GWB had better university scores than John Effin "stuck in Iraq" Skerry.

After reading the transcript, how can anyone say that Bush is dumb?

I know, they CAN'T read the transcript.

/DUmmies

I sent in my absentee ballot. Straight R's all across the sheet.

God Bless the US Military.
God Bless the US.

I'm glad he asked the really tough hardball questions.

/sarc

To Truthseeker....you mean like the hardball questions that the MSM lobs to the Dhimmicrats?

If I stipulate that your statement is true, then you should be just as critical of Rush for doing what you complain about the MSM doing.

Truthseeker,

You miss the difference between a pundit and a journalist. A pundit like Rush is not supposed to be free of bias, partisanship and opinion. The mainstream media's journalists are. They are the left's Rush partisans but claiming they're unbiased journalists.

In other words they're lying propagandists for the left.

Warwick,

I'm not sure that the MSM journalists are supposed to be free of bias, partisanship and opinion. I do think, however, that they owe it to us to be up front about their biases and not pretend to be "objective". Their pretence is my biggest gripe about these lying propagandists for the left.

So is your issue with the MSM about bias or transparency? In other words, do you find someone like Limbaugh a superior source of information to the MSM because he is transparent about his leanings, or because you share them? Also, the line between journalist and pundit are slurred all the time. I see Michelle Malkin and Mark Steyn being referred to as journalists quite frequently, and they certainly are certainly propagandists for the Right (and often lying too).

Republicans... "They can't beat us. The only way to lose is to choose to leave."

Democrats... "Stand up for choice. Choose to lose."

Meanwhile, the Dems are itching to get back to their own very expensive war, the War on Poverty, where only American cities like Detroit are targeted and destroyed. /sarc

I don't listen to Rush. I find him annoying. But at least he isn't pretending to be fair. If you say you have not agenda, you shouldn't have one. If you say you have one, you're not a journalist. If you say you don't have one but do have one, and call yourself a journalist, you're a disgraceful, lying propagandist.

Drug Addict Interviews a Draft Dodger

Did Doughboy Limbaugh lose a bet and have to kiss W's butt for the payoff.

The 'tough' questions played right into W's agenda.

The entire population of the USA should be offended at this staged load of crap!

If you are a human being, you are biased. That affects everything you do, whether you are conscious of it or not. The same applies to journalists. No doubt, a journalist's biases can slant the way they report things. HOWEVER, there is a difference between being biased and actively pursuing an agenda. I think the only agenda most journalists have is to make a name for themselves and get the cushiest possible job.

Meanwhile, my original post was on topic, but the rest of this should be discussed elsewhere.

I can't believe these things need explaining. The MSM is losing market share for a good reason. Listening to Rush today he had a clip from I think Paula Zahn and she talks about the fallout for Kerry and hoping it will die in a day or two. The trouble is she uses "we" as though she is in the Kerry inner circle or something. It's funny how she exposed herself. Face it we see it everyday on our TV news here in Canada. If you can't distinguish the difference between Rush and people like Floyd Robertson and what their job is supposed to be then you are very confused indeed. Floyd, Oliver, Duffy and co. are just shameless Liberal hacks disguised as journalists. That list in Canada is a very long one. Who can deny it? The case against them gets more obvious by the day.

David,
You and your intolerant views offend me.
enough

Odd that you should mention the drug addiction in a thread that has also brought up journalistic bias.

In 2005, CTV's W5 did a special on oxycontin addiction. A very, very, very sympathetic one. Highly concerned. Stressed how powerful an addiction it could be, and how insidious, as so many people take the drug for pain relief purposes end up hooked on it.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1105144562644_1/?hub=WFive

I watched it, waiting for the obvious - a mention of Rush Limbaugh. You'd think it would have been used to anchor the piece, or at least as an aside - but...

Guess what. They didn't mention him.

Odd, isn't it?

Kate,

Odd in one way and totally predictable in another.

Odd that CTV is MSM and would presumably use the opportunity to take pot shots.

Predictable that few Canadians know Limbaugh, let alone his ultra conservative viewpoints. Canucks as a rule would not relate to his reference in the piece.

Re: Calling President Bush a draft dodger is a LIE that DB and his fellow traveler, Mary Mapes desperately cling to and repeat often, as if mere repetition alone can somehow make it so.

David Clown said: "The entire population of the USA should be offended at this staged load of crap!"

Wuss. Only Nancy Boys and Canadians get "offended" by trivial crap. "Offended" is a "Gay Lobby"/Feminist word. Man up, son.

