What's wrong with Rush
Brian Thomas
>He lied about having a fax that claimed Vince Foster was killed in an
>apartment owned by Mrs. Clinton.
Rush did not lie about the fax. He did actually have such a fax, and he was
VERY reluctant to even mention it. And it remains to be proven whether that
fax contained truth or not.
BT
see also: http://users.aol.com/beachbt/index.html
or http://www.en.com/users/bthomas/index.html
for the latest Clinton Scandal info.
pyo...@serdp20f.ciesin.org
> pyo...@serdp20f.ciesin.org wrote:
>
> [...]
> Rush claimed
> [...]
>
> : He lied about having a fax that claimed Vince Foster was killed in an
> : apartment owned by Mrs. Clinton.
>
> I've never heard that Rush every mentioned the Vince Foster "suicide".
> When was this?
>
> Max Kennedy
>
Max,
I think I will have to suggest to you that you not discuss Limbaugh's
program until you have listened to it for awhile. The man is obsessed
with the Clintons and anything that can possibly taint them.
I realize that quoting from a FAIR document might not be the best
source, but this is what I base my claim on (from
http://www.igc.apc.org/fair/limbaugh-debates-reality.html, which is
"Response to FAIR's original compilation of (a few of) Rush Limbaugh's
inaccuracies was so great that FAIR has expanded the report and
publish it in book form as The Way Things Aren't: Rush Limbaugh's
Reign of Error. Get it at your local bookstore (ISBN: 1-56584-260-X)
or order it from FAIR for $6.95 plus $1.50 shipping and handling. (Two
or more books, $7 each, including postage; ten books, $50.) You can
call 800-847-3993 and use your MasterCard or Visa, or send your check
or money order to):
On his March 10 radio broadcast, Limbaugh had announced the following
in urgent tones: "OK, folks, I think I got enough information here to
tell you about the contents of this fax that I got. Brace
yourselves. This fax contains information that I have just been told
will appear in a newsletter to Morgan Stanley sales personnel this
afternoon.... What it is is a bit of news which says...there's a
Washington consulting firm that has scheduled the release of a report
that will appear, it will be published, that claims that Vince Foster
was murdered in an apartment owned by Hillary Clinton, and the body
was then taken to Fort Marcy Park."
After he returned from a commercial break, Limbaugh began referring to
the story as a "rumor," but continued to claim that the story was that
"the Vince Foster suicide was not a suicide." Limbaugh was referring
to an item in a newsletter put out by the Washington, D.C. firm of
Johnson Smick International. The newsletter, relating a rumor that has
no apparent basis in fact, reported that White House attorney Foster's
suicide occurred in an apartment owned by White House associates, and
that his body was moved to the park where it was found.
Limbaugh took this baseless rumor from a small insiders' newsletter
and broadcast it to his radio audience of millions, adding his own new
inaccuracies: The newsletter did not report--as Limbaugh claimed--that
Foster was murdered, or that the apartment was owned by Hillary Rodham
Clinton. Limbaugh's repetition of an unfounded rumor has been credited
(Chicago Tribune, 3/11/94; Newsweek, 3/21/94) with contributing to a
plunge in the stock market on the day it was aired.
END OF FAIR INCLUSION.
Now, if what FAIR claims is, indeed, true, then I would say that
Limbaugh lied about it.
First, he lied about the distribution of the fax, that it was to be
distributed to Morgan Stanley sales personnel, and that it was about
"a report that will appear, it will be published." Next, he lied
about the contents of the fax. And it is this last that I claimed.
He did not have the fax that he claimed to have. There was no murder,
and no association with Mrs. Clinton.
--
Gerald Vimont
I heard, first hand, the program. Rush was talking about the lunacy of
the conspiracy theories that were beginning to surround the Whitewater
story. Yes, he repeated the rumor but he made very very clear that he
thought it was lunacy.
GR VIMONT
>
pyo...@serdp20f.ciesin.org
>
> I heard, first hand, the program. Rush was talking about the lunacy of
> the conspiracy theories that were beginning to surround the Whitewater
> story. Yes, he repeated the rumor but he made very very clear that he
> thought it was lunacy.
To put this in words that any good Rushian can understand, "No, no,
no, no, no, no, no!"
Limbaugh lied about what was in the fax. Very plain. Very simple.
