the other day and I thought you might like this a bit:
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_071404/content/eib_interview__william_f__buckley__jr_.guest.html
MR. BUCKLEY:
... And if anybody says, "Well, the United States was
deceived," we can quickly concede, "Yeah, we thought
they had weapons of mass destruction, and Saddam
Hussein behaved as though he did, but for us not to
have proceeded on the basis of such intelligence as we
had would have been irresponsible, and nobody could
possibly count on the mystifying impotence of Saddam
Hussein, not only in respect of weapons but in respect
of the loyalties of his own people."
RUSH:
...with what President Bush knew, and what he was
being told by his intelligence people not just in this
country but from the British and others around the
world who collect such data, it would have been
foolish not to do what we did given that 9/11 has
happened and we thought that certain stockpiles of
weapons existed
MR. BUCKLEY: Correct, and now Mr. Bush is taking the
line, which is pretty plausible, that the fantastic
success we've had in Libya is a derivative success --
that is, Khadafy gave up and has given us his entire
nuclear arsenal, based on his knowledge of what the
United States is capable of doing. So that if we
hadn't struck as forcefully as we did in Iraq, it's
entirely conceivable that Khadafy would still be over
there developing his very advanced arsenal, and we can
project that further. What is it, if anything, that is
causing North Korea to sort of slow down a little bit
the last few months? It could very well be a sense of
what we can do with a few divisions of the United
States Marines. So that all of those advantages, more
vigorous movement two years ago, are advantages that
we continue to reap but which are not going to be
acknowledged at the Democratic National Convention.
Since I qouted Rush and will be attacked for it I
thought I'd add this...
MR. BUCKLEY: ... "Well, Limbaugh belongs in that
school of polemical thought which really should be
excluded." They do that to Bill O'Reilly and, of
course, they've done it to me in the past. I'm not
saying that that criticism cannot be leveled.
Sometimes it can be leveled, but to level it with the
license that they use against you and O'Reilly speaks
to me of a different motivation. They want to argue
with you by simply outlawing your voice on the grounds
that it is eccentric and extreme. It is, as I say,
simply a polemical device.
RUSH: Rather than debating the issues, disqualify and
discredit the voice, then, is the technique?
MR. BUCKLEY: I think that's true. I think that's true.
-sam
--- dana tierney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> that's the bottom line; the administration needs a
> "them" to rally against.
>
> Dana
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
