Skip to comments.Rush Limbaugh and the Dems' smear offensive
Posted on 10/05/2003 8:19:29 PM PDT by luv2ndamend
Once again, the left's knives are out for Rush Limbaugh. The National Enquirer, that paragon of journalistic integrity, reported that Rush has been taking large quantities of unprescribed painkilling drugs.
Now what matters is not whether Rush is or was addicted to a prescription drug but how the liberal media are treating the issue. And true to form, these political inquisitors, political assassins and carriers of the flame for the Dems are using it to try and destroy him.
Of course, the National Enquirer will argue otherwise. But these are the same political bigots who gave unstinting support to Bill Clinton when Juanita Broaddrick accused him of raping her. (This rag also has David Kendall, Clinton's former lawyer and an ardent Democrat, on its payroll. This is called "looking after the boys").
It's always the same story with Democrats. Their motto should be: Don't debate, assassinate. And this is what they are trying to do to Rush, despite the fact that the alleged evidence against him is extremely flimsy and may well have been concocted.
There are numerous examples of the Dems viciousness. Recall that in August 2000 that Zack Exley, a vicious Democrat, put up a defamatory site describing George W. Bush as a drunk and cocaine-user?
Where is this foul-minded bigot now? Working for MoveOn.org, a leftwing organisation that is funded by a couple of rich Silicon Valley Dems.
(Incidentally, one of Schwarznegger's accusers is associated with MoveOn.org).
So where did a bigot like Exley get his inspiration? From Bush-hating journalists who in August 1999 published unsupported allegations of cocaine use and then demanded that he respond to them.
Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post was the alleged source of this rumor, for which he admitted that there was not a shred of evidence. So why did Kurtz publish it? Perhaps the question should be which Dem asked him to publish it.
Am I being conspiratorial? If so, can someone please explain why Kurtz, a Democrat and a friend of Bill's, refused to publish detailed accounts of Clinton's use of cocaine? Now the accusations of drug-taking by Clinton are not based on hearsay or vicious rumors.
In 1990, for instance, Sharline Wilson swore on oath to a Federal grand jury that Clinton took cocaine. This is how she described to The London Telegraph's Ambrose Evans-Pritchard one incident of cocaine use by Clinton:
"I watched Bill Clinton lean up against a brick wall . . . he casually stuck my tooter up his nose. He was so messed up that night, he slid down the wall into a garbage can and just sat there like a complete idiot.'"
There is also the testimony of Sally Perdue who gave a detailed account of Clinton using cocaine several times in her presence, saying: "He had all the equipment laid out, like a real pro. "
We also have the case of Dr. Sam Houston, a well-respected Little Rock doctor and Hillary Clinton's father's physician, who claimed that Clinton suffered a cocaine overdose
There exists a police surveillance team video tape of Roger Clinton telling his dealer: "I've got to get some [cocaine] for my brother, he's got a nose like a vacuum cleaner." I don't think I have to ask anyone why Kurtz and his fellow media brownshirts refused to investigate Clinton's drug-taking.
Drug addiction is not something to feel superior about. I've known drug addicts and I've seen the misery they go through. And alcoholism can be just as destructive. But there is a huge and self-evident difference between a presidential candidate using cocaine and a Hollywood celebrity, Martin Sheen for example, using it.
If the story about Rush is true, what we have is the tragedy of a man who became hooked on painkillers because of drugs his doctors prescribed to kill his pain. This will not have been the first time patients have become inadvertently addicted to medications.
To use this affliction, if he does in fact suffer from it, to try and destroy him is indescribably evil. This assault on Rush proves that hardcore Dems have neither compassion nor even a sense of common decency. Brookes' economics editor, Gerry Jackson, is right when he says "hate and malice is what defines the left"
Rush's situation demonstrates the disgusting level to which the same media that covered up Clinton's drug use and refused to investigate Juanita Broaddrick's allegations of rape have now targeted him for extermination.
It's becoming clearer by the day that it is the Kurt's, Chaits, Meyers, Krugmans, Jennings, Rathers, Kourics, Sulzbergers, Dowds, Exleys, etc., who are imperiling Americans' liberty, for what they are in fact saying to every American is that if you oppose the Party we will destroy you.
For those of you who think I am exaggerating, just recall that it is only days since the left forced Rush out of ESPN. In addition, the same vicious pattern has repeated itself in California, with Schwarznegger as the victim.
The same Dems and reporters who stood by Clinton when he was exposed as a sexual predator, who covered up Bustamante's racism and Davis's assault on a middle-aged woman have now targeted Schwarznegger as a serial abuser of women. If that doesn't make you vomit, nothing will.
However, unlike Clinton and Davis, Arnie, being the man he is, did the decent thing and publicly admitted that in the past he had behaved badly toward women. He then apologized. The response of the LA Times and the New York Times was to falsely accuse him of being a Hitler supporter.
The LA Times went even further by producing more allegations of sexual assaults. To publish allegations without any attempt to confirm them is a gross breach of journalistic ethics. But to hardcore Dems anything is ethical if it destroys a Republican candidate.
There is only one way to deal with America's media scum and that is to fight fire with fire
|A Recall AND a Fundraiser? I'm toast.|
|Let's get this over with FAST. Please contribute!|
Do what works.
ROTFL! The REAL Bill Clinton!
Works for me .. I'm emailing this one out
My hubby has been reading alot of my Clinton books lately
He just got done reading Dereliction of Duty .. One of the many comments he had was
The Clinton's are nothing but Cheap Classless Trash
We don't need to get in the gutter like the Dems ..
This article is a perfect example of how it should be done.
Another one is the story about Arnold gropping women .. according to the Liberals, it's ok to rape a women, just so long as you don't touch her breast
Bottom line .. Dems and the Liberal Press are nothing by HYPOCITES!!!
And Everyone is noticing it
Terry McAuliffe's Democrat Party trick of the Politics Of Personal Destruction continue...
I think Rush's attorneys have done a fine job putting out this fire. Lately, we've seen a lot of media backtracking on this story as they find out that use of the wiretap is illegal in Florida, the maid's husband had a criminal background, etc.
It seems likely to me that Rush's hearing loss may have been caused by his drug habit. It's just too coincidental, and unlikely that a 50-year old would suddenly lose his hearing without some external stimulus. If so, he has already paid a very heavy price. I doubt he bought pills in the quantities they claim. More likely, they were covering their tracks, attributing inventory that went to others to the Limbaugh account.
Drug dealers deal with violent characters. No sense giving out their names even if you have already made a deal with the cops. In fact, going public this way ensures that those customers who might have been worried can rest easier.
In the end, I think it's important that Rush come clean with his audience. Understanding the possible legal ramifications, I can see he may need some time before he can really spill his guts about it. Nonetheless, having listened to him from the first day he came on the air in Sacramento, I WOULD continue to trust him with my daughter, my mother, etc. And I certainly would not hold this weakness against him.
Certainly, he can continue to teach us all a big lesson in conservatism by laying claim to it, and then summoning his belief in personal responsibility to triumph over it.
I didn't mean it like that. I meant it more in terms of how they would interpret it. They are forever accusing us falsely and yet we continue to walk on eggshells so as not to validate their accusations, but it doesn't matter. Their perception nor their lies will be changed one bit if we tell it like it is, which will doubltless give them the vapors as they say "I TOLD you they were evil and nasty! See; this just proves it." Of course, it would prove nothing except to expose them more completely for the vicious and vile creatures that they are. Well that, and it would at least open up honest debate again, which political correctness has virtually silenced.
Even if Rush did possess a controlled substance which I don't know to be the case, I would doubt he had the intent to distribute.