What lies has Rush Limbaugh told on the air? This incident comprised
about four of them. It is no saving that he was trying to point out
how wrong someone else was. He lied. How can you defend against
that? He lied. Words mean things, and when someone makes claims that
he knows are not true ("I have a fax...") then that person lies. Rush
Limbaugh lied about the fax, the contents of the fax, and the purpose
of the fax. He lied, and your listening to the program does nothing
to alter that fact. Rush Limbaugh is a professional liar. He accepts
pay for telling lies. How can you in good concience defend him? Do
you condone lieing? In any circumstances, or only in circumstances
that support your own particularly twisted view of reality?
>
> GR VIMONT
> >
>
--
Peter B. Young
Maui High Performance Computing Center pyo...@mhpcc.edu
Environmental Research Institute of Michigan yo...@erim.org
--
Peter B. Young
Maui High Performance Computing Center pyo...@mhpcc.edu
Environmental Research Institute of Michigan yo...@erim.org
TimoW1
<<<<
To put this in words that any good Rushian can understand, "No, no,
no, no, no, no, no!"
Limbaugh lied about what was in the fax. Very plain. Very simple.
What lies has Rush Limbaugh told on the air? This incident comprised
about four of them. It is no saving that he was trying to point out
how wrong someone else was. He lied. How can you defend against
that? He lied. Words mean things, and when someone makes claims that
he knows are not true ("I have a fax...") then that person lies. Rush
Limbaugh lied about the fax, the contents of the fax, and the purpose
of the fax. He lied, and your listening to the program does nothing
to alter that fact. Rush Limbaugh is a professional liar. He accepts
pay for telling lies. How can you in good concience defend him? Do
you condone lieing? In any circumstances, or only in circumstances
that support your own particularly twisted view of reality?>>>>
Exhibit Number One of my recent post. These people hate with a hate that
is dreadful to behold, and the above is an excellent example of the
desperation of their reaction to prominent people who disagree with their
world view, and who challenge them. They simply have lost the ability to
deal with reality, and in their fear of those who see things differently -
their unsurpassing fear of intellectual diversity - they destroy
themselves in frenzies of hate. Anyone who could do other than pity Mr.
Young is lacking in charity.
Tim Watson
TimoW1
<<<<
I heard, first hand, the program. Rush was talking about the lunacy of
the conspiracy theories that were beginning to surround the Whitewater
story. Yes, he repeated the rumor but he made very very clear that he
thought it was lunacy.
GR VIMONT>>>>
I heard the program, too, and you are exactly right. I appreciate your
post. The nuts who constantly attack Rush Limbaugh without having the
slightest acquaintance with him, his show, or what he believes are
pathetic, but I chalk it up to desperation. I'm not particularly a
Limbaugh fan - I listen if I happen to be in my car at the right time,
which isn't often. I work for a living. But the nutty left's reaction to
Limbaugh is hilarious, and instructive. These people hate with a
viciousness not often seen in an open society, and engage in the
demonization of those with whom they disagree with an exuberance not seen
in America since the hayday of the KKK, whom they very closely resemble,
intellectually speaking, that is.
>
Tim Watson
Brian Thomas
I happened to be listening to Limbaugh on the day of the infamous
Foster Apartment FAX. He was VERY reluctant to even mention it at all, and
held off for quite some time, trying to obtain verification. He could not.
And he stated so. But he did receive a fax which claimed that Foster may have
died in an unspecified apartment before he appeared in Ft. Marcy Park. Rush
did read this FAX, or the pertinent parts on air. But he made it quite clear
that it was unsubstantiated, and that he viewed it very suspiciously. And
that's all there is to that story. No big deal.
BT
See also:
http://users.aol.com/beachbt/index.html
Max Kennedy
: >> Rush claimed
: >> : He lied about having a fax that claimed Vince Foster was killed in
: I've never heard that Rush every mentioned the Vince Foster
"suicide".
: >> When was this?
: >
: >Max,
: >
: >I think I will have to suggest to you that you not discuss Limbaugh's
: >program until you have listened to it for awhile. The man is obsessed
: >with the Clintons and anything that can possibly taint them.
: I heard, first hand, the program. Rush was talking about the lunacy of
: the conspiracy theories that were beginning to surround the Whitewater
: story. Yes, he repeated the rumor but he made very very clear that he
: thought it was lunacy.
