down by a drug scandal, I will watch with glee.

It's like my mother used to tell me: If you wait long enough, people will do themselves in.

I think Rush needs to pee in a bottle every day for a month for drug testing so that everyone knows that he isn't going on the air in a drugged-out state.

Michele I agree with you on Rush. I don't hate him but think is the right's Michael Moore. I have never managed to make it through one of his radio shows before turning it off in disgust. His listeners are just incredible in their ignorance, stupidity and inability to think for themselves (dittoheads).

While I am not a big fan of talk radio in general or Rush Limbaugh specifically, there was a huge bum-rush to jump on him by every left-winger just about everywhere&#151Hollywood, Washington, Philadelphia (where McNabb is QB), and so forth. Limbaugh's sin wasn't what he said; it's who he is. The loony left hates him with the same crazed fanatacism that the rabid right exhibited about Clinton (either one). If anyone less polarizing had made the statement, it would have gone unnoticed.

I want to actually read the accusations against Limbaugh on the drug story, and hear his side, before I make any decisions. Those who hate Limbaugh have already convicted him; I'd like to learn a bit more before I string him up.

"didn't he also lambast Hilary Clinton for her whole "vast right wing conspiracy" thing?

Mr. Pot, Kettle is on line 2 for you...."

I'm sorry, but I missed where Mr. Limbaugh ever implied anything about a conspiracy attacking him. Can you cite an example?

"(dittoheads)"

This term does not mean or even imply any agreement with Rush, so to use it to suggest that listeners to his show have an "inability to think for themselves" is simply factually wrong.

Sorry Timekeeper, but you've got to be kidding me. This is precisely about Rush said. If there's any truth in the claim that this is about "who he is," it's only because he's proven in his brief stint with ESPN that he's no more knowledgeable, intelligent, or tactful in that arena than he is in politics.

To claim that Donovan McNabb's success (as a pro-bowler and MVP candidate) has been inflated by the media is not only tired and lazy, it's simply untrue. To follow that the hype is due to his skin color is even more egregious. That Rush Limbaugh, in 2003, is still trotting out the tired old "black men can't pass" argument is pretty frigging ridiculous when you consider that about a third of all NFL teams have African-American quarterbacks -- not to mention, it completely ignores fifteen years of tremendous play by guys like Randall Cunningham, Warren Moon, Daunte Culpepper, and McNabb.

Maybe there wouldn't have been so much hub-bub if someone else had said it. But the entire point is that you'd have to be pretty stupid to make the comment in the first place. Maybe Rush could get away with uninformed opinions with no base in reality on political talk radio -- after all, that's political talk radio's bread and butter -- but ain't no way someone's gonna let him get away with it in nationally televised sports commentary.

I don't listen to Rush and haven't read anything from him since reading one of those books back in '91 or '92, so I'm a little agnostic on him as a person. What he said, though, wasn't racist, and I'm not entirely sure he was wrong.

I'd give McNabb more credit as a QB than Rush did, but there certainly can be vested interest in seeing him succeed.

To me, what he said was ill-advised and his willingness to blame it on a conspiracy of sorts is just as ill-advised. The response to this was pretty predictable--even though none of the other announcers seem to have thought anything of it at the time. Print is harsh and unforgiving; he's been in the game long enough to know how people will respond to things that he's said.

As for the drug charges, like the WMD find in Kuwait, I'll just wait and see if there's any truth to it before I comment.

I haven't read all the comments, and probably won't, so I apologize if I'm repeating something that has been said.

Linbaugh fans call themselves Dittoheads. As in, brainless morons who let Limbaugh think for them. OF COURSE, that kind of person is going to attack anyone who comments on their focal point. Limbaugh being wrong, or a hypocrite shatters their worldview. That must not be allowed.

Ryan, stop stealing my name.

"To me, what he said was ill-advised and his willingness to blame it on a conspiracy of sorts is just as ill-advised."

Again, can someone cite me an example of where he blamed anything on a "conspiracy"?

"Linbaugh fans call themselves Dittoheads. As in, brainless morons who let Limbaugh think for them. "

Fans of the Limbaugh SHOW call themselves "dittoheads." The moniker has nothing whatsoever to do with agreeing with Limbaugh's politics. And the "ditto" of "dittohead" does not refer to "ditto"-ing Limbaugh himself.

If you're going to berate people for their nicknames you should at least go to the trouble of knowing the source and meaning of said name.

For the record,

Referring to yourself as a 'dittohead' does not make one
brainless morons who let Limbaugh think for them
Anymore than people who refer to themselves as deadheads let the Greatful Dead think for them or Parrotheads let Jimmy Buffet think for them.

The 'ditto' (or 'megaditto') term came about when Rush was spending the first 30second - 1 minute of each call hearing "Rush, I love your show and what you are doing. I think you are great. blah blah blah" from almost every caller. Well, after a particularly length gushing the next caller simply said "ditto the last caller Rush". He liked it, and asked callers to use the ditto term (which is sometimes megadittos) instead of a wordy I love your show.

That's it, nothing sinister or mind controlling about it. To state that anyone who is a fan of Rush's and thus calls themself a 'dittohead' is a moron is inaccurate and offensive.

I am a fan of Rush's and am deeply disappointed that he backed down from the McNabb comments by quitting ESPN, but we don't know the pressure that was exerted to get him to 'quit'. I am NOT a brainless moron who lets Rush think for me and blindly agrees with everything that he says, anymore than I ,also a parrothead, like every song that Jimmy Buffet ever sang.

This is NOT against Michelle but rather the inaccurate thinking that dittoheads are mindless "mini-rushes"

Lesmorte (who is not now, nor ever was, French).

I'm a parrothead, and I think there are worse things than being accused of letting Jimmy Buffett do my thinking for me.

Hmmm. An awful lot of heat over an opinion (Rush's, Michele's, anyone's), but what else is new.

Rush's job on the radio is to give opinions, and his job on ESPN was to give opinions. Michele's blog is for her to give opinions.

Given that I've seen a lot of opinions to the effect that Michele's blog should be shut down (Indymedia, anyone?), I can't say I'm surprised that there's similar heat on Rush over an opinion on a football show.

Boredom doesn't make me want to just chuck blogging. Trolls don't make me want to just chuck blogging (no matter how much they make me want to chuck up).

Flaming Limbaugh -- or Michele, or me, or whoever -- over an opinion can, however, lead me to wonder whether the blogosphere is worth the trouble.

It's not necessarily that Rush had an opinion, or even that Rush gave that opinion on air. It's that Rush spoke out with a completely misinformed, racist opinion. And rather than own up to it, Rush did what he does best -- blamed the entire event on some ridiculous liberal media quasi-conspiracy in which he was the victim of some gross injustice -- you know, like the man's trying to get him off ESPN because he likes his tax cuts rich.

That's total bullshit. Just like the line about how today's sports media has a vested interest in a black man throwing the ball well. But rather than admit that he was wrong -- or even, god forbid, present some evidence to back up his opinion (of which there is none) -- Rush scurries into hiding behind the liberal media straw man, claiming that he must be right after all if so many people got upset.

I don't hate Rush for having an opinion. I hate Rush for being so stubbornly boneheaded to think that he can pass that racist, ill-formed opinion off as fact (without providing evidence or even trying to back it up) -- and believe you me, there are more than a couple million listeners out there who think he got a raw deal. That's not only a totally misinterpretation of the facts, but hey, that's what Rush is best at, right?

Ryan,

You state that Limbaugh's statement is racist. It is not. It is ill-considered, and perhaps a bit intemperate, but it's not racist. It is also something that might very well be true&#151there is a lot of hope for success for minority quarterbacks (because the role has been dominated by whites); it is not racist to take pleasure in seeing a black quarterback succeed, and it is not racist to point out that a lot of people hold such an attitude.

Limbaugh was hired as a commentator; his statement was his opinion, and he didn't try to pass it off as "fact". You are the one misrepresenting here.

The point is that there is no vast left-wing conspiracy to over-hype the success of black quarterbacks in today's game.

Rush presented his opinion that this was happening as fact. His entire argument is based on the presupposition that there's some lefty cabal in the sports media promoting affirmative action at the QB position.

And Rush was wrong.

There are a number of reasons why the so-called elitist and liberal sports media aren't -- and don't have to -- overrate black quarterbacks in 2003.

The most important, of course, is that there is no such thing as "elitist" or "liberal" sports media. Sports writers are, for the most part, working-class guys that call it as they see it and don't mince words. They have no incentive to pander to anybody for any reason, and most often don't.

You'll also note that the best sports news in print comes from right-leaning papers -- The Post and Daily News in New York, the Philadelphia Daily News, the Washington Times, etc etc. These are not papers where the editors are going to ask their writers to soften the edges a bit to make way for some sort of underlying apologist rhetoric.

But Rush's argument also depends on the pre-supposition that there's a reason to overrate quarterbacks of a certain skin color, when there is none. The role of QB is no longer "dominated" by whites, and hasn't been for at least five, maybe ten years. In fact, to even suggest this is even an issue is to cling to some really outdated and racist rhetoric. This is why I think Rush's statement was racist.

He wasn't saying "Donovan McNabb is an overrated quarterback" -- and I think he'd find precious little evidence to back that up; he was saying "Donovan McNabb is overrated because he's black." What's not racist about that statement?

You think it's ok because he bases this argument on some non-existent liberal media straw man, saying "No, this isn't what I think. It's the liberal media that are making this a race issue."

Sorry, Charlie. I don't buy it.

Oh, and Rich Hoffman (of the Philadelphia Daily News) says it much better than me.

Here is what Limbaugh actually said, rather than how you are characterizing it:

"Sorry to say this, I don't think he's been that good from the get-go," Limbaugh said. "I think what we've had here is a little social concern in the NFL. The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well. There is a little hope invested in McNabb, and he got a lot of credit for the performance of this team that he didn't deserve. The defense carried this team."

"I don't think" pretty clearly establishes that Limbaugh is offering an opinion, not stating a fact.

And the fact is, as far as QB's go, the position is dominated by whites, especially when one considers the racial composition of the league as a whole. This is not racism, it is an uncomfortable fact. there are plenty of good black quarterbacks (and more arriving every year) but QB's are more often than not white.

This will be my last post in the thread, as I will be away from a computer for the weekend, and this thread should die a natural death before Monday rolls around.

"The point is that there is no vast left-wing conspiracy to over-hype the success of black quarterbacks in today's game."

Who said there was? Mr. Limbaugh never did.