If Rush is "ultra conservative" as you say, then how's the weather in Havana these days? Or do you live in Pyongyang this year?

When I lived in the US, countless liberals would repeat essentially the same story (and it included me):

"Yeah, I heard this guy talking on the radio, and you know, he made alot of sense. But then I found out it was Rush Limbaugh and never tuned in again."

Rush's anti-Canadian rants have not endeared him to myself and others.

Well, considering "few" Canadians had heard of Rush, it's even odder then, that CTV reported on his drug problems at all.

geez louise...the guy's a damn pundit...what do you expect...of course he will bash any lib cause...that's his job, man....if u do not like, do not listen....freedom, what a concept.....GO ARMY

David Brown: Drug Addict Interviews a Draft Dodger

You're a straight up liar, David. Bush served my country. He received a bachelor’s degree in history from Yale University in 1968, and then served as an F-102 fighter pilot in the Texas Air National Guard.

You must've meant William Jaggoff Clinton

Ignorant assmunch.

While Bush and Cheney are not technically draft dodgers, they both used their connections and knowledge of the system to avoid having to go to 'Nam. Sort of a sophisticated "draft avoider", but not much more respectable than the classic "draft dodger" IMHO.

I wonder what Rush did back then? Probably got a medical exemption or something.

Hey jerkinoff or whatever your name is, try truth it will set you FREE!!!!!!! Because what your spewing is anything but truth.

As a matter of fact he did get a medical exemption for what was later disclosed as a pilonidal cyst. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilonidal_cyst
Take it for what it is. True on not. If he was a draft dodger he wasn't the only one.

I've never understood the "draft dodger" accusation against Bush. I thought the left celebrated them as their own? You know - like "union leader" and "communist dictator".

"While Bush and Cheney are not technically draft dodgers, they both used their connections and knowledge of the system to avoid having to go to 'Nam"
Only ten percent of American forces served in the Vietnam War. That would mean ninety percent of armed forces personell "used their connections and knowledge of the system to avoid having to go to 'Nam"
George W. Bush flew a jet fighter, which is a dangerous occupation in and of itself. Dick Cheney was already in his mid twenties when the war ramped up and got a forth deferment to attend graduate school.
Bill Clinton went to school, protested the war, played rugby a lot and played sax.

"Bill Clinton went to school, protested the war, played rugby a lot and played sax."

Plus, he had a lot of sex.

And no one seems to be on his case. What gives????

More On Topic: This interview was very respectful of the office of the POTUS, and Rush Limbaugh asked some very important questions. President George W. Bush answered them straightforwardly.

I was impressed by the seriousness with which both the President and Limbaugh discussed the threat to the U.S. (and the rest of us), and the need for the Western allies not to retreat.

Osama bin Laden is counting on us to be cowards. He's counting on us to pick up our marbles and head home, and President GW Bush knows how important it is for the U.S. (and the rest of us) not to cut and run.

If you want to see this interview as propaganda and pandering, then you've missed the import of what's at stake. What the President is saying, is that we're at a crucial crossroads in this fight, and now is not the time to become surrender monkeys, like the Dhimmicrats (h/t John Luft) seem to want the U.S. to.

God bless the U.S. Military!
God bless the U.S.!

Kate: That is an excellent point which I almost posted on myself earlier: the left's criticism of a draft-dodging political opponent for dodging the war they thought was immoral. By their logic (sic) that should be a highly moral action to be celebrated.

Re: Kerry, I also found it extremely puzzling that this man: a) trashed the military in Vietnam in the 1971 hearings (murdering 200,000 a year) and b) ran almost solely on his "heroism" in that same war.

The greatest president America has ever had. The reason he has saved millions and millions of lives by being brave and heading off and revealing our deadliest enemy.

If he had waited we were heading for an all out world war. But the threat has been diminished. But not eradicated. Stay the course sir (but of course as you have said an number change tactics as necessary.

As the interview said in the end I pray for the American President regularly.

