[Right_in_Virginia]

May I take a moment and remind folks that Clinton was called upon to answer a charge that he lied to a federal judge --under oath-- during a deposition.

Rush is being asked to explain a story from "The National Inquiry".

We've been hearing since the 2002 elections that the libs want to neuter Rush--in their eyes it's the last best chance for a dimm victory in 2004. They're so desperate to do this, Gore's even trying to buy his own cable station.

From all the threads on FR, it's obvious there's a real stink coming from the "facts" of this story.

I want to know if a two-bit drug runner implicated Rush to buy immunity from prosecution. And, that's going to take time to flush out---and anything Rush says about it could clutter the path to finding the answer.

There may well be no "there there". Let's be careful not to create one with this "Clintonesque" bs.

[kingu]

From all the threads on FR, it's obvious there's a real stink coming from the "facts" of this story.

The real facts are that unless he was caught with drugs, or if there was a direct buy from a confidential informant or the like, they have no case whatsoever. And since there isn't a case, all the libs have is something to bash Rush over.

I don't listen to his programs anymore - haven't for a few years. He became a little too bombastic for my tastes. Drug user or not, this is a nowhere story that is being fed by liberal media, and conservatives seem to be lapping it up.

[yoe]

BUMP!!