"Rush presented his opinion that this was happening as fact."

No, he presented his opinion about the situation. That is was his opinion is quite obvious, and for those like you Ryan, who can't seem to tell the difference he explicity described what he said as an opinion numerous times afterward.

"You'll also note that the best sports news in print comes from right-leaning papers -- The Post and Daily News in New York"

The Daily News is right wing? Which edition are you reading?

And I quote: "At one point we didn't have enough black quarterbacks. Well, now there are quite a number of black quarterbacks and it's my opinion that the sports media, being liberals just like liberal media is elsewhere, have a desire that black quarterbacks excel and do very well so that their claims that blacks are being denied opportunity can be validated."

Again -- what liberal sports media?

How does anything in that comment imply a "conspiracy" as you claim?

I caught a discussion on Boston Talk radio,Howie Carr's Show reporting that surgeons who performed the cochlea type implant procedure that Rush had for his hearing loss had discovered that a surprisingly high percentage of the recipients had overindulged in the use of oxycontin and similar drugs intimating that the hearing loss might be due to excessive use of these pills.

LIMBAUGH'S MAID PROBABLY DID BUY DRUGS AT A DENNY'S. HER HUSBAND HAS BEEN CONVICTED OF DRUG POSSESSION IN THE PAST. I THINK SHE'S TRYING TO SAVE HER OWN ASS BY IMPLICATING LIMBAUGH.

It's funny how Rush never denied the allegation. He wants to know exactly what the authorities know before he address the drug situation. If he were innocent, he would have said so. He should be "sent up" as he put it with all of the other drug abusers. Rush is an enormous hypocrite.

"If he were innocent, he would have said so."

You, sir, obviously know very little about the law, particularly where it concerns well known people. Rule number one is always never discuss anything publically, regardless of how innocent or guilty one may be.

Rush has a national audience that listen to him in a monologue rather than a debate format. Does anyone out there truly believe this man is 98.9 correct all the time (his numbers)? And why do you suppose no callers challenge him and those who do get through (you suppose screeners let the good ones in?) get cut off when they make a good point? "Thanks for calling Jim....gotta go to commercial". Rush is no different than all the rest of conservative talk radio. Al Franken's new book takes these jerks to task and actually did internet fact checking on things these guys are quoted as saying. Franken calls them "Liars" because his research turned up distortions and lies in what "they" said. None have come back and rebutted his research....WHY?? All any of them would need to do is simply contradict Franken and show where his fact checking is incorrect. None are doing it becaue A.) Franken is correct, they are "liars" and B.) Conservatives apparently would rather hear 3 hours of daily opinion steeped in distortion and lies than hear the truth which admittedly might be less "entertaining". Probably explains why "daytime Soaps" draw a larger audience than "documentaries" on PBS. Oh well, maybe Rush's run is about over with this new drug stuff. I must admit I thought it would more likely be a sex scandal than this. Wonder if conservatives will figure a way to blame it on Clinton?

"And why do you suppose no callers challenge him and those who do get through (you suppose screeners let the good ones in?) get cut off when they make a good point?"

Since they don't, you're not making any point.

"Al Franken's new book takes these jerks to task and actually did internet fact checking on things these guys are quoted as saying. Franken calls them "Liars" because his research turned up distortions and lies in what "they" said."

Al Franken's new book is long on vitriol and short on substance. He claims VP Cheney is "lying" when he makes a rather harmless mistake about the style of the graves at Arlington. From this he condemns the entire Bush administration. Franken may have been an amusing comedian once (although I can't remember when), but he's out of his depth these days.

"None have come back and rebutted his research....WHY?? "

Because they don't take him seriously, nor should they.

" If he were innocent, he would have said so". This statement still stands true, I would not expect him to give details on this matter, however ALL " well known people" will at least claim there innocence. He would not even go that far as to claim the allegations are false, and do you know why? He has been acquiring pills illegally and abusing them. You do not have to be a rocket scientist, just to have common sense to figure that out. I just think it's funny when all of these self righteous, self-proclaimed moral police get exposed for being phonies. I.e.: Jimmy Swagart, Dr. Laura, the list is too long to mention. Do as I say, not as I do. When Rush hears an allegation on someone, no make that a democrat, he will be the first to exploit it, whether it has been proven or not.

Good ridden

Dan, your post remarkably devoid of facts. How you can draw any conclusions therefore is a mystery to me.

"your post remarkably devoid of facts"
your post remarkably devoid of good grammar and spelling.

There's nothing misspelled but I realized I produced a typo after I posted it. Such is the nature of posting before the first morning coffee. (Oh no! Now I'm an admitted drug user as well!)

That said, Dan's post does remain remarkably devoid of facts.

check out this timeline
http://shock-awe.info/archive/000923.php
not only is Rush a hypocritical oxycontin popper, condemning its use on his radio show, but he also caused his own deafness. WOW.

"condemning its use on his radio show"

Actually, he's comdemned it's abuse as a recreational drug. Hardly the same thing.

"he also caused his own deafness"

Sure, except that if one accepts that timeline as true, it in fact proves that he didn't.

Let me know what your address is so I can send you a train ticket back here to reality.

Lance, you are in for such an onslaught of "I-told-you-so" and I can't wait to see your smugness turn to silence once this whole thing is written into history. I love your strict adherence to "fact" throughout your messages, but your willingness to use the timeline when you think it backs you up (which it doesn't-- Rush didn't have most of the common auto-immune ear disease symptoms, and didn't respond to AIED treatment. Why? Because vicodin, or the generic hydrocodone, abuse was the cause of Rush's deafening downfall). Keep digging your hole, we'll all just sit back and laugh at you. Actually, we already are laughing.

"I love your strict adherence to "fact" throughout your messages, but your willingness to use the timeline when you think it backs you up"

I'm not using the timeline to back any claims of my own. I pointed out that you can't use it to support your claims. There's a difference that anyone who actually bothers to think would surely notice.

"Actually, we already are laughing."

Fools do tend to laugh a lot.

Let me borrow from your annoying format for messages:

"I'm not using the timeline to back any claims of my own"

and yet we find you saying,

"it in fact proves that he didn't"

you even went as far as to throw around your favorite word "fact"... you might want to look that word up in the dictionary, by the way.

You're a pill, Lance. Fortunately, this fool finds you humorous rather than irksome.

Lance is a pill??? Hide him from Rush!

My anonymous friend is somewhat confused. Pointing out that an argument is not proved by the provided evidence is not "a claim of my own." Arguing that 2+2 does not equal 5 is not an argument that it in fact equals 4.

Perhaps you should augment your dictionary with a text on logic.

you make a claim that he didn't cause his own deafness.

"...if one accepts that timeline as true, it in fact proves that he didn't (cause his own deafness)."

That is making a claim. Any questions? You're as adept at debating as Rush (and that's no compliment). Alluding to yourself as logical doesn't actually make you logical.

"you make a claim that he didn't cause his own deafness."

I did no such thing. I pointed out that your evidence that he did cause his deafness is faulty. I don't know if Rush caused his own deafness or not, and I certainly didn't claim that I knew.

"Alluding to yourself as logical doesn't actually make you logical."

Obviously. It is also obvious that you don't understand logic.

For more info on overuse of certain drugs causing hearing loss, particularly Lorecet and Vicodin, see Tim Omeilla's article Fri. Oct. 3 in News Palm Beach Post.com

It seems that all our gods and heroes have feet of clay . Que, triste !

Rush Linbaugh has always been interested in two things: Rush Linbaugh and personal wealth. His talk show and political stances are designed to enhance both. If Liberals were dumb enough to fall for bold, unsubstantiated assertions rather than facts then Linbaugh would be a Liberal trumpeter. The fact is that neo-cons aren't interested in facts; they seek only reinforcement of their prejudices, selfish "ideals" and emotion based policies. For them theories replace facts and if facts don't support their theories they simply ignore them. They then congratulate themselves for being informed and absolutely right. The sad thing is they allow someone like Linbaugh to enrich himself by misleading them with his blather. The man doesn't even have a college education, is historically ignorant and nothing more or less than a modern day version of a snake oil seller. The truly vile aspect to this all is that he has done harm to this country. The disclosure of his illegal drug use now reveals him for what he has always been. . . the question is will the dittoheads see the light? The answer is probably not because they don't really seek it.

Well, LPP, I hope that made you feel better. You certainly stuck it to all the neo-cons who "aren't interested in facts." Here's a fact for you: It's LiMbaugh, not LiNbaugh. I'm sure this was as honest mistake - perhaps when you're done patting yourself on the back for being a superior liberal you can correct your error.

Lance John Romanoff who are you? I am amazed at your ability to blow off the stuff that is thrown your way. You are very good at what you do and I truly mean it. I do not condem Rush and actually feel sympathy towards him....must be the liberal in me that I can't kick a man even when he's down? But what is most troubling is that conservatives have this ability to deny truth even when it hits them square in the mouth. (somewhat like denying the existance of dinosaurs and the actual age of the universe because it might not sync with the word of God) When you defend Rush and others writen about in Al Franken's new book you should instead simply pick a few topics and rebutt them. Go to a verifiable source and show where Al has used incorrect information. By saying "he" has no credibility or is simply a comedian and doesn't deserve rebuttal you do not prove him wrong but rather make yourself and those you defend look weak. I'll tell you what......find 1 fact in error in Franken's book and I'll buy you lunch at the place of your choice. No jive. I've thrown down the gauntlet, don't come back with something trite. I wish someone with better credentials could have written such a book but Franken's work has hit a lot of nails on the head and incidentally has remained #1 on the NY Times Best Seller list for weeks. Come on Lance....give me just one "lie" Al is wrong on.

"I do not condem Rush and actually feel sympathy towards him....must be the liberal in me that I can't kick a man even when he's down?"

Right. Because only liberals have human emotion.

"Come on Lance....give me just one "lie" Al is wrong on. "

This thread is not about Al Franken and I don't know why you seem fixated on making it such. As I've already pointed out, from the parts of the book I have read, Al (either deliberately or because he's not smart enough to understand the distinction) takes any factual error made by those he means to attack and calls it a "lie." He of course makes no effort to prove what he says a lie is in fact a lie, he simply assumes that a statment that for whatever reason is not factually accurate must therefore be a lie. Doesn't work that way, Al.