God Bless America

and

God Bless Canada

Glad to see somebody mentions Bill Clinton and what that miscreant did during the Vietnam war.
About the same age as Bush, who learned to fly and flew a very dangerous plane conducting missions over the US to protect US skies ( something his critics either do not know or don't care to mention) and ASKED , repeatedly , to go to Vietnam.
Of, course that would not fit into their mantra of hateful criticism toward the Commander-in-Chief of the greatest army in the world...an army who stands ready to defend US if needed.
Personally, I am just sick of the ignorant and hateful rhetoric...and that includes John Kerry .. John Kerry now not able to even apologize... well why should he when he did mean what he said. Always has meant it. And so many others who spew hatred... toward the very man and men and women who work hard to defend them.
They don't even mention Al-Queda or terrorists..they are an aside... their real target, their real aim is George Bush.
And why? He has committed the sin of beating the democrats and beating them soundly. Showing them up for the liars and frauds they are and shining through as one of the most decent men and greatest presidents the US has ever been blessed to have.
All you have to do is listen to the man.. and read the transcript over at Rush's site to know that this man knows what the war is all about and what it means for our future if we do not take it seriously.
It offends me in the most aggregious way to see this ignorance coming from people who would run for cover and hide behind the skirts of their Aunty Bem if real terror were coming at them, yet think NOTHING of coming and posting idiotic inanities and hateful rhetoric knowing absolutely nothing of what they say.
Again, I say History will prove that George Bush is one of the US greatest presidents and Bill Clinton one of the absolute worst who should have been completely impeached and tried for treason.
Rush is a pundit, of that there is no doubt. But he is NOT far right 'Ultra-conservative.. he right in the middle.. and he knows the American people down to their toes. THAT is why he is so popular.
He also knows democrats for who and what they are and is not afraid to say so and has the information in his stack of stuff to back it up.

David Brown calls President Bush a draft dodger. Brown is a liar. Bush could have easily avoided service if he had wished. He signed up as a test pilot-a more dangerous role than would have been assigned to him in Viet Nam given his MBA and pedigree. Bush in fact voluntered to serve in Viet Nam.

Nor was Bush AWOL as lying lefties allege. He more than fulfilled his obligations. In fact he had 5 times the flight requirements in his first year and 3 times the requirements in his second year of service. It was only during his 5th and 6th years of service that Bush flew the minimum hours.

These facts, although not reported in the MSM, are readily available on line to anyone remotely interested in the truth.

The point about Bush's military record is that he did not engage in combat, and yet he and his minions (who also did not engage in combat) are more than eager to engage large numbers of US troops in major combat actions. Sort of a "do as I say and not as I do".

Can you imagine the outcry if Bill Clinton ordered the troops not to have sex?

News flash: Iberia has just ruled that the USA has no right to defend itself against terrorists, because GW Bush himself did not serve in active combat.

Well, Iberia, judging from your convoluted logic, I would definitely recommend that YOU not have sex. One of you is definitely enough for this planet. :)

"Can you imagine the outcry if Bill Clinton ordered the troops not to have sex?"

About the same as when he pardoned a notorious criminal like Marc Rich.

"Well, considering "few" Canadians had heard of Rush, it's even odder then, that CTV reported on his drug problems at all."

The truth can be painful, eh!

Rush fan I am

Sorry I posted the wrong quote

I should have posted this one
"Rush's anti-Canadian rants have not endeared him to myself and others." This is the one where the truth hurts, eh!

Right on, Joe Canuck. My thoughts exactly after reading Iberia's idiotic statement about George W. Bush's incapacity to defend the U.S. against terrorists because he hadn't, himself, served in active combat.

Huh?

Duh.

Iberia,

"blah blah blah ...large numbers of US troops in major combat actions."

So you figure Roosevelt was wrong for sending US troops into a major combat action (WWII) because he didn't see any active combat ... the do as I say thing?

BATB, ural and others,

The person you are calling Iberia is really Lberia, as in Lavrenty Beria, Stalin's executioner. If you copy & paste his nic, you'll see it correctly.

Is there any point in talking to someone who has proudly named himself after the murderer of up to 10 million people?

TS - "...and they certainly are certainly propagandists for the Right (and often lying too)."

First of all, the word "propagandist" by definition implies lying. Secondly, I listen to Malkin occasionally and Steyn a lot, and while they do lean to the right I have yet to hear a lie from either.

I listened to Rush a few times and found him boring and repetitive. I can't understand his popularity. Maybe I just caught him on his bad days. In this interview he has some good points (all in Bush's favor) but he's really just being a cheerleader. He's been a Bush chearleader for 6 years now, nothing more. I don't value his opinion for anything else.

Now, if Michael Savage or Bill O'Reilly got the chance to interview Bush they'd hold his feet to the fire.

"I want your listeners to understand this, that I made the calculation having watched what happened during the last attempt to have bilateral relations with North Korea, that if it didn't work then, it's not going to work now."
They failed, spectacularly.
Did American Democrats REALLY have to chuck nuclear reactors into the Agreed Framework of 1994???

Kate... It's not that Limbaugh was addicted to a powerful narcotic, it's that the fat phony was cheerleading the hypocritical, Republican war on drugs while popping pills like candy.

