Limbaugh the propagandist is brainwashing my friends and countrymen

After briefly discussing the NSA surveillance issue with a dittohead friend last night I got up today and went to Limbaugh's site to see just how closely his take was to my friend's view on the matter.

First my friend took the stance that it wasn't really happening and not a big deal.

The headline at the transcript:
"NY Times Lies to Undermine War on Terror,
Bush Didn't "Secretly" Allow Spying on Anyone."
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_121605/content/america_s_anchorman.guest.html

After I insisted that the White House wasn't denying it, only trying to rationalize the acts, he moved into discrediting the NYT story claiming "there's a book coming out by the author of the story and The Times is just trying to make money on something that didn't happen".

The second paragraph of the transcript:
"By the way, there are a lot of details about this. The writer of the story is James Risen. James Risen has a book coming out! The New York Times in this story claims that the White House asked them not to print this and that they held off for a year. They held off for a year out of concerns for the White House. That's absolute bunk. It is BS. They've been sitting on this story for a year. James Risen, the author of the story, has a book coming out. This is part of his book."
<snip>
"They've been sitting on it to promo a book. They've been sitting on it for a year. Why does it come out today? Because they want to cover up the great news that happened in Iraq yesterday. "
<end trans>

I hadn't heard about a book pending at the time and went on to theorize to him that it's far more likely that The Times was trying to "scoop" the book since newspapers sell copies by printing unpublished articles (duh), and they probably would have been happy to bury the story forever had it not been for this book. It's what they do. I didn't hide my own contempt for The Times

My friend seemed to run out of debate points about then and resorted to telling me: "Nothing is believable in The Times since all the BS they have been busted on in the last couple years". I grumbled a bit and dropped the discussion because I knew he had been brainwashed by the best and was unwilling to accept the story at face value.

continued transcript:
It just recently ran a fake story about forged ballots getting into Iraq prior to the election. It's the same New York Times of Jayson Blair and Maureen Dowd, the same New York Times of Howell Raines, the New York Times of "Pinch" Sulzberger. The New York Times that ran a bogus year-old story on the Monday prior to the election, a week before the election last year, in order to indicate that Bush was incompetent in disarming terrorists in Iraq.
<end trans>

After researching this transcript I realized had I "squinted my ears" while reading Rush's words today, it could have been written by a propagandist thirty years ago in a Communist satellite country to support a totality government:

Later in the transcript:
"Snerdley is upset about the people that leaked this stuff, and you know something? This is putting the silliness and the absolute irrelevance and the childishness of this Valerie Plame/Joe Wilson thing in perspective. If we need a special counsel, if we need an independent prosecutor, we need to find out who in the hell it is that is leaking this rot-gut lying, stinking garbage to the newspaper of the Democrat National Committee, the New York bleeping Times -- and we need to find out where they are and we need to find out who they are and we need to stop this. The CIA needs to call for one of these referrals to the justice department, and we need to find out who's leaking automatic this rot-gut, folks. The Valerie Plame stuff is still in the minds of the media and of the Democrats much bigger than any of this. I have to take a quick break but I want to expand on all of the incestuous, synergistic, maniacal ties that exist between this story, major publishing, a major network, CBS, and the Democratic Party. "
<end trans>

I'm going to talk to my friend's Democratic wife today....I think it finally may be time for an intervention. He's an old "Reagan Republican" who would never have approved of the policies of GWB ten years ago, but he listens to the howling, screeching squeal of AM radio whenever he's in a car and follows Rush's word to the letter.

When I was young in the 60s one of my more liberal teachers told us not to worry about Kruschev, he said our democracy would fall and our country would be taken over from within.
Limbaugh is at the forefront of that revolution as evidenced by the last sentence in the transcript:

"The New York Times is trying to set national security policy and it's time to find out who is leaking to them, and build that prison and put these people in it. "

The president admitted he did it and plans to continue.

Thank you! :toast:

It will be a great day when he is no longer on-air to poison the minds of his brain-dead followers.

Some kid called him yesterday and said his brother was a Marine over in Iraq, and the brother was mad Limbaugh used the term 'soldier' when refering to Marines. Limbaugh stammered a bit and told the kid, "just sign up now for a subscription to the Adopt-A-Soldier program and he'll be happy" - and the dope thanked Rush and promised to send off $50 to feed Rush's scam. You'd think that pig Limbaugh would have donated one to the Marine (worthless as the subscription is, except for toilet paper), but no, he had to milk baby brother for the money. The man is a money grubbing whore.

He has no shame, no morals, no sense of decency.

The president himself said that he had authorized the covert operations.

From the Oxford English Dictionary:

http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/covert?view

" • adjective /kuvvrt, kovrt/ not openly acknowledged or displayed. — Origin, Old French, ‘covered’."

There. Proven. Ha!

Dumb bastard.

:dunce:

:rant: