Welcome to PatsFans.com

Right wing wackos predict Boy King will hit Iran

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by PressCoverage, Jun 6, 2008.

  1. PressCoverage

    PressCoverage Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2005
    Messages:
    8,609
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    Pipes: Bush Will Attack Iran
    If A Democrat Wins The White House»​


    [​IMG]

    Daniel Pipes, a far right-wing pseudo scholar who called the NIE report on the halting of Iran’s nuclear program a “shoddy, politicized, outrageous parody of a piece of propaganda,” said he believes that President Bush will attack Iran if a Democrat wins the White House in November. During an interview posted at the National Review Online, Pipes said that the U.S. and its allies should tell Tehran to “watch out” for “an American attack”: (video)

    Pipes, who has a history of what The Nation calls “signature distortions,” is just the latest in a rising chorus of voices advocating that Bush attack Iran before his term ends. The Israeli newspaper Yediot Achronot reported that Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert planned to encourage Bush to prepare an attack against Iran during his meeting with the President yesterday.

    The White House denies any intent to strike Iran, but that hasn’t stopped Vice President Dick Cheney or former U.N. ambassador John Bolton from promoting the idea.
  2. PressCoverage

    PressCoverage Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2005
    Messages:
    8,609
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    [​IMG]

    Limbaugh: Bush donors say he’ll strike Iran before term ends.

    Thursday (6/5) on his radio show, Rush Limbaugh boasted about his insider access and told a caller that important Bush donors had assured him the President would attack Iran soon:

    CALLER: Well, you mentioned before that he [Bush] had some plan, before leaving office that he was going to do something.

    RUSH: I had talked to a bunch of his donors and said to me that they can’t see Bush leaving office with Iran still a problem, a nuclear problem. And he’s not out of office yet, either. ​
    Last edited: Jun 6, 2008
  3. Stokes

    Stokes Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2006
    Messages:
    2,423
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    So count a right-wing loon and the OPINION of some Bush donors among those saying its going to happen. Don't believe everything you hear on Rush Limbaugh PC...

    We know he's your favorite radio personality, but really, he does like to run his mouth.
  4. Patriot_in_NY

    Patriot_in_NY Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2007
    Messages:
    8,543
    Likes Received:
    17
    Ratings:
    +31 / 0 / -0

    Daniel Pipes is at least as whacko than most (not all) of the the whacko's you take your marching orders from. His views are Islam, while rooted in some truths, often are so extreme as to border on outright bigotry.

    I'd be surprised if we used a Military Option on before bush leaves. I really would, and not just because Pipes say's so.
  5. Patriot_in_NY

    Patriot_in_NY Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2007
    Messages:
    8,543
    Likes Received:
    17
    Ratings:
    +31 / 0 / -0

    Probably a BETTER CHANCE that someone else BEATS us to it. I personally hope they don't, but given all that "stinking corpse" rhetoric, I can understand their uneasiness.
  6. PressCoverage

    PressCoverage Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2005
    Messages:
    8,609
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    I take my marching orders from no one. But, who would you be referring to in your dream scenario?
  7. otis p. driftwood

    otis p. driftwood Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,271
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    May I ask--if people of a certain view dismiss Rush...for all the various reasons they give...why is it that this makes you, PC, and another poster here, think it's worth posting as though it was fact?

    If Rush is a blowhard who always lies (or some variation thereof, I'm not trying to put words in your mouth), why believe this?
  8. PressCoverage

    PressCoverage Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2005
    Messages:
    8,609
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    You miss the point, entirely... The fact is, even right wing pundits are predicting Boy King will sucker punch Iran near the election.

    As I've told you numerous times: Don't read too much into what you think I believe, and try to focus on exactly what is being said.
  9. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    41,495
    Likes Received:
    145
    Ratings:
    +292 / 10 / -26

    Oh I get it now, focus on the message, not the messenger.. very simple, however quite complex...
  10. Patriot_in_NY

    Patriot_in_NY Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2007
    Messages:
    8,543
    Likes Received:
    17
    Ratings:
    +31 / 0 / -0

    You know, those that dislike this country the way it currently is and want it to take drastic steps to the left...... you know, people like Soros and his ilk. Perhaps you don't don't take orders from them, but you ideologically line up. Anyway, that's not important I suppose.

    One thing I am curious about though, and since you are the WORD EXPERT and all, you're the right guy to ask. The title of this thread, which used to be about Dan Pipes, was changed to "Right wing Whacko's predict Boy King will HIT Iran".

    Yet when I follow the link you provided, I'm taken to a transcript where the right wing Whacko's actual quote is;

    .

    plus, the rest of the transcript reads;

    Am I missing something here....................... Cause I can't see the, "Bush donors predict Boy King will hit Iran" part. I can't see the word hit, strike, blow up, destroy, or anything like it in there.