Ah Lance, once again you dodge, bob and weave. You must be a politician by trade. Please explain to our audience what you mean? You say Franken has taken "factual error and calls it a lie". I'm having trouble here understanding what you mean? What Franken decided to do was to take what conservatives "spoke", fact-checked what they "spoke", called them on it and asked them to either explain or withdraw their statements. None did.....Hannity, O'Reilly, Coulter, on and on. It seems conservatives have a little difficulty defending their statements as true and also refuse to amend their remarks. So, Lance, what exactly would you say to your own child if he came home from school and you told him his teacher had called and said little Johnny swiped something from another student's desk? "My dear teacher, you must have made a factual error in accusing my Johnny of theft". Lance, the big difference between what Rush is able to pull off and yourself is that "this" forum allows for honest debate. You cannot escape the truth here. Oh, by the way....have you read David Brock's book "Blinded By the Right"? Years ago Rush used to read Brock's columns from The American Spectator and now it turns out Brock has repudiated what he wrote back then and also said none of his writings were ever "fact checked" as any decent publication would do as a matter of course. Isn't it funny how conservatives seem to stand behind lying liars? My offer for lunch still stands Lance.

As a moderate Democrat and person overcoming an addiction, I feel the pain that Rush is going through. I am addicted to coffee. I cannot wake up and roll out of bed without my coffee. I too have met my dealer (Juan Valdez) in the parking lot of Denny's (my maid was off). However, I plan on entering a detox program as I am writing this comment. Please forgive me. I am not a victim.

P.S. I would be more forgiving if someone would give me my freaking coffee!!!!!!! Also, I realize that Rush is a staunch Conservative Republican, I just wanted him to realize that addiction crosses all party lines.

"You say Franken has taken "factual error and calls it a lie". I'm having trouble here understanding what you mean? What Franken decided to do was to take what conservatives "spoke", fact-checked what they "spoke", called them on it and asked them to either explain or withdraw their statements."

No, he didn't. Now you're either wrong or lying. I, unlike Franken, understand there is a difference. He quoted part of a speech Dick Cheney made where he described the graves at Arlington incorrectly, pronounced it a "lie", and then condemned the Bush administration as a whole.

Bob, I have no idea why you have this fixation on pushing Al Franken. Maybe you are Franken, I don't know, nor do I particularly care. This thread is not about Franken or his book. Why you seem to feel the need to make it so is a mystery to me.

Right now around here the silence is deafening.It is neither Rush Limbaugh nor Linbaugh.It's Rush Limbo.

LJR, I find you interesting but alas, just as ignorant. You must be a politician. If not, you should be. The days of politicians representing their constituents is long gone along with special interest groups (especially insurance companies). Oh, I know, the special interest groups ARE the constituents!!! Glad I cleared that up. Well, all I can say is that while I am not taking personal joy out of this Rush Limbaugh debacle, I certainly think that the mighty have fallen. I wish him a well and permanent recovery and I hope that this makes him more sensitive to the plights of others. Maybe he won't be as judgmental in his next life (the life without the pain pills).

"LJR, I find you interesting but alas, just as ignorant. You must be a politician. If not, you should be. The days of politicians representing their constituents is long gone along with special interest groups (especially insurance companies). Oh, I know, the special interest groups ARE the constituents!!! Glad I cleared that up."

What the hell are you talking about?

I guess we will chalk that response up to ignorance as well. I am speaking of the Republican Party's obvious indulgence of voting to enhance the life of elitists (such as good old Rush) through special party interests. Sorry if I went over your head.

Try to stick to the subject rather than your blantant partisan cheap shottery and snide comments. This isn't government work, Martha, a little bit of competence is expected here.

Blatant - excuse my typo.

Didn't mean to go over you head there LJR. I believe that my statement is self-explanatory. Add a little humor and you will probably get it.

What I find funny is someone who feels the need to post with multiple usernames. Something to hide, Martha/Ebony/Whomever?

LJR....I am not fixated on Franken but do wish I were him. There aren't enough out there defending us libs so thankfully this page exists. But I am getting frustrated with you. I am beginning to believe that if it wasn't snowing when you went to bed and when you awoke there was snow on the ground you would somehow deny it actually snowed during the night unless you actually saw it snowing. The quote you use about Cheney simply points out that he is either stupid or insensitive to have said that about such a sacred place as Arlington. Maybe it doesn't make him a liar? I would like to know what you would have said in his place though? But I did see him on Meet the Press when he didn't answer honestly about surveys showing Americans (70%) believe there is a connection between Saddam and Bin Laden even though he full well knew intelligence never supported that. The Bush admin is in deep doo doo because they have taken the easy path in hyping patriotism and 911 while ignoring the more difficult path of truth. Clinton got nailed lying about sex....now Bush on WMD. Most people can identify lying about sexual indescretion but few will identify lying to get us into Iraq where our soldiers are killed ostensibly to save us from imminent attack due to WMD's.

" The quote you use about Cheney simply points out that he is either stupid or insensitive to have said that about such a sacred place as Arlington."

How does a rather minor mistake about the SHAPE OF THE HEADSTONES make him either stupid or insensitive? Talk about much ado about nothing.

"Clinton got nailed lying about sex....now Bush on WMD. Most people can identify lying about sexual indescretion but few will identify lying to get us into Iraq where our soldiers are killed ostensibly to save us from imminent attack due to WMD's."

Please cite a quote demonstrating Bush's supposed "lies" about WMD. Also, please cite any quote where Bush discusses "an imminent attack."

Sorry to confuse you. I let someone use my computer to enter a statement on the website. I guess being a Republican give you a suspicious mind. Sorry there is no left wing conspiracy here.

I guess being Martha means it's lame insults rather than anything interesting to say.

As it happens, I'm not a Republican, but feel free not to let facts get in the way of your biased silliness.

OK. Let's speak facts. Whether or not you won't confess to being a Republican, the fact is that you have been dipping and dodging facts from all other contributors to this ongoing conversations. You are playing a game of semantics instead of admitting lies are lies. Feel free to do so.

I have no need to "confess to being a Republican" as I'm not one. Furthermore, please point out what "lies" I have not admitted were such. Something isn't a lie just because you or Al Franken want to believe it is.

Gosh Lance, did I hit a raw nerve? Seems inconsistent with your evasiveness on all my pleas for your direct answer to ask 'me' for a direct quote? It seems rather obvious that the reason we invaded Iraq was the "threat of WMD's". Both Bush and Tony Blair are under rebuke for knowingly misquoting intelligence reports about Saddam's WMD's. I'm sure you will have an answer why we really went in. If I didn't know where my wife was right now I'd swear you were she. This is the kind of response I have to deal with at home, only I call it 'misdirected' anger.

Gosh, Bob, you didn't hit a raw nerve. Sorry to disappoint. As for my "evasiveness", I am merely attempting to stick to the subject matter - which is not the dubious veracity of Al Franken's latest book. Nor is it Bush and the Iraq war, but so be it.

I notice that you offered no quotes, and have now backed away from "imminent attack." I supsect because you realize you won't find such a quote. You also have provided no examples so far of any supposed "lies" but I'm willing to wait for you to try again.

I think maybe you are a lawyer Lance? You craft your remarks with such skill I have to reread them several times to pick the flyshit out of the pepper. Franken's whole purpose was to expose the "right" as a bunch of liars. Certainly they don't lie about everything just as every Lib doesn't support high taxes. But they spew enough lies to taint themselves. Franken points to Hannity's use of a study supporting "vouchers" but in reality Franken points out where he takes facts out of context and actually fails to say that the school in Harlem he uses to prove his point is actually funded by the public school system of NYC. Franken shows that the beauty of talk shows like Rush's and Hannity and their ilk is that by carefully screening callers and shouting down the opposition and by continually repeating lies the gullible, and yes, lazy right swallow it hook line and stinker. Liberal talk shows will never make it because it requires too much effort for their listening audience. Conservative talk radio works because it is like fast food....hot, convenient, and bad for you. But I admit, even I enjoy rolling my eyes when Rushie spends his day defining me.

"Franken's whole purpose was to expose the "right" as a bunch of liars."

Well, good for him. He didn't manage it. His examples were preposterous and he never attempted to distinguish a factually incorrect statement from a lie. He did sell a lot of books though, so I guess he'll manage.

"Liberal talk shows will never make it because it requires too much effort for their listening audience. "

Sure, keep telling yourself that.

Lance.....I apologize. I am at work and cannot put in the required effort to run down a quote from Bush to support my claim. I have relied on the works of others to confirm my beliefs about conservatives, but at least the stuff I read has footnotes and supporting documentation. It matters little that Franken is a comedian by trade if the book he wrote documents quotes from those he tears down, shows studies from reputable sources, gives evidence of "factual error",challenges them to rebutt, and they refuse. Conservative talk hosts know where their bread is buttered and care little that their listeners would ever challenge them. Seems it would be so tantilizingly easy for Hannity or O'Reilly to point out where Franken actually lied about them! It would take all the wind out of his sail, wouldn't it? So why don't "you" do it for the Gipper, opps! The Gipper only ever used anecdotal evidence to prove anything he ever said....he never needed a study to prove what a checker at K-Mart said once to a friend of someone whose barber told his neighbor. You also never responded about David Brock......Rush quoted him for a couple of years railing on Clinton. Rushie relied on Brock's verifiable and impecable credentials to prove his points. Why now don't any conservatives come forward and feel duped? Are their memory spans that short?

Again, I fail to understand your fixation on pushing Franken's book, particularly in this forum that is not about Franken. Perhaps if Hannity or O'Reilly (who is not a conservative, so I fail to see why you've included him in this) wish to debate Mr. Franken on the merits - or lack thereof - of his treatise Franken should go on their shows.

As for your claims about Bush, I still await the evidence. I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you are simply mistaken about such things as your claim that Bush ever referred to Iraq as an "imminent threat" rather than assume that you are "lying." In this regard I am being more generous and intellectually honest than Al Franken is.

Ok, this is my last effort for the day....gotta get something done other than play mind games with you Lance. I got linked to this page by going after something else......scientific debate on the ozone layer. I am not a scientist nor play one on TV but I was always amazed how Rush could pretend he knew what he was talking about. I would listen to his conviction of how us liberals were just trying to scare everyone with this whole matter. I would listen and keep asking "why doesn't Rush have a left-wing liberal scientist on to debate?" Well, as this web page explained, he was totally off base as he usually is and was misquoting one study with another and in short, was "wrong" with his information. Now Rush is a pretty smart guy and with all the listeners who must have emailed him he "had" to know over time that he was giving incorrect info or was "factually in error". But tht beauty of being a conservative talk show host is that his core audience doesn't care! And he knows it! So my point here is that Al Franken actually took the time to compile enough errors and plain lies from our friends, documented with footnotes, dates, publications, web sites, etc. and viola! Looks like he succeeded in selling enough books to people who like seeing facts rather than lying opinions from hate radio. Bye for now.