Which goes back to what I was questioning. From MY understanding, Rush
has never gone into the Vince Foster death, and is viewed as phoney
because of it by many people on this newsgroup.
Max Kennedy
Scott Matteson
: pyoung says:
: <<<<
: To put this in words that any good Rushian can understand, "No, no,
: no, no, no, no, no!"
: Limbaugh lied about what was in the fax. Very plain. Very simple.
: What lies has Rush Limbaugh told on the air? This incident comprised
: about four of them. It is no saving that he was trying to point out
: how wrong someone else was. He lied. How can you defend against
: that? He lied. Words mean things, and when someone makes claims that
: he knows are not true ("I have a fax...") then that person lies. Rush
: Limbaugh lied about the fax, the contents of the fax, and the purpose
: of the fax. He lied, and your listening to the program does nothing
: to alter that fact. Rush Limbaugh is a professional liar. He accepts
: pay for telling lies. How can you in good concience defend him? Do
: you condone lieing? In any circumstances, or only in circumstances
: that support your own particularly twisted view of reality?>>>>
: Exhibit Number One of my recent post. These people hate with a hate that
: is dreadful to behold, and the above is an excellent example of the
: desperation of their reaction to prominent people who disagree with their
: world view, and who challenge them. They simply have lost the ability to
: deal with reality, and in their fear of those who see things differently -
: their unsurpassing fear of intellectual diversity - they destroy
: themselves in frenzies of hate. Anyone who could do other than pity Mr.
: Young is lacking in charity.
Oh, yes, the standard dittohead response: anyone who dares to point
out or discuss Rush's lies is just a mean and nasty liberal who "hates"
those who disagree with him. Rush has trained you people well by
safeguarding himself against anyone who can prove him wrong. And you
ignore the facts being offered, deny the possibility that the evidence
might be right, and merely rant on and on about mean-spirited attacks on
Rush by those who are "threatened" by him. Did you even read the facts
at hand before immediately launching an attack on those who, unlike you,
don't put any faith in the word of a man who has been proven wrong on
dozens of issues?
It is you who seems to have lost his ability to deal with reality. Never
once in your paragraph did you or were you able to deny Mr. Young's
assertion that Rush lied about the fax and that Rush lies for a living.
Instead you chose to employ a counterassault against those who don't
share your views by hypocritically accusing them of being afraid of
"intellectual diversity." There are no intellectuals in Rush's
encampment. Bravo on your strategic tactics. ;-)
--
Scott Matteson |"Motel, Money, Murder, Madness... let's change
colo...@crl.com | the mood from glad to sadness."
Boston, Massachusetts | -Jim Morrison, The Doors
Thank God I'm an atheist. "L.A. Woman," 1971
Paul Steffen
: pyoung says:
: <<<<
: To put this in words that any good Rushian can understand, "No, no,
: no, no, no, no, no!"
: Limbaugh lied about what was in the fax. Very plain. Very simple.
: What lies has Rush Limbaugh told on the air? This incident comprised
: about four of them. It is no saving that he was trying to point out
: how wrong someone else was. He lied. How can you defend against
: that? He lied. Words mean things, and when someone makes claims that
: he knows are not true ("I have a fax...") then that person lies. Rush
: Limbaugh lied about the fax, the contents of the fax, and the purpose
: of the fax. He lied, and your listening to the program does nothing
: to alter that fact. Rush Limbaugh is a professional liar. He accepts
: pay for telling lies. How can you in good concience defend him? Do
: you condone lieing? In any circumstances, or only in circumstances
: that support your own particularly twisted view of reality?>>>>
: Exhibit Number One of my recent post. These people hate with a hate that
: is dreadful to behold, and the above is an excellent example of the
: desperation of their reaction to prominent people who disagree with their
: world view, and who challenge them. They simply have lost the ability to
: deal with reality, and in their fear of those who see things differently -
: their unsurpassing fear of intellectual diversity - they destroy
: themselves in frenzies of hate. Anyone who could do other than pity Mr.
: Young is lacking in charity.
I've noticed that there are primarily two different types of people who
generally hang around in these groups; those that see logical fallacies as
tools to lie, cheat, or manipulate emotions in an argument and should be
avoided as much as possible. Then, there are those who appear to view
fallacies as simply useful ammunition to attempt to win an argument,
assuming that they are aware that they are even aware of using them. Why
does it appear these two types of people tend to gravitate toward different
political ideologies? Has anyone done any scientific research on this?
