During the 12:30 segment of his radio show today, Rush went off on a tirade against Hillary Clinton for promising that she would appoint a 'drug czar' for the war against drugs if she became President.
Rush used that as a starting point for a tirade in which he noted that "we already have all sorts of laws and policies in place to fight drugs, and that if Hillary feels the need to appoint a czar, it's proof that all the liberal laws and policies already in place are ineffective. If you need a czar to coordinate everything, whatever you're doing to that point is a failure." (By the way, it's news to me that drug laws are the property of one party or another, but I digress...)
Rush continued along this line and managed to go on for several minutes. I kept listening to see if he would bring up the following point, and he didn't;
On Tuesday, May 16th of last year, President Bush appointed Army Lt. Gen. Douglas E. Lute to serve as the new White House "war czar" overseeing the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/15/AR2007051501612.html
So, Rush, given your stated position about how appointing a czar signifies failure, what does that say about the war in Iraq?
I fully understand that it's a free country, and that Rush has the right to say what he wants. The sad commentary is that there's enough people out there without basic critical thinking skills that have allowed Rush to identify a niche market and for him to shrewdly get rich off of their inability/unwillingness to think for themselves and feed them exactly what he knows they want to hear, regardless of reality.
Rush used that as a starting point for a tirade in which he noted that "we already have all sorts of laws and policies in place to fight drugs, and that if Hillary feels the need to appoint a czar, it's proof that all the liberal laws and policies already in place are ineffective. If you need a czar to coordinate everything, whatever you're doing to that point is a failure." (By the way, it's news to me that drug laws are the property of one party or another, but I digress...)
Rush continued along this line and managed to go on for several minutes. I kept listening to see if he would bring up the following point, and he didn't;
On Tuesday, May 16th of last year, President Bush appointed Army Lt. Gen. Douglas E. Lute to serve as the new White House "war czar" overseeing the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/15/AR2007051501612.html
So, Rush, given your stated position about how appointing a czar signifies failure, what does that say about the war in Iraq?
I fully understand that it's a free country, and that Rush has the right to say what he wants. The sad commentary is that there's enough people out there without basic critical thinking skills that have allowed Rush to identify a niche market and for him to shrewdly get rich off of their inability/unwillingness to think for themselves and feed them exactly what he knows they want to hear, regardless of reality.
I guess the same way "thinking" people don't take Randi Rhodes seriously??