If O'Reilly isn't conservative what would you call him? He ain't liberal and if anyone dare suggest he is middle of the road on anything I'd say they need therapy. By the way, I appreciate your being nice to me Lance. I don't take any of this personal either. But I will endeavour to find a quote for you about Bush. Maybe I generalized about "imminent" but I can't be too far off the track. I know we invaded Iraq for more than Bush's manhood. I have been operating under the impression, as have most Americans, that our very existence, our way of life, depended on getting to Saddam's WMD's before he could use them on us. God bless America!

"But tht beauty of being a conservative talk show host is that his core audience doesn't care!"

Do you really think you are making any kind of a point with baseless generalizations? I'm sure you've convinced yourself, but that's about all. If I were to say "all liberals hate American traditions" how would you react? Would there be any validity to such a broad overreaction?

"So my point here is that Al Franken actually took the time to compile enough errors and plain lies from our friends, documented with footnotes, dates, publications, web sites, etc. and viola! "

Except of course that he didn't. He never bothered to document any "lies" - only what he called "lies" without actually providing any evidence. Someone being mistaken about something is not a lie, unless of course one thinks like Mr. Franken does.

"If O'Reilly isn't conservative what would you call him?"

I don't feel the need to call him anything. His ideological views aren't terribly consistent with conservatism, and he calls himself a populist.

"Maybe I generalized about "imminent" but I can't be too far off the track. "

In fact, one of Bush's core arguments was that waiting until Iraq was an imminent threat was inherently too dangerous. Now that point may be debatable, but pretending Bush made an argument he never made is not honest debate.

Lance, would you now, looking back in hindsight, tend to agree or disagree that Bush's zeal to go to war was a good decision? Had you known then what you know now would you have supported the invasion? As an observer it would appear we marched in pretty much uncontested and no weapons of mass destruction were used against our troops (wouldn't you think that would have happened 'if' they had any?) making Iraq look pretty musch like a 'paper tiger'. And now after many months of serious effort we still haven't found any. Yes, Saddam was an evil man and if that were the reason for all this, say so. The speeches I recall (State of the Union) and Powell's (U.N.) sure made it sound that if we didn't act ASAP the free world was in jeopardy. Maybe I am mistaken about what words Bush used but it appears his intent was to disceive. "Anyone can make an innocent mistake and say something that isn't true. But lying is when you intentionally deceive". What is at the crux of our argument Lance is this.....were the American people 'deceived' by Bush in his own zeal to take us to war?

"Lance, would you now, looking back in hindsight, tend to agree or disagree that Bush's zeal to go to war was a good decision? Had you known then what you know now would you have supported the invasion?"

Absolutely. Have you read the Kay Report? It is unquestionable that Hussein was developing several weapons programs in violation of UN resolutions. There is a terrorist training center at Al Salman. Iraqis have been murdered for talking to Americans. Iraqi scientists have been storing deadly bio agents in their own homes.

Furthermore, Hussein was a state sponsor of terrorism, and in violation of his 1991 cease fire agreement.

"As an observer it would appear we marched in pretty much uncontested and no weapons of mass destruction were used against our troops"

I never expected any to be used unless the capture of Bagdhad was protracted, which seemed to be Hussein's main battle strategy. Chemical weapons are effective for terror and against civilian populations but less so in desert battlefields where they are likely to disperse before killing many enemy troops - particularly considering the high mobility of US forces.

"Maybe I am mistaken about what words Bush used but it appears his intent was to disceive."

And you base this on what? For one to believe that Bush was deliberately trying to deceive people you would have to assume that anyone who was making similar arguments about the danger of Hussein would be also - which would include Bush, Clinton, most of the Congress, German intelligence, Russian intelligence, Italian intelligence, British intelligence, Israeli intelligence, Iran, and Hussein himself. Do you really think they were all in some grand conspiracy together to support Bush's "zeal" for war?

I haven't read the Kay report. Unless there is a vast left-wing conspiracy it seems Saddam posted a "Beware of Dog" sign without actually having one. I maintain Bush chose his battle (read distraction) and it was a poor choice. I suspect Saddam could have survived for many years with the US, Britain and others taking out strategic sites and no-fly zones, etc but dammit Lance that was effective and a whole lot less costly. Bush never had a handle on total cost, time, lives when he charged up San Juan Hill. But what should the American public expect? That a c- lifelong student who got by on his family name, evaded the draft, did cocaine, failed in business, has two goofball daughters, opposed affirmative action only to have gotten into Yale by 'only' that way....ya know I could on and on like this but you get my point don't you? If being President of the United States were posted like a job interview would Bush have ever gotten past HR? At least not without the help of Daddy. That's what sticks in my craw....to see someone like you who obviously is infinitely more astute than the man you seem to adore is totally baffling to me.

So Bob, what it ultimately comes down to for you is name-calling. The facts don't really matter, you just don't like Bush and the final word for you is that he "evaded the draft" and numerous other non-truths.

And where do you I get the idea that I "adore" Bush? I didn't even vote for him, for crying out loud.

And, to repsond to the single comment of any merit at all in your post:

" Unless there is a vast left-wing conspiracy it seems Saddam posted a "Beware of Dog" sign without actually having one. "

There's plenty of evidence he, in fact, did. Read the Kay report. But let's say for the sake of argument that you are right. Hussein was obligated by cease fire agreement and UN resolution to prove he had disarmed. Systematically disrupting the UN inspectors and not offering a full disclosure of his weapons programs constitutes a violation of those agreements, so whether he had a single weapon or not he's opened himself up to renewed hostilities. The onus and burden of proof was on Hussein, not Bush and not the UN. So, unless you can make the argument convincingly that Hussein made every possible effort to disarm his country and then demonstrate that fact to the UN, the war is justified.

Well I'm happy to hear you didn't vote for Bush! Who did you vote for tho? Anyway, I tried a google search for countries who "have" violated UN treaties, conventions, agreements and such and Lance I gotta tell ya that by your standards we should be at war with a bunch of countries including some allies (read Isreal). And yes, I am irked about people like Bush and others who take advantage of name, position, power and wealth. Geez Lance Rushie got his nose bent about the Kennedy family for years! And yes, Bush's Viet Nam escape like that of Dan Quail, Tom Delay and most all with dough pisses me off. I came through that era and lost several buddies who took their places while the rich and powerful Dads of these C- goof-offs got to protect Houston from the Viet Kong by pulling strings. Why doesn't everyone get upset about that? If your son/daughter lost a place in admission to med-school because of someone pulling a string to get their off-spring in wouldn't you be upset? Happened to my kid. I know life isn't always fair but none the less people on the right usually say they have higher principles than those of us on the left. I know I ramble and you are more cogent but I must be scoring some points here Lance? By the way, as a bow to you I do admit I have not read the Kay report, however, I have seen him on most all the interview programs these past days and he isn't very convincing to me. And I will also give you this....if we do find the smoking gun I will feel a whole lot better about why we went. I hope we do find the gun Lance.

"Well I'm happy to hear you didn't vote for Bush! Who did you vote for tho?"

I voted for Harry Browne.

"Anyway, I tried a google search for countries who "have" violated UN treaties, conventions, agreements and such and Lance I gotta tell ya that by your standards we should be at war with a bunch of countries including some allies (read Isreal)."

OK, now go back and Google up the difference between "binding" and "non-binding" resolutions. You'll quickly see the difference between Israel and Iraq.

We also were not in a state of ceasefire with Israel.

"And yes, Bush's Viet Nam escape like that of Dan Quail, Tom Delay and most all with dough pisses me off"

Dan Quail?

Anyway, Bush was a fighter pilot. The fact that he wasn't in combat doesn't mean he wasn't risking his life. It's not like he lied to his draft board then fled the country as certain other US presidents did.

The story I heard was Bush jumped ahead of thousands of 'other' applicants, essentially cutting in line, with the help of his Dad to get into the Texas Air Guard. In Bush's book "A Charge To Keep" Bush claims to have flown with his unit until 1973. According to military records he was assigned to the Tactical Reconnaisance Squadron in Montgomery. Base commander Brigadier General William Turnipseed says of Bush that he is "dead-certain he didn't show up". (Boston Globe May 23. 2000) I don't have verifiable documentation on Clinton (assume you meant him?) but again the story I recall is that he enlisted the help of Senator Fullbright to get him some kind of "conscientious objector" status and wrote the draft board that he considered the military an anathama. I always figured Clinton had the balls to come out and say what most young men really felt at that time....that the military and politicians got us stuck in a war we shouldn't have entered nor could win. Please Lance don't get me going about Viet Nam. Usually conservatives use this opportunity to pull out the patriotism card and say Libs don't support our troops and are communist leaning, blah blah. Such a tired ploy...but effective!

"The story I heard was Bush jumped ahead of thousands of 'other' applicants, essentially cutting in line, with the help of his Dad to get into the Texas Air Guard"

Oh, I'm sure G.H.W. Bush used his pull as an important Texan and a war hero to get his son into a better position that he would otherwise have been in. I don't think that's unique to the Bush family, though.

Besides, as I said, he was a fighter pilot not a draft dodger. He may not have been at the front line but flying an aircraft at hundreds of miles per hour full of jet fuel with bombs strapped underneath is hardly the same as lying his way out of serving.

This is part of the sworn affadavit from Col. Eugene Holmes re: Clinton:

"Bill Clinton came to see me at my home in 1969 to discuss his desire to enroll in the ROTC program at the University of Arkansas. We engaged in an extensive, approximately two (2) hour interview. At no time during this long conversation about his desire to join the program did he inform me of his involvement, participation and actually organizing protests against the United States involvement in South East Asia. He was shrewd (sic) enough to realize that had I been aware of his activities, he would not have been accepted into the ROTC program as a potential officer in the United States Army.

The next day I began to receive telephone calls regarding Bill Clinton's draft status. I was informed by the draft board that it was of interest to Senator Fullbright's (sic) office that Bill Clinton, a Rhodes Scholar, should be admitted to the ROTC program. I received several such calls. The general message conveyed by the draft board to me was that Senator Fullbright's (sic) office was putting pressure on them and that they needed my help. I then made the necessary arrangements to enroll Mr. Clinton into the ROTC program at the University of Arkansas.