By the way, it seems to me that there is _FAR_ more hate in Mr. TimoW1's
purely ad hominem post that seeks to explain the psychology behind people
who disagree with Rush Limbaugh than with the one that calls Rush is a
professional liar because he misread a fax.
: Tim Watson
--
_______________________________________________________________________
Paul G. Steffen |[LINUXSUNAPOLLOATARIAMIGAFENDERIBANEZHOLDSWORTH
pst...@gnu.ai.mit.edu |YNGWIEGAMBALEMACALPINEMCLAUGHLINDIMEOLAPAGANINI
pste...@cris.com |VIVALDIBACHCHOPINCHOMSKYLEVENTHALFOLEY&VANDAMM]
------STratoHAK of Tibetan Peach Pie Inc. 680x0 Coders From Hell------
Scott Matteson
: Scott Matteson accuses:
: <<<<<
: Oh, yes, the standard dittohead response: anyone who dares to point
: out or discuss Rush's lies is just a mean and nasty liberal who "hates"
: those who disagree with him. Rush has trained you people well by
: safeguarding himself against anyone who can prove him wrong. And you
: ignore the facts being offered, deny the possibility that the evidence
: might be right, and merely rant on and on about mean-spirited attacks on
: Rush by those who are "threatened" by him. Did you even read the facts
: at hand before immediately launching an attack on those who, unlike you,
: don't put any faith in the word of a man who has been proven wrong on
: dozens of issues?
: It is you who seems to have lost his ability to deal with reality. Never
: once in your paragraph did you or were you able to deny Mr. Young's
: assertion that Rush lied about the fax and that Rush lies for a living.
: Instead you chose to employ a counterassault against those who don't
: share your views by hypocritically accusing them of being afraid of
: "intellectual diversity." There are no intellectuals in Rush's
: encampment. Bravo on your strategic tactics. ;-)>>>>
: Perhaps by now you have read the post I refered to in the one you are
: responding to - for reasons not known to me AOL posted my two messages on
: this point in reverse order from the way I wrote them; thus my reference
: in this one the "Exhibit #1 to my earlier post." You may apologize at your
: convenience for your ignorant remark that "Never once in your paragraph
: did you or were you able to deny Mr. Young's assertion.." You may
: apologize by e-mail if you're embarassed to do so in public. And:
Nope. Haven't seen any other post from you - and, intrigued, I just did
a search for the mysterious post. I also searched for OTHER people's
replies to this post. Didn't find any. You get no apologies from me on
this day. What you get is a suggestion to change to a better service
provider. But be my guest and repost your alleged "earlier post." ;-)
: (1) I'm no more a dittohead than you are.
You must be if you're defending Rush. ;-)
: (2) Rush Limbaugh didn't do what this poster and an earlier one accused
: him of doing. It's that simple. Both posters are wrong.
Let's start from the top with my facts:
On March 10, 1994, Rush told his listeners: "Okay, folks, I think I got
enough information here to tell you about the contents of this fax that I
got. Brace yourselves. This fax contains information that I have just
been told will appear in a newsletter to Morgan Stanley sales personnel
this afternoon.... what it is is a bit of news which says.... there's a
Washington consulting firm that has scheduled the release of a report
that will appear, it will be published, that claims that Vince Foster was
murdered in an apartment owned by Hillary Clinton, and the body was then
taken to Fort Marcy Park."
What Rush was discussing was something in a newsletter by Johnson Smick
International, which was relaying a rumor. This rumor said Foster killed
himself in an apartment owned by "White House associates" and his body
was moved to the park it was found in. Limbaugh snagged the rumor and
embellished it even further to state Foster was not only *murdered* but
Hillary was the owner of the apartment. None of this was the truth but
the truth has never stopped Rush Limbaugh.
When he went on "Viewpoint" on April 19, 1994, Limbaugh insisted "Never
have I suggested that this was murder." (despite the fact he said so
several times beforehand). Jeff Greenfield of ABC said Rush "broadcast
the rumor as an example of the more wild stories circulating." Evidently
one of the people participating in that discussion here has been reusing
that excuse. So, the Limbaugh defense is to pretend he was just
discussing "rumors" and that he never tried to tell anyone that his "big
news" was true.
However, on January 12, 1994 (two months before the fax incident), Rush
said "The Vince Foster death - and I say death, not suicide. I'm
choosing my word very carefully there. I really think there's something
really rotten here."
