If the Dems keep this up their “cinch” in 2008 may become the Republican “blowout” in 2008. Maybe we can get rid of Harry Reid and some of his ilk in the process. Anyway, welcome to Fred Thompson, the next President of the United States.

We were reminded last week that he had lied about having flown combat sorties in Vietnam, and I knew that he and John Kerry had gone to Nicaragua to cozy up with Daniel Ortega, but how about this?:

As a staff aide to the House Select Committee on United States Involvement in Southeast Asia Harkin accompanied a fact-finding mission to South Vietnam in 1970. As part of this mission, during a 30-minute visit to Con Son Prison he snapped photographs of Communist prisoners in “tiger cages.”

When the mission returned, Harkin declared that these photographs were “too important” to be turned over to Congress and to the committee that employed him, paid for his travel and provided him official U.S. Government access to the prison. Harkin instead sold the photos, some to anti-American foreign outlets, and others to Life Magazine for $10,000. (Harkin used the money to pay off his debts for his 1972 law degree from Catholic University.)

The “tiger cages” story in Life and throughout the anti-war press turned Harkin into an instant star of the left, including the establishment U.S. media. Harkin gave an interview to the Daily World, official newspaper of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA), in which he made sweeping attacks on the treatment of prisoners throughout South Vietnam. His statements, based on 30 minutes spent walking through one prison, were used in Communist propaganda worldwide against the South Vietnamese government and the United States.

I can’t help but wonder – if one were to say that David Brock is slowly committing career suicide, would Media Matters understand that that was a metaphor or would his co-workers become alarmed, have him hospitalized, and put under suicide watch?

That being said, those “pull the trigger” comments on the JAWA Report were probably meant as metaphors also, although with raging Moonbats one can’t be certain.

Topsecretk9 on October 4, 2007 at 10:38 PM

Great reminder about Katie Barge. I’d love to have some new comments from Michael Steele referencing her connection to the Media Matters slime machine.

We know what Rush meant when he used that metaphor.

Again I’m reminded of Orwell. Media Matters also knows what he meant, obviously, but they’ll still play dumb, ’cause they count on the public at large being too ignorant to understand metaphor (hey, they went to public school!).

“It’s a beautiful thing, the destruction of words.”

“An empty barrel makes the most noise!”

landlines on October 4, 2007 at 8:33 PM

How dare you accuse that veteran of walking around, threating people with a gun!!!!

There, I said it. You know, screw it. Let’s elect Rush president and let these clowns deal face-to-face with an honest-to-God conservative.

And no, I would never have said “Rush for president” before Media Matters et al pushed this idiotic farce this far. Surreal.

1. Fox has greater tolerance than other media outlets, like NBC, which won’t run certain ads.

2. The left will go to any length to exploit whomever it can for its benefit.

We know what Rush meant when he used that metaphor. Find a willing veteran, that has animosity towards the war, and exploit him for your political purposes. In this case, he was EXPLOITED by sending him out to continue to spew (explode) more of the lies about what Rush (didn’t) mean(t) with the phony soldier comment.

Here is my metaphor:

The continued alMedia terrorist attacks (lies)directed at Rush have continued to encourage more jihadis (braindead liberals)to join alMedia.

The new recruits continue to kill innocent civilians (conscious humans) with their exploding belts of lies.

But now the tide is turning; as the once neutral citizens (the sane) are now seeing alMedia for what they really are (terrorists), and have begun listening to Rush in an effort to destroy alMedia with the truth.

Also: #12,610, baby! =)

2008 will be a very interesting year, not the way they think.

Rush should go to Iraq and address the Soldiers and really expose these rats for what they are.

There is none because the media itself can’t complain; it would be unseemly for them to. Nobody else will come to their defense because most everyone recognizes that the MSM is shallow and dumb and hurts people more than they help. It sucks to be a MSM journalist these days.

I agree that this is all meant to be a distraction, but I think it’s not necessarily about (or not just about) Iraq. I think that Hillary is trying to do damage control regarding “Runaround Hsu”. The best defense is a good offense, so they have gone on the best offensive they can manufacture (via Media Matters, which Hillary “helped start”). It doesn’t matter that it’s a phony controversy. What matters is that it distracts Rush, other commentators, us, and media cycles away from Hsu. Instead of Hillary’s camp having to defend her, she’s got us having to defend Rush.

I suggest we stop discussing the phony controversy and put the focus back where it belongs…on the Clinton crime family.

ITookTheRedPill on October 5, 2007 at 12:11 AM

Yes, that is also a very large part of it. Not to mention that she has the Peter Paul campaign Finance Fraud situation threatening to blow up in her face. I would really damage her if Norman Hsu and Peter Paul were to receive the MSM attention they rightly deserve at the same time.

History was made in Paul v Clinton when this smoking gun video of Hillary Clinton’s phone call to Peter Paul on July 17, 2000 was introduced June 21, 2007 as evidence of Hillary’s illegal conduct, for review by the California Appelate Court of Hillary’s entitlement to First Amendment protection for her illegal fundraising solicitations in 2000.

Sen. Clinton’s illegal actions, as captured on this video, violated the following US Statutes:

2 U.S.C. Sec 441a (a)(7)(B)(I) provides:

Expenditures made by any person in cooperation, consultation, or concert, with, or at the request or suggestion of, a candidate, his authorized political committees, or their agents, shall be considered to be a contribution to such candidate. (Therefore Peter Paul’s expenditures cannot be deemed to be a “soft money” contribution)

(f) No candidate shall knowingly accept any contribution in violation of the provisions of this section…

(a)(1)(A) No person shall make contributions… to any candidate with respect to any election for Federal office which, in the aggregate, exceed $2,000.

2 U.S.C. Sec 437g(d)(1)(A)(I) provides:

Any person who knowingly and willfully commits a violation of any provision of this act which involves the making, receiving, or reporting of any contribution, donation, or expenditure (I) aggregating $25,000 or more during a calendar year shall be fined under Title 18, or imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both…

RushBaby on October 4, 2007 at 11:13 PM

Hmmm are you saying he might be a follower of the religion of pieces????

doriangrey on October 4, 2007 at 8:34 PM

fogw on October 4, 2007 at 10:51 PM

I agree that this is all meant to be a distraction, but I think it’s not necessarily about (or not just about) Iraq. I think that Hillary is trying to do damage control regarding “Runaround Hsu”. The best defense is a good offense, so they have gone on the best offensive they can manufacture (via Media Matters, which Hillary “helped start”). It doesn’t matter that it’s a phony controversy. What matters is that it distracts Rush, other commentators, us, and media cycles away from Hsu. Instead of Hillary’s camp having to defend her, she’s got us having to defend Rush.

I suggest we stop discussing the phony controversy and put the focus back where it belongs…on the Clinton crime family.

- The Cat

didn’t like mind working with, I meant

Topsecretk9 on October 4, 2007 at 10:55 PM

Oh you had it right the first time.

Not that there’s anything to speculate about.

Katie Barge