I was not "saving" him from serving his country, as he erroneously thanked me for in his letter from England (dated Dec. 3, 1969). I was making it possible for a Rhodes Scholar to serve in the military as an officer.

In retrospect I see that Mr. Clinton had no intention of following through with his agreement to join the Army ROTC program at the University of Arkansas or to attend the University of Arkansas Law School. I had explained to him the necessity of enrolling at the University of Arkansas as a student in order to be eligible to take the ROTC program at the University. He never enrolled at the University of Arkansas, but instead enrolled at Yale after attending Oxford. I believe that he purposely deceived me, using the possibility of joining the ROTC as a ploy to work with the draft board to delay his induction and get a new draft classification.

The Dec. 3 letter written to me by Mr. Clinton, and subsequently taken from the files by Lt. Col. Clint Jones, my executive officer, was placed into the ROTC files so that a record would be available in case the applicant should again petition to enter the ROTC program. The information in that letter alone would have restricted Bill Clinton from ever qualifying to be an officer in the United States Military. Even more significant was his lack of veracity in purposefully defrauding the military by deceiving me, both in concealing his anti-military activities overseas and his counterfeit intentions for later military service. These actions cause me to question both his patriotism and his integrity."

And here is a story from George magazine (hardly a friend to Republicans) re: Bush's service:

"The Real Military Record of George W. Bush: Not Heroic, but Not AWOL, Either
By Peter Keating and Karthik Thyagarajan

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For more than a year, controversy about George W. Bush's Air National Guard record has bubbled through the press. Interest in the topic has spiked in recent days, as at least two websites have launched stories essentially calling Bush AWOL in 1972 and 1973. For example, in "Finally, the Truth about Bush's Military Record" on TomPaine.com, Marty Heldt writes, "Bush's long absence from the records comes to an end one week after he failed to comply with an order to attend 'Annual Active Duty Training' starting at the end of May 1973... Nothing indicates in the records that he ever made up the time he missed." And in Bush's Military Record Reveals Grounding and Absence for Two Full Years" on Democrats.com, Robert A. Rogers states: "Bush never actually reported in person for the last two years of his service - in direct violation of two separate written orders."

Neither is correct.

It's time to set the record straight. The following analysis, which relies on National Guard documents, extensive interviews with military officials and previously unpublished evidence of Bush's whereabouts in the summer and fall of 1972, is the first full chronology of Bush's military record. Its basic conclusions: Bush may have received favorable treatment to get into the Guard, served irregularly after the spring of 1972 and got an expedited discharge, but he did accumulate the days of service required of him for his ultimate honorable discharge.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

At the Republican convention in Philadelphia, George W. Bush declared: "Our military is low on parts, pay and morale. If called on by the commander-in-chief today, two entire divisions of the Army would have to report, 'Not ready for duty, sir.'" Bush says he is the candidate who can "rebuild our military and prepare our armed forces for the future." On what direct military experience does he make such claims?

George W. Bush applied to join the Texas Air National Guard on May 27, 1968, less than two weeks before he graduated from Yale University. The country was at war in Vietnam, and at that time, just months after the bloody Tet Offensive, an estimated 100,000 Americans were on waiting lists to join Guard units across the country. Bush was sworn in on the day he applied.

Ben Barnes, former speaker of the Texas House of Representatives, stated in September 1999 that in late 1967 or early 1968, he asked a senior official in the Texas Air National Guard to help Bush get into the Guard as a pilot. Barnes said he did so at the behest of Sidney Adger, a Houston businessman and friend of former President George H. W. Bush, then a Texas congressman. Despite Barnes's admission, former President Bush has denied pulling strings for his son, and retired Colonel Walter Staudt, George W. Bush's first commander, insists: "There was no special treatment."

The younger Bush fulfilled two years of active duty and completed pilot training in June 1970. During that time and in the two years that followed, Bush flew the F-102, an interceptor jet equipped with heat-seeking missiles that could shoot down enemy planes. His commanding officers and peers regarded Bush as a competent pilot and enthusiastic Guard member. In March 1970, the Texas Air National Guard issued a press release trumpeting his performance: "Lt. Bush recently became the first Houston pilot to be trained by the 147th [Fighter Group] and to solo in the F-102... Lt. Bush said his father was just as excited and enthusiastic about his solo flight as he was." In Bush's evaluation for the period May 1, 1971 through April 30, 1972, then-Colonel Bobby Hodges, his commanding officer, stated, "I have personally observed his participation, and without exception, his performance has been noteworthy." In the spring of 1972, however, National Guard records show a sudden dropoff in Bush's military activity. Though trained as a pilot at considerable government expense, Bush stopped flying in April 1972 and never flew for the Guard again.

Around that time, Bush decided to go to work for Winton "Red" Blount, a Republican running for the U.S. Senate, in Alabama. Documents from Ellington Air Force Base in Houston state that Bush "cleared this base on 15 May." Shortly afterward, he applied for assignment to the 9921st Air Reserve Squadron in Montgomery, Ala., a unit that required minimal duty and offered no pay. Although that unit's commander was willing to welcome him, on May 31 higher-ups at the Air Reserve Personnel Center in Denver rejected Bush's request to serve at the 9921st, because it did not offer duty equivalent to his service in Texas. "[A]n obligated Reservist [in this case, Bush] can be assigned to a specific Ready Reserve position only," noted the disapproval memo, a copy of which was sent to Bush. "Therefore, he is ineligible for assignment to an Air Reserve Squadron."

Despite the military's decision, Bush moved to Alabama. Records obtained by Georegemag.com show that the Blount Senate campaign paid Bush about $900 a month from mid-May through mid-November to do advance work and organize events. Neither Bush's annual evaluation nor the Air National Guard's overall chronological listing of his service contain any evidence that he performed Guard duties during that summer.

On or around his 27th birthday, July 6, 1972, Bush did not take his required annual medical exam at his Texas unit. As a consequence, he was suspended from flying military jets. Bush spokesperson Dan Bartlett told Georgemag.com: "You take that exam because you are flying, and he was not flying. The paperwork uses the phrase 'suspended from flying,' but he had no intention of flying at that time."

Some media reports have speculated that Bush took and failed his physical, or that he was grounded as a result of substance abuse. Bush's vagueness on the subject of his past drug use has only abetted such rumors. Bush's commanding officer in Texas, however, denies the charges. "His flying status was suspended because he didn't take the exam,not because he couldn't pass," says Hodges. Asked whether Bush was ever disciplined for using alcohol or illicit drugs, Hodges replied: "No."

On September 5, Bush wrote to then-Colonel Jerry Killian at his original unit in Texas, requesting permission to serve with the 187th Tactical Reconnaisance Group, another Alabama-based unit. "This duty would be for the months of September, October, and November," wrote Bush.

This time his request was approved: 10 days later, the Alabama Guard ordered Bush to report to then-Lieutenant Colonel William Turnipseed at Dannelly Air Force Base in Montgomery on October 7th and 8th. The memo noted that "Lieutenant Bush will not be able to satisfy his flight requirements with our group," since the 187th did not fly F-102s.

The question of whether Bush ever actually served in Alabama has become an issue in the 2000 campaign-the Air Force Times recently reported that "the GOP is trying to locate people who served with Bush in late 1972 ... to see if they can confirm that Bush briefly served with the Alabama Air National Guard." Bush's records contain no evidence that he reported to Dannelly in October. And in telephone interviews with Georgemag.com, neither Turnipseed, Bush's commanding officer, nor Kenneth Lott, then chief personnel officer of the 187th, remembered Bush serving with their unit. "I don't think he showed up," Turnipseed said.

Bush maintains he did serve in Alabama. "Governor Bush specifically remembers pulling duty in Montgomery and respectfully disagrees with the Colonel," says Bartlett. "There's no question it wasn't memorable, because he wasn't flying." In July, the Decatur Daily reported that two former Blount campaign workers recall Bush serving in the Alabama Air National Guard in the fall of 1972. "I remember he actually came back to Alabama for about a week to 10 days several weeks after the campaign was over to complete his Guard duty in the state," stated Emily Martin, a former Alabama resident who said she dated Bush during the time he spent in that state.

After the 1972 election, which Blount lost, Bush moved back to Houston and subsequently began working at P.U.L.L., a community service center for disadvantaged youths. This period of time has also become a matter of controversy, because even though Bush's original unit had been placed on alert duty in October 1972, his superiors in Texas lost track of his whereabouts. On May 2, 1973, Bush's squadron leader in the 147th, Lieutenant Colonel William Harris, Jr. wrote: "Lt. Bush has not been observed at this unit" for the past year. Harris incorrectly assumed that Bush had been reporting for duty in Alabama all along. He wrote that Bush "has been performing equivalent training in a non-flying status with the 187 Tac Recon Gp, Dannelly ANG Base, Alabama." Base commander Hodges says of Bush's return to Texas: "All I remember is someone saying he came back and made up his days."

Two documents obtained by Georgemag.com indicate that Bush did make up the time he missed during the summer and autumn of 1972. One is an April 23, 1973 order for Bush to report to annual active duty training the following month; the other is an Air National Guard statement of days served by Bush that is torn and undated but contains entries that correspond to the first. Taken together, they appear to establish that Bush reported for duty on nine occasions between November 29, 1972-when he could have been in Alabama-and May 24, 1973. Bush still wasn't flying, but over this span, he did earn nine points of National Guard service from days of active duty and 32 from inactive duty. When added to the 15 so-called "gratuitous" points that every member of the Guard got per year, Bush accumulated 56 points, more than the 50 that he needed by the end of May 1973 to maintain his standing as a Guardsman.

On May 1, Bush was ordered to report for further active duty training, and documents show that he proceeded to cram in another 10 sessions over the next two months. Ultimately, he racked up 19 active duty points of service and 16 inactive duty points by July 30-which, added to his 15 gratuitous points, achieved the requisite total of 50 for the year ending in May 1974.

On October 1, 1973, First Lieutenant George W. Bush received an early honorable discharge so that he could attend Harvard Business School. He was credited with five years, four months and five days of service toward his six-year service obligation. "
As for Vietnam, I'm not particularly interested in debating it although I do dispute your conclusion that it was an unwinnable war. That let's LBJ off very easy.