And no, Dubya wasn't a draft dodger. Draft dodgers had to leave the country or go to jail. GWB got to sit out the war in the safety and comfort of a homefront national guard champagne squadron.

"the USA has no right to defend itself against terrorists"

Where did I say that?

And stop fantasizing about my sex life. ;>)

Outraged again, Kathryn? Funny how you don't have anything bad to say about the commentators with innocuous names that actually advocate genocide (kill all the muslims,etc.).

No, Lavrentia, no outrage, no disgust, just pity.

I really feel for you, going to all the trouble of honouring a mass murderer and people think you're a European peninsula. Man, that's gotta hurt.

Honouring? If you say so.

I could care less if I'm refered to as iberia, lberia, siberia, Layton worshipper, whatever, so you don't have to pity me. I explained to you once before why I chose this name.

However, I do pity you. Your indignation over someone using the name of an evil historical character contrasts with your silence about what certain commentators post here. Is it because you approve of the sentiment that ALL muslims should be wiped off the face of the earth? Do you approve of all the other unpleasant comments posted? I'd love to see your explanation, though I don't expect you'll answer.

Thank-you for posting this excellent interview Kate. I say thank-you to GW Bush every day for being a good man with wisdom, forsight and concern for the people of this world. I spent two nerve wracking U.S.A. Elections in the last 6 years, fearing the possible victory first Al Gore then Kerry; I heaved a huge sigh of relief when GW won both - IMO GW Bush and his intrepid policies stand firmly between me (as a woman) and slavery promised by the Burka. I fear slavery more than death so I am a Conservative and a Republican - I so wished that GW Bush was our PM when he won his first election. Back in those dark days we were still saddled with Liberano$ for PM's. Thank goodness those terrible embarrassing times are now in the past; we now have a PM who is Canadian but who makes us proud to be Canadian. God Bless President Bush, his lovely wife Laura,his family and the U.S.A. God Bless Canada, Stephen Harper and his lovely wife Laurene and their family. Long live freedom from the burka, arranged marriages and my hands in a thumb screw. May Freedom win this round in History,Stephen Harper, GW Bush, John Howard and Tony Blair are leaders who can see us through this bizzard of would be enslavers of we, the people.

Iberia,

It's apparent that you secretly love what's posted here. Otherwise, why do you spend so much time?

And why should people be outraged by "what certain commentators post here?"

In case you haven't noticed, the vast majority of commentators here haven't had the leftoid-multi-culti-PC-idiot implant installed in their brain as you've elected to have done.

George Bush vs. Al "I invented the internet" Gore.

George Bush vs. John "the troops are stupid" Kerry.

Thank God Bush won. What an absolute disaster it would've been with these morons running things. Even their own have distanced themselves from them.

Kate and others,

I have no political allegiance and am neutral to all things left and right.

Reading my posts you'll see that I criticize stupidity and praise good judgement no matter what poltical party is being discussed.

I refer to Bush as a draft dodger because he did indeed dodge the draft by being a senator's son and rode out the war in a high flying champagne charged manner.

Bush may well have volunteered for active duty but you have to ask yourself what other pilot that volunteered was turned down. The air force was desperate as hell to get planes in the air during the Vietnam conflict so turning down a pilot is utter nonsense unless of course your a senator's son.

Yes, Lavrenty, you did explain your reason, it didn’t hold water then, and it doesn’t hold water now.

You said that you enjoyed the reaction you got from that name, which is odd, considering I’m the only one who has commented on it and you had the name long before I did so. How you could enjoy something that hadn't happened remains a mystery.

Whether or not I approve all the “kill ‘em all” position taken by certain commentators, and I don’t, there is no reasonable expectation that I, or anyone else, must publicly condemn blowhards who are venting at a keyboard. Silence is not acceptance or agreement. If you want to waste time condemning or debating them (and it will be a waste of time – people who post such things are unreachable), feel free. Kate will let you know if/when you’re wasting bandwidth.

I am a conservative, Republican (by choice).Yet I do, with some admitted amount of trepidation, kind of hope that the Dems win the election next week, and maybe the 2008 election.

I think the citizens of the USA, and those countries who may, in some way, depend on the USA for some form of protection and economic stability, really do need to get one more good dose of liberalism and far left-leaning politicians. After that maybe the electorate will finally have learned enough to make it, and them, go away for a very long time.

You know... that "carefull, you may get what you are wishing for" thingy.

The voting public is both fickle and has a short memory. Every once in a while they need to be reminded.