    DO HE ACTUALLY SAY THAT? or are you just mis quoting again, to make something sound more draumatic that it actually is. That would be a shock to everyone here. :rolleyes:

    FalseCoverage = Deceptive, dishonest posting. It's becoming as predictable as cherry blossoms in springtime.
  11. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    41,495
    Likes Received:
    145
    Ratings:
    +292 / 10 / -26

  12. PressCoverage

    PressCoverage Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2005
    Messages:
    8,609
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0


    The ironic thing is that you're claiming I'm the one being overdramatic. Your "general douche baggary" is showing once again, bloviating hypocrite.

    It's a thread title. Not a quote. Stop being so pretentiously literal, and acknowledge the premise for once. It's so typical of you to come running to Limbaugh's defense, while pretending you don't like his overall rhetoric, and ignoring the basic premise altogether by deflecting to more semantics.

    This is a debate forum, and I can and will present my opinion. Your OPINION is that mine is "inaccurate"... And you're pretending I'm lying on purpose because I steadfastly believe that goofy Rush Limbaugh predicts an attack.

    If we're going to suggest that other poster's opinions in thread headlines are lies, then I can play that game as well.

    Regardless, the man said he couldn't see Bush leaving office with Iran still a problem. In the next breath, he said the following:

    If they are working enriching uranium for a nuclear weapon there's only one thing to do, and that's stop 'em, and the only way... You can't do it with talk. You can't do it with freezing assets. You can't do it by aligning the rest of the world against them. It's not going to work. You have to do it militarily.


    Now, if you wanna sit here and play defense lawyer for that fat piece of shyt, and pretend he did't actually say "attack" or "hit", then very well. I think it's clear as day what he's insinuating, but here we are. If that's your entire contribution to this thread, than I'll work harder to present more pleasing op-ed headlines that won't leave you untucked regarding your ideological ally, Rush Limbaugh.

    Meanwhile, the rest of us can hopefully move on and grapple with the main premise: That even the 'nothing to see here' Con men insiders are stirring over the rumors. To me, that's troubling.
    Last edited: Jun 7, 2008
  13. otis p. driftwood

    otis p. driftwood Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,271
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    Don't get defensive just because you see my name on this post, GJAJ, please.

    But what you say--especially the part about "anything he says should not be taken seriously" was exactly the reason I asked my original question.

    If you can't take the source seriously, what does it matter whether he says there may be an attack on Iran or the moon is made of cheese?
  14. Patriot_in_NY

    Patriot_in_NY Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2007
    Messages:
    8,543
    Likes Received:
    17
    Ratings:
    +31 / 0 / -0

    Right to insults press?................... another surprise.

    All the while backing to your second line of defense - It's a thread title. Not a quote. Nice........

    Your entitled to you opinion, nobody say's different, I just asked you to point what leap of faith you took to get there, cus based on this (see quote)

    I'm not seeing justification for THIS (you quote in post #2)

    When I read the transcript, I see two things.... 1) Rush doesn't think Bush will leave the "Iran situation" unresolved before he leaves office, and 2) Rush is so short-sighted, he can't see anything but a military solution to this question. Call me blind, but I don't see that donors "assured" him of an attack (which you said), or that they said Bush would attack before his term end (which you also said). I don't even see Bush in the equation, I think he was talking about McCain there

    You notice how I framed my post. I said I don't see it, nor do I read it the same way. When someone tells me - "Bush donors say he’ll strike Iran before term ends." and "donors had assured him" I'd expect to see a little more than your flimsy assertions here. I'd expect to see something a little more tangible, particularly when he himself say's other stuff like "I'm not privy to anything that they might be doing here in the United States about dealing with Iran" and I have no clue what anybody's going to do in the same breath

    You're the wordmaster though, not me, though so you must be right. :rolleyes: I'm just a guy that reads sh!t like "Bush donors say he’ll strike Iran before term ends" and doesn't wanna have to jump through 3 fukcing hoops to join you in your "hate-bush" fairytail. You don't have to exagerate sh!t, Bush has plenty of low hanging fruit that you don't need to exagerate. It makes you look dishonest (even if your not). Tell us what it says, not what you want it to say.

    Hell, I would have accepted "Rush think bombing Iran is the only solution", but you didn't even give us that, you had to go farther.

    You read it the way you did, not because it said it, but because it's wanted you WANTED it to say, and you wanted the rest of us to follow your BS assertions, like they were fact.

    -------------

    For the record - I think Rush is full a sh!t here on both his SEPERATE assertions (that PC spliced together as one) - Bush will absolutely leave with the Iran question still out there when he leaves office (unless Israel answers it for him - and I hope they do not) and I also don't think that this can only be solved militarily, although that option can't be taken off the table altogether
    Last edited: Jun 7, 2008

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>