Lance....you are scaring me. You are either a planted government employee whose job it is to control spin on web pages for Bush, or you are an invilid confined to a wheelchair and have nothing to do all day but stare at your computer. I don't wish either on you. The George article is daunting but doesn't make our beloved President look like anything "but" a coniver. Not surprising that he has spent his life taking advantage. Do you think they could take his military record and make a movie out of it? Ya know like a hero-type thing? Georgie took every advantage he could to get out of any heavy lifting and the article sure points that out. Now, for Clinton....you have me at a disadvantage. This will take some time to fact check what you have said. There are always two sides to every story and I will need to see Clinton's. I will give you points for debating me on this at least. But again, you scare me. You are like some hired cyber geek with resources beyond reason. But somehow I like you. Being liberal I always enjoy intellectual challenge.

Bob, it's not like I haven't discussed these things with other people before. It wasn't too hard to get a copy of an article I read some time ago.

Anyway, as your statement that "Georgie took every advantage he could to get out of any heavy lifting and the article sure points that out." I don't disagree. Frankly, his military service means little to me one way or the other. But you called him a draft evader, which was simply false. He may not have been Audie Murphy, but he wasn't Bill Clinton either.

Boy, ya got me there. I didn't think I said "evaded" but looked to prior posts and by golly, I did. If you would be so kind, I'd like to say that by using "evade" I didn't mean in the legal definition (perhaps a factual error on my part). A better choice of words would be "avoided" or "side-stepped" the draft by using power, influence etc. I read the comments in the article of those who claim to have helped Bush and that they denied having his father "influence" their decision. Common Lance, does anyone really believe that people like the Bush's, Quale, Pat Robertson (Robertson's father got him reassigned to Japan while he was already on his way to Korea) and the like didn't use influence to "avoid" the draft? I am from that era and I'll admit that my Mom did everything she could to keep me out of it. Lucky for me I stayed in college and luckier got a really high draft lottery number. Towards the end of the Sixties every guy w/o a gunrack or a pickup was looking for ways out. That's not the point. What pisses me off and should you is that people with money and power in a democracy should have no more rights than the average guy. Especially when it comes to "avoiding" the draft. And look at things this way....if a friend of the Bush's used influence to pull strings for W to help him avoid combat do you think they would step forward and admit it? Would W have gotten elected if that were admitted? I don't think so.

"What pisses me off and should you is that people with money and power in a democracy should have no more rights than the average guy."

I agree, but criticizing members of one party for using their influence and ignoring members of the other party who did the same is dishonest. Like I said, I really don't care about Bush's military service one way or the other. The fact that Carter was a distinguished submarine officer didn't help him be anything more than a horrible president; the merits or lack thereof of Bush's presidency have nothing to do with what he was doing in 1970.

As for your question about whether or not someone admitting they helped Bush get into the Texas Air Guard would have killed his presidential campaign, my reply is that I doubt it would have made any difference in the minds of most voters. It's not as if Bush had a particularly cushy time during the war, and furthermore the exact same argument could be made regarding Gore's Vietnam experience.

I think we're almost ready to sing "Cumbaya" Lance. I agree that "no" party has a lock on being honest. And to be honest I do admit Clinton's views during Viet Nam mirror my own. I do need to research the truth about his avoidance of the war more thoroughly. Again, if he used some influence or strings, no matter the unjustness of the cause, I will agree it was wrong. As for Bush not having a cushy time I would say he got as cushy a time as he could. In fairness, he probably could have used influence to get a medical exemption as did others (DeLay, Gingrich) and probably felt the legacy of his Dad deserved some suedo bravado. As for Carter....Man, how could such a truly great man have gotten such a bad deal out of life? Smart, honest, great wife, kid, Godly. If conservatives say Clinton's good fortune was luck, should we at least say Carter's was bad luck? Should we say that GB1 had bad luck as well? Here's one for you.....I think Nixon was the scum of the earth but could have been a truly great President had he not succumbed to his own devices. LBJ was scum as well....how's that for being fair?

Lance....I have just spent time surfing and have read various accounts detailing Clinton's draft avoidance. It would appear that Bill did manage to accomplish a poor man's version of what those of wealth, position, and influence got away with. I do not defend Clinton. You can see the type of President he would later become by reading his letter to Col. Holmes way back in the those days. I can understand how the right would see him as unpatriotic, etc. He essentially got out of going to VN and someone else took his place....probably some poor black kid or someone whose Dad was a vet from Korea and felt he should 'defend' our nation. But in the end, Clinton got out and someone else had to go. You can defend Bush and other's who had higher up connections than did Clinton, but in the end they arrived at the same place.....free pass from VN and some 'other' poor slob got to go and die. I will tell you that I am in a business where I get to see financial records of business owners and am constantly amazed at how skillfully they 'avoid' paying taxes (and yes, many times 'illegally') that the little guy can't avoid unless he flat out doesn't report earnings. They both arrive at the same place but most people would say the later is a cheat and the former 'provides' jobs that fuel our economy. I am not a terribly religious person but wonder at times if the Lord sees the rich and powerful doing what they do and the poor doing essentially the same thing as 'wrong' no matter how you candy coat it? What do you think Lance?

" a medical exemption as did others (DeLay, Gingrich)"

Actually, DeLay had a student exemption and then a high lottery number. Gingrich had a student and family exemption and is believed to not be medically eligible on top of that.

"If conservatives say Clinton's good fortune was luck, should we at least say Carter's was bad luck?"

Carter entered office with many problems to face, but Reagan had even greater problems as a result of Carter's mismanagement and his presidency was a success. While Carter seems to be a decent man, aside from his shameless pandering to dictators to this day, he was completely unable to handle the job he won in 1976.

"But in the end, Clinton got out and someone else had to go. You can defend Bush and other's who had higher up connections than did Clinton, but in the end they arrived at the same place.....free pass from VN and some 'other' poor slob got to go and die."

Perhaps. On the other hand, Bush did actually serve in the military. Had he been George W. Smith he may very well have ended up in the exact same position in the Texas Air Guard that he had as George W. Bush. Clinton had no connections to use in his favor, but he basically committed fraud to get out of serving. I'm not sure the two outcomes are ethically equivalent. And again, in both cases I don't think what either man did in his early 20s has any real bearing on their presidencies, although it certainly can be said that the course of events for each did point out something in the nature of each man that would be exhibited again later in life.

I thought I had read about Newt and Tom getting medical deferments but as this attached article points out there seems to be some disparity between Dems and Repubs on actual service to our country. Military records of our leaders
by Duhboid
Here is a list showing who of our leaders served in the military:

Republicans:
Elliott Abrams - Sought deferment for bad back.
Richard Armey - Sought college deferment, too smart to die.
Bill Bennett - Sought graduate school deferment, too smart to die.
George W. Bush ≠ Daddy got him in the National Guard, went AWOL
Dick Cheney - Sought graduate school deferment, too smart to die.
Tom DeLay - - Sought college deferment, too smart to die.
Newt Gingrich - Sought graduate school deferment, too smart to die.
Phil Gramm - Sought marriage deferment, too loved to die.
Ronald Reagan - served in a noncombat role during WWII in the states.
He later seems to have confused his role as an actor playing a tail gunner with the real thing.
Bob Dornan - avoided Korean War combat duty by enrolling in college acting classes
Phil Gramm - avoided the draft, did not serve, four (?) student deferments
Senator John McCain - McCain's naval honors include the Silver Star, Bronze Star,
Legion of Merit, Purple Heart and Distinguished Flying Cross.
Former Senator Bob Dole - an honorable man Served in WWII and severely wounded.
Chuck Hagel - two Purple Hearts and a Bronze Star, Vietnam.
Duke Cunningham - nominated for the Medal of Honor, received the Navy Cross, two Silver Stars,
fifteen Air Medals, the Purple Heart, and several other decorations
Rush Limbaugh - Sought deferment for ingrown hair follicle on his ass.
Trent Lott - Sought deferment, didn't want to muss his hair.
P.J. O'Rourke - Sought deferment, too stoned.
Kenneth Starr ≠ Sought deferment for psoriasis.
John Wayne - Sought deferment to further acting career.
Vin Weber - Sought deferment for asthma.
George Will - Sought deferment, too much of a wussy.
Don Nickles, Senate Minority Whip - Did not serve
Senator Richard Shelby, did not serve
Saxby Chambliss, Georgia - did not serve, had a "bad knee"
(yet somehow feels he has a right to attack Max Cleland's patriotism)
Representative JC Watts - did not serve
Jack Kemp, did not serve (was fit enough for pro football, but "failed" the physical?)
Dan Quayle, avoided Vietnam service, got a slot in the journalism unit of the Indiana National Guard
when the unit was at 150% capacity (at least he showed up for his duty, unlike GW)
Karl Rove - avoided the draft, did not serve, too busy being a Republican.
Eliot Abrams, did not serve
Vin Weber, did not serve
Richard Perle, did not serve (is the current bloodshed in the Middle East a direct result of his
treasonous meddling in Clinton Administration foreign policy?)
Rudy Giuliani, did not serve

Att'y Gen. John Ashcroft - sought deferment to teach business ed at SW Missouri State
John Engler, did not serve
Tom Ridge, Bronze Star for Valor in Vietnam
Sam R. Johnson, combat missions in both Korea and Vietnam, POW in Hanoi from April 1966
to February 1973 (don't ever run for president Sam, they'll spread rumors that you're crazy)
Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert - avoided the draft, did not serve.

Puditocracy and Preacher-types:

George Will, did not serve
Bill O'Reilly, did not serve
Paul Gigot, did not serve.
Bill Bennett, Did not serve
Pat Buchanan, did not serve
Pat Robertson - did not serve, apparently used Daddy's connections to get off the ship
in Tokyo while his buddies went on to Korea.
Bill Kristol, did not serve

Independents
Gov. Jesse Ventura, U.S. Navy SEAL training, did UDT work
Senator Jim Jeffords, U.S. Navy 1956-1959

Prominent Democrats
Gray Davis, California Governor, served in Vietnam.
Chuck Robb, US Senator from Virginia, served in Vietnam
George McGovern, famous liberal, awarded Silver Star & DFC, dozens of missions during WWII.
Pete Stark, D-CA, served in the Air Force
House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt - Served his country in uniform, 1965-71
House Minority Whip David Bonior - Served his country in uniform, 1968-72
Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle - Served his country in uniform, 1969-72
Former VP Al Gore - Served his country in uniform, 1969-71; recipient of Vietnam Service Medal
Bob Kerrey... Democrat... Congressional Medal of Honor, Vietnam
Daniel Inouye... Democrat... Congressional Medal of Honor, World War Two
John Kerry... Democrat...Silver Star & Bronze Star, Vietnam
Charles Rangel...Democrat... Bronze Star, Korea
Max Cleland... Democrat... Silver Star & Bronze Star, Vietnam
Howell Heflin... Democrat... Silver Star
Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) - U.S. Army, 1951-1953.
Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) - U.S. Navy, 1962-67; Naval Reserve, 1968-74.
Rep. Leonard Boswell (D-IA) - two tours in Vietnam, two Distinguished Flying Crosses as a helicopter pilot,
two Bronze Stars, and the Soldier's Medal.
Ambassador "Pete" Peterson, Air Force Captain, POW, Democratic congressman, Ambassador to Viet Nam,
and recipient of the Purple Heart, the Silver Star and the Legion of Merit
Rep. Mike Thompson, D-CA: served in combat with the U.S. Army as a staff sergeant/platoon leader
with the 173rd Airborne Brigade; was wounded and received a Purple Heart.