It might be that a number of nations are going to have to increase their defense budgets because the Dems maybe, really, kind of, aren't going to be there for them if the SHTF.

I do so much want to see how the Dems will talk the jihadists into leaving us alone. I do so much want to hear the public whine when their taxes go back up. I do so much want to hear the pundits explain the stagnant economy and the tanking stock market that will be inevitable. I do so much want to see the Dems actually prod the UN into real, meaningful action. I do so much want to see the rest of the world be comfortable with the idea that the Dems will be there for them when the chips are all pushed into the pot. I really, really do want to see how the Dems finally answer the questions they have been avoiding, and actually have to unveil their plans for solving the economic woes and the terrorists plots that bedevil the world.

(tongue in cheek/on)
I think the likes of Kennedy, Kerry, Reid and Pelosi will have every person, everywhere in the world, feeling much better and much safer in no time at all.
There is also the possibility that our military might have their budget increased to cover remedial reading and proper spelling. The spellin in that there photo from Irak were atrocious.
(tongue in cheek'off)

yoop in mi

David Brown said:

"I refer to Bush as a draft dodger because he did indeed dodge the draft by being a senator's son and rode out the war in a high flying champagne charged manner."

Many who flew the Deuce would not have considered it a high flying champagne ride. The 102 could be a very unforgiving piece of aluminum built by the lowest bidder.

"Bush may well have volunteered for active duty but you have to ask yourself what other pilot that volunteered was turned down. The air force was desperate as hell to get planes in the air during the Vietnam conflict so turning down a pilot is utter nonsense unless of course your a senator's son."

Please don't let the facts get in the way. But, in case you may want to reconsider, please tell all here when Bush was flying the 102, and when the last 102's were deployed home from Nam.

Hint: Bush flew in the very late 60's and early 70's. His hours were logged in the 102, and that was the plane he was proficient in. The last 102's were deployed back to the States from the Viet Nam theater in 1968.

But, since you seem to be an expert on the details of that era, you already knew that, didn't you?

yoopinmi,

I guess Bush is so dim-witted that he couldn't learn to fly a 104 or a 111.

Maybe the partying and cheerleading cut into his flight school training time.

David Brown, which one of those do you fly - the 104, or the 111?

Or perhaps more likely, your aircraft of choice would be one of the magic carpets made famous by Doug Henning's Natural Law Party of Yogic Flyers?

:))

I refer to Bush as a draft dodger because he did indeed dodge the draft by being a senator's son and rode out the war in a high flying champagne charged manner.

"Bush may well have volunteered for active duty but you have to ask yourself what other pilot that volunteered was turned down. The air force was desperate as hell to get planes in the air during the Vietnam conflict so turning down a pilot is utter nonsense unless of course your a senator's son.

Posted by: David Brown at November 2, 2006 11:10 AM "

It seems someone else has already taken David to the woodshed but David is bound and determined to re-write history to suit his own views of president Bush and what he did and why he did it.
Not much sense arguing with David as his mind is already made up.
Suffice to say as others have posted here:
Comparing backgrounds, it is clear that those who criticize George Bush do not have the moat out of their own eye, let alone being able to perform academically nearly as well as he. OR perform in the TNG as Bush did.. all this 'rich man's son' 'senator's son' bs is just that. Class envy.
Regardless of the wheres and whyfores the bottom line regarding George Bush is that he became the President of the United States and has done an outstanding job.
All this nonsense from those obviously lacking in background information, obviously cherry picking any and all information, right or wrong , to forumuate their 'arguments' against the president.
This is tantamount to grabbing the gun away from the only person defending you against a murdering hoarde coming right at you and that person the ONLY person able to defend your sorry hide.

David Brown said:

"I guess Bush is so dim-witted that he couldn't learn to fly a 104 or a 111."

"Maybe the partying and cheerleading cut into his flight school training time."

I guess you are just throwing numbers against the wall, hoping one will stick. They sure aren't pertinent to any real discussion.

The 104 was operational from 1958 until 1967, so that isn't even in the equation.

The 111 was built around 1967 and operated until 1998. But, because of early design and construction problems (i.e. sudden, unplanned, catastrophic landings) the aircraft was not a fully operational asset, and available in the SE Asia theater, until 1971. By then the winding down of the war left more line pilots than available seats. So again, not an option.

Could it be that you are thinking he should have qualified in the F117?

Tell me, is this ignorance you are displaying born out of desperation, or is it congenital?

Those flames on your tail are self-inflicted.

BTW... do you understand the first rule of holes?