On January 27, 1994, Limbaugh attacked the authenticity of the suicide note.
And on February 3, Limbaugh spent quite a bit of time discussing his
opinion that Foster was a victim of homicide.
And if you think that Rush did not lie, my dear Mr. Watson, you're in
need of either an opthamologist or a psychiatrist. ;-)
: (3) It's the breathless snarling of the poster to whom my reply was sent,
: the undiluted hate and vitriol with which he attempted to make his point,
I saw neither hate nor vitriol. I certainly saw no snarling. Perhaps
he was frustrated at the rampant inability by the dittohead population
to listen to the facts, but I plead guilty to that myself. I saw him
pointing out the facts and repeating the true statement that Rush lies
several times. Nowhere did he display "hatred" - unless, of course, you
define hatred as pointing out Rush's fallacies. I am highly skeptical of
your claim to not be a dittohead given your penchant for the standard
dittohead complaint that any and all counterevidence proving Rush's lies
wrong is just "hatred." It seems quite a standard theme around here,
and the only button dittoheads have to push. I trust you complain as
stridently about the "snarling" coming from the dittobots as well? ;-)
: which was the subject of my response - not his disagreement with Rush
: Limbaugh. If I didn't make that clear, I apologize to you and others who
: give a damn.
For someone with no objections to those who disagree with Rush you
certainly seemed quick and eager to proclaim those who do as being "hateful."
: (4) A vicious, mean-spirited assault in the manner of the poster to whom I
: objected is indicative to me, at least, of one who has lost his ability to
: reason and who fears intellectual diversity more than he fears his own
: death - because if his own beliefs are successfully challanged in the
: arena, in the marketplace of ideas, he is dead. The poster I confronted
: is intellectually dead.
This is nothing I haven't heard dozens of times from any number of
dittoheads. If you're not one, you certainly have been hanging out with
quite a few, for their standard phrases have sunk into you through some
sort of osmosis, I see. Trying coming up with something a little better
than Rush's statement that "liberals will resort to ad hominem attacks
because they cannot debate the issues." You see, his dittoheads seem to
misinterpret that into thinking that if they're not liberals ad hominem
attacks do not mean non-liberals are incapable of discussing issues, and I
understand that's been a real problem for them. ;-)
WRT your charges of the poster's being "intellectually dead," evidently he
wasn't so "dead" as to bring forth the truth in the matter, which is
that Rush lied about the fax. That's more than I can say for the
head-bobbing dittoheads who hit the streets on March 10, 1994, to
proclaim that it had been proven that Hillary Clinton murdered Vince
Foster and had his body dumped in a park. And that Rush had conclusive
evidence. Perhaps you should discuss Ted Koppel's intellectual
depravity for supporting Limbaugh's lie that he never suggested Foster's
suicide was murder, despite Limbaugh's having done so on four separate
occasions. ;-)
Roger B Olsen
>GR VIMONT says:
>
><<<<
>I heard, first hand, the program. Rush was talking about the lunacy of
>the conspiracy theories that were beginning to surround the Whitewater
>story. Yes, he repeated the rumor but he made very very clear that he
>thought it was lunacy.
>
>
>I heard the program, too, and you are exactly right. I appreciate your
>post. The nuts who constantly attack Rush Limbaugh without having the
>slightest acquaintance with him, his show, or what he believes are
>pathetic, but I chalk it up to desperation. I'm not particularly a
>Limbaugh fan - I listen if I happen to be in my car at the right time,
>which isn't often. I work for a living. But the nutty left's reaction to
>Limbaugh is hilarious, and instructive. These people hate with a
>viciousness not often seen in an open society, and engage in the
>demonization of those with whom they disagree with an exuberance not seen
>in America since the hayday of the KKK, whom they very closely
resemble,
>intellectually speaking, that is.
>>
>
>
>Tim Watson
Rush, the Limbaughtomist, does bring out the worst in all. Perhaps it
is his delivery that requires a response in kind.
RBO
TimoW1
(1) I'm no more a dittohead than you are.
(2) Rush Limbaugh didn't do what this poster and an earlier one accused
him of doing. It's that simple. Both posters are wrong.
(3) It's the breathless snarling of the poster to whom my reply was sent,
the undiluted hate and vitriol with which he attempted to make his point,