Keep on hammering!
Duhboid

Bob, you might want to find a more reputable source that "Duhboid." His editorialism is as obnoxious as it is inaccurate. I could probably produce a list of plenty of Republicans who served versus Democrats who didn't if I was in the mood to do so.

On Scarborough's show last night. Former Florida Atty. General went over Rush's possible exposure to criminal prosecution. The mere posession (not even with intent to sell or distribute} of 5 grams of hydrocone-the weight of a nickle- 20 years mandatory- no mitigation. They have some of the most Draconian drug possesion laws in the country according to what he laid out. Scarey!

Rey,

Your post has left me a bit perplexed. Mike Patterson (former U.S. attorney and drug prosecutor - not attorney general of Florida) said this:

There is an interesting aspect of Florida law. And that is mere possession of large quantities of drugs can jeopardize an individual prosecution for trafficking.
And that is, you do not have to sell. You donít have to distribute. You donít have to transfer the drugs to anyone else. You can be acquiring these drugs exclusively for your own use. But you can also, based on the weight of the drugs themselves, be subject to these mandatory minimum sentences. And in fact, for hydrocodone, which is one of the ingredients of some of these drugs that Rush Limbaugh may have had, the sentence for 28 grams of hydrocodone is a mandatory 25 years.
These are very Draconian kinds of sentences. They are mandatory minimums, which means the judge, no matter how much good he finds an individual has done or what a tremendous citizen the individual is, would be required to sentence the individual to those 25 years, if itís 28 grams. And you have to understand, the amount, 4 grams of this would dictate a minimum three-year sentence. Four grams is less than the weight of a United States nickel. The coin, the United States nickel, weighs about 5 grams.

From http://www.msnbc.com/news/981696.asp

Yet, this case law from the state of Florida pretty clearly makes the opposite argument - that the total weight of the amount of hydrocodone one possesses has no bearing, only the amount per pill. That is, a pill with a high dose of hydrocodone is a Schedule II drug that is likely to be abused, whereas a pill with a low dose is not - regardless of how many one has.

http://www.law.fsu.edu/library/flsupct/94677/94677c.pdf

From that ruling:
The stateís argument that the language ďany mixture containing any such substanceĒ somehow converts the Schedule III hydrocodone into Schedule II hydrocodone is not supported by the plain, black and white language of the statute. Nor is the above plain reading inconsistent with appropriate objectives of the legislature to curb drug abuse and punish more severely those who traffic in large amounts of dangerous drugs. Because the trafficking statute was developed to impose more severe sanctions on those who deal in large amounts of various controlled substances, it doesnít make sense that the legislature intended that such a relatively small amount of hydrocodone/ acetaminophen be subject to the trafficking statute. It certainly does not make sense that 15 tablets of Lortab would subject a citizen to a minimum/mandatory 25 year prison sentence. This fact is borne out in dramatic fashion when ß893.135 is examined as a whole. The decision of the Fifth District Court of Appeal below must be quashed.

Also, as the following site and others point out, while hydrocodone was briefly a Schedule II drug in 2000, a year later it was back to a Schedule III.

http://www.recoveryresourcecenter.us/Hydrocodone.html

I didn't think anyone else had caught or realized the significance of U.S Attorney Patterson's statements , and your account is more accurate than what I was recalling from live T.V. But it certainly also shocked the shows host..and he tried to make the point that they have to have evidence of the accused actually having that amount of the drug in his or her posession. But the E-mails and tape transcripts released so far indicate that thousands of pills of a wide range of types and dosages were being delivered regularly. If a person has built up to a 30 pill a day habit, in one month they can consume over 900 pills. It can consume every waking moment of your life and hiding the addiction and acquiring the next weeks supply become a matter of life or death. It is scarey and sad. I had a similar experience post surgery for almost a year and managed to bury the beast.

Your account of what Atty. Patterson said on the Scarborough show is certainly more accurate than what I remembered watching it live. However even the host seemed shocked by what the former U.S. Atty. was saying about criminal liability in Florida for the mere illegal posession of specified amounts of certain drugs and he tried to point out that the police have to have evidence that you actually have that amount in your posession to prosecute. The E-mails and tape scripts that have been released show regular monthly deliveries of over 1000 pills of various types and dosages. If a person has worked themselves up to that level of addiction,30 pills a day, that is just a little over a months supply. And despite what a lot of non addicts are saying, that amount is not way out there. Every waking moment is centered on securing next weeks supply. It literally becomes a matter of life or death and it is sad and scarey. I went through a similar experience post surgery and it took me a year to kill the beast.

Hello. Just wanted to put my two cents in about the possible jailing of Rush Limbaugh. Chances are is that it won't happen (Rush going to jail). And I am not sure whether or not he should. The police have not questioned him or found any drugs illegally in his possession at this point. All we know is that he had a painkiller addiction. He has not admitted to obtaining the pills illegally and he will not do so with Roy Black as his attorney (that's another story in itself considering how much he blasted the "Kennedy" attorney and now he is cowering behind the same). For instance, if I said that I am an addict and I have a person that claims they sold me the drug saying I am an addict but no one shows me in possession of this illegal narcotics, where is the case? The dealer can say he gave me anything but until he shows that I had physical possession on me, there is no case. No one has raided his house. No one can prove possession because no one has shown that he has possessed these drugs. No one has proven that he had physical possession of these drugs. All they know is that he had an addiction. Even if what the housekeeper alleges is true, proving it is another matter. If charges are levied against him, (which they probably won't be) I have serious doubts that it would go to trial. People are confusing his confession of painkillers as a confession of wrongdoing.

Lance, once again you become like Rush and his ilk....."subjective" in putting down my post "reputable source". This is such a typical response of the right. Deny without using fact. The draft avoidance of Republican's during Viet Nam is widely accepted as truth and even Bush's record of being awol,if overstated or untrue, would be hard for the average guy to have pulled off. Frankly, I cannot fathom any common person 'not' showing up for duty and later 'making' up the 'missed' time. And wow, his girlfriend at the time vouched for him! Is is possible no one watching this site cannot see the double standard we have in this country? Rush will walk and some black kid will do time buying crack for 20 bucks. Each will get high and hide his pain but conservatives will feel Rush's pain more than the kid from the ghetto.

Bob, you really were trying to be reasonable for a while. I'm sorry it didn't last. "Duhboid"'s list describes Bush as AWOL without any evidence. Bush in fact did not go AWOL. "Duhboid"'s list includes Gore's service without describing the details, including the fact that his father got his service time cut in half and that he had what amounted to a personal bodyguard his entire time in Vietnam. "Duhboid" lists duplicate entries for Republicans, presumably to make his list look longer assuming that those reading the list won't notice. "Duhboid"'s list claims Saxby Chandliss "attack[ed] Max Cleland's patriotism" - which never happened. "Duhboid"'s list mocks Reagan even though he put his acting career on hold in order to volunteer for military service. And so on.

As I said, find a more reputable source.

Furthermore, comparing hydrocodone use for physical pain to crack cocaine is completely ludicrous.

Lance, I recently had an operation and was administered some wonderful drug that took away my pain and frankly made me feel so frickin' good I could absolutely see why a junkie would use it. But whether a person uses crack, marajuana, meth, cocaine, or hydrocodone it matters little "what" the drug of choice really is. If they abuse it they become addicted and under its spell. Having raised 4 children it would have mattered little to me which drug my kid used if the "outcome" had been the same. The hypocracy comes into play with the "law" which gives a harsher penalty for 'crack' than 'cocaine' making the white crime somehow less offensive than the poor minority crime of drug abuse. But again, I have as much sympathy for the high(no pun) and mighty as I do the poor black kid. But in fairness, how do you distinguish between Rush's error and someone taking some poor man's drug? And please don't come back and say Rush was taking a 'prescription drug'. It is truly only a prescription when you are under a dr's order to take it. Every Dr I know takes great precaution to describe the adverse affect of taking meds and I would assume Rush's Docs cautioned him. Correct me if I am wrong....I know you will. And Lance, I really like you. I don't get personal with this banter. I appreciate honest debate and wish talk radio allowed it.

"But whether a person uses crack, marajuana, meth, cocaine, or hydrocodone it matters little "what" the drug of choice really is."

Of course it does. By equating all drugs you are negating the notion that some have a greater therapeutic value than others. Most any drug can be abused, but some drugs when not abused are useful medicines. Crack cocaine is never going to be used as a medicine, whereas hydrocodone is a very useful in treating pain. If someone is using hydrocodone in the treatment of a medical problem, there is a world of difference between that and someone who smokes crack because they like getting high.

"But in fairness, how do you distinguish between Rush's error and someone taking some poor man's drug?"

First of all, there is at this point no evidence that Rush broke any laws. But aside from that, once again the difference is that one is done as a medical treatment and the other is done for recreation. The distinction seems rather obvious.

"I appreciate honest debate and wish talk radio allowed it."

Bob, I highly doubt you have the ability to listen to every single talk radio program in the country. Consequently, blanket statements about the entire industry really have little merit.

If Rush was taking the amount he claims he took or even more simply, admitted to being addicted, he makes my case.....that you are taking the drug illegally since if he was taking Oxy under prescription(he has no prescription as far as anyone knows, i.e. currently) a Dr. would be monitoring his progress with the alledged use of the drug. Again, if you were diagnosed with some ailment and went to your Dr and he prescribed a med, he would advise a follow-up visit. How could Rush have "not" taken all those pills illegally Lance? Perhaps the law enforcement folks are presented with the burden of proving he obtained the junk illegally but people of reason can plainly see he "must" have. When your teen returns home drunk at 2 a.m. you as a parent don't need to search their car for evidence do you? If Rush gets a free pass from conservatives on this they should at least see the ironic parallel to Clinton's sex addiction. Lance I like pulling your chain.

Lance as you have posted "Of course it does. By equating all drugs you are negating the notion that some have a greater therapeutic value than others. Most any drug can be abused, but some drugs when not abused are useful medicines. Crack cocaine is never going to be used as a medicine, whereas hydrocodone is a very useful in treating pain. If someone is using hydrocodone in the treatment of a medical problem, there is a world of difference between that and someone who smokes crack because they like getting high."

I have a simple question for you, if one were taking hydrocodone to get high, would you view that on the same level as one who was say using crack to get high?

"If Rush was taking the amount he claims he took"

Perhaps I missed it, but I don't remember Rush ever claiming to take a specific amount of pills.

" or even more simply, admitted to being addicted, he makes my case"

How exactly does that make your case? Rush chose to use certain drugs in order to treat a medical problem. The fact that he may have subsequently become addicted does not change the reason he began taking the drugs in the first place. That doesn't logically follow.

"How could Rush have "not" taken all those pills illegally Lance?"

Again, you don't know how many pills he was taking.

"If Rush gets a free pass from conservatives on this they should at least see the ironic parallel to Clinton's sex addiction."

This sentence doesn't even make any sense. First of all, who has ever claimed that Clinton had a "sex addiction"? Secondly, conservatives issues with Clinton had to do with perjury and obstruction of justice, not sex. As far as I know Clinton wasn't addicted to perjuring himself, although I could be wrong about that.

"I have a simple question for you, if one were taking hydrocodone to get high, would you view that on the same level as one who was say using crack to get high?"

Obviously.

Furthermore, comparing hydrocodone use for physical pain to crack cocaine is completely ludicrous."

Since Rush was acquiring the pills without a prescription, what he was doing was illegally purchasing narcotics.

Lance, it seems to me that your argument on whether or not what Rush did was worse that a typical crack addict is whether or not he enjoyed the buzz one undeniably gets from taking hydrocodone.

"Since Rush was acquiring the pills without a prescription, what he was doing was illegally purchasing narcotics. "

Which, even if true, has nothing to do with WHY he was taking them. You're conflating two separate issues.

The issues should be conflated. A court of law will view the purchase, distribution and abuse of a controlled substance the same regardless of its therapeutic value. I don't see the value in the reason "why he was taking them", isn't the point of this the illegal purchase of controlled substances.

My point isn't to convince anyone that Rush deserves jail time, is to only point out that it would be just as ridiculous to send Rush to prison, therefore ruining this mans life, as it would be to send a crack addict to prison. Addiction is addiction and differentiating the drugs therapeutic value is just silly. If a crack addict or a hydrocodone addict steals or mugs or hurts someone trying to feed his or her addiction, there is your crime.

If one feels that taking a drug, be it crack, pot heroin or oxycotin on its own is a crime, than as the law stands, Rush is a criminal. Rush admitted to abusing painkillers, Rush does not have a doctor prescribing those narcotics. Imagine Rush, a convicted felon not even afforded the right to vote for his Republican Party.

Lance, if you are gonna reply to everything with " you don't know this or that to be a fact because it hasn't been proven in a court under oath or there is not definitive proof of exactly how many painkillers he was taking", I guess you will be telling me that OJ is innocent next.

You kind of remind me of John Kleese(?) in the classic Monty Python skit where Michael Palin buys an argument.

"The issues should be conflated. A court of law will view the purchase, distribution and abuse of a controlled substance the same regardless of its therapeutic value. I don't see the value in the reason "why he was taking them", isn't the point of this the illegal purchase of controlled substances."

No, it isn't. That's not the discussion we've been having. If you want to start a new discussion, fine, but that's what you'd be doing. What we are discussing is whether or not there is any qualitative similarity to taking certain drugs for therapy and others simply for pleasure.

"My point isn't to convince anyone that Rush deserves jail time, is to only point out that it would be just as ridiculous to send Rush to prison, therefore ruining this mans life, as it would be to send a crack addict to prison."

I agree. I don't believe in jailing any drug users. That isn't the discussion we're having, though.

"Lance, if you are gonna reply to everything with " you don't know this or that to be a fact because it hasn't been proven in a court under oath or there is not definitive proof of exactly how many painkillers he was taking", I guess you will be telling me that OJ is innocent next."

Since I haven't been doing that, your criticism is pointless.

"You kind of remind me of John Kleese(?) in the classic Monty Python skit where Michael Palin buys an argument."

It's John Cleese with a 'C'. If you're going to make Monty Python comparisons you could at least go to the trouble of spelling the guy's name properly.

Lance, I'm having a really difficult time figuring you out? You don't seem to fit any profiles I can identify. I am beginning to think you are Hal from 2001 Space Oddessy. I probably misspelled that but Hey, I'm human. Obviously you are an intellectual (not a slam even if you are a conservative) and I do appreciate your wit but, this whole drug thing with Rush has me baffled. Politics aside, are there no moral equivalents here with his drug use? I mean, isn't this similar to what Bill Bennett went through with his gambling addiction while championing morality, virtue, and conservatism as the true path to salvation? I embellish some but you get my drift. Please cease the contract language style of discussion you have with the rest of us Hal, I mean, Lance and be a little open to being vulnerable which you will find is a rather human characteristic. Maybe that's why conservatives and liberals dissagree so much over Clinton's impeachment? We saw only a BJ and conservatives saw criminal activity. Do our minds work that differently? You see some medical excuse for Rush and I see a human with the same frail character as a pothead.

"I mean, isn't this similar to what Bill Bennett went through with his gambling addiction while championing morality, virtue, and conservatism as the true path to salvation?"

I suppose in some ways it is, superficially at least. As far as I know Bennett never criticized gambling in any of his works about "virtue", so immediately branding him a hypocrite is a bit overwraught.

If Rush were, say, a cocaine addict, clearly that would hypocritical. That said, I don't think hypocrisy is necessarily the world's greatest sin. A two pack a day smoker telling kids not to smoke is hypocritical, but I wouldn't have a problem with that. However, assuming what has generally presented as fact to be true, Rush had a medical problem that required treatment. I fail to see how this is damning of the man. Now he may or may not have broken the law to get that treatment and if he did he should face some sort of legal punishment. That said, I see nothing unethical about taking a drug to cure pain.

"You see some medical excuse for Rush and I see a human with the same frail character as a pothead."

Pot and other drugs are taken for recreation. They serve no necessity. Now, I have no moral objection to their use - but I have no moral objection to hitting one's self in the head with a hammer either. Whatever people want to do for fun is fine with me provided it doesn't infringe on the rights of other people. However, to equate such behavior with the pharmacalogical treatment of a medical problem is ridiculous. Certainly there is a trivial similarity but that's where it ends. One activity serves no purpose aside from amusement and is often self-destructive, the other is an activity that saves, extends, or improves one's life.

If I told you someone cut open my chest and broke my ribs last night I could either be describing a vicious attack or open heart surgery, but it would be foolish to consider the two activities equivalent merely due to certain trivial similarities.

You're good Lance...I'll give you that. Ok, how 'bout this? "reportedly" Rush used his maid to do his 'illegal' buying of his drugs. He put 'her' in a legally precarious position (some would say 'cowardly') since 'she' would be prosecuted had she been caught instead of him. Do you find anything slightly wrong with El Rushbo's method of acquisition of a 'controlled' substance since you seem to excuse his supposed medical need for it even though, once again, he had no lawful way to obtain it or take it?

"Do you find anything slightly wrong with El Rushbo's method of acquisition of a 'controlled' substance since you seem to excuse his supposed medical need for it even though, once again, he had no lawful way to obtain it or take it?"

You're still making a lot of assumptions. I tend to doubt the veracity of a National Enquirer story, and furthermore question how you can assume that Rush had "no lawful way to obtain [...] or take" whatever it was he was taking. As far as I know it's not publically known what painkillers Rush was taking, let alone how much he was taking of anything.

Lance....I will gleefully admit I am wrong if this whole turns out to be overblown and your defense of Rush proves correct. However (don't you just hate that word?) should the story turn out to be true, will you do the same? No sense carrying this argument further. I guess we will just have to see what turns out to be true or not. However, seems odd Rush sorta came clean after his maid made the claim and the heat was turned on. I would guess she went to the Enquirer because no one else would pay for that story....certainly not the "liberal media".

"Lance....I will gleefully admit I am wrong if this whole turns out to be overblown and your defense of Rush proves correct. However (don't you just hate that word?) should the story turn out to be true, will you do the same?"

Certainly.

"I would guess she went to the Enquirer because no one else would pay for that story....certainly not the "liberal media".

Regardless of how liberal the press is, they tend not to write big checks for stories of questionable validity, whereas the Enquirer doesn't have that problem.

Lance, I think we've finally reached Detente!!....or is it Glasnos?

Agreed. We have debated this topic into the ground.

That commentator Joe Scarborough gets himself in more hot water! He had General McCaffrey the former drug Czar on his show ,Fri. I think, to bolster his point that quite a few bogus or careless doctors out there are handing out prescritions for potentially addictive painkillers with litte or no regard for for their patients getting hooked. But the General, retired and now associated with a leading addiction rehab center wasn't having any of it and went on a tear about the reality of how Rush got hooked and how it has affected his body chemistry and his psyche. Poor Joe was mortified as McCaffrey went thru the rehab steps including a 12 step program and a long battle to avoid relapses. I hope you saw the show Lance... I think it brought some reality into the situation that a long time heavy user of these drugs faces.

Truth is, I feel sorry for Rush. He is truly ignorant. Not stupid, or even misguided. Just ignorant.
His education and "good sense" had landed him exactly where he belongs.
Oh, and his 15 minutes are most likely over.

I wonder what Ol Rushbo thinks about Donavan McNabb after tonights game ?

The McNabb thing pales in my mind when compared to past gaffs. A while back I asked why anyone would put so much stock in Rush anyway? Isn't he the one who several years ago used to read directly out of "The American Spectator" and used that rag as a source of truth. Then years later we read from David Brock's book "Blinded By The Right" that he as author of those marvelous pieces Rush loved to quote never had any of his facts checked and in fact had printed only inuendos he 'heard' from others. Rather apalling journalism. Rush has always been quick to spread untruthful junk as have other 'Neos' but this cottage industry has learned that repeating subjective garbage often and loudly will be believed by the right as 'objective'.

THIS MAN MAKES ME SICK,,,,,,,,,,,,
I THINK THAT SAYS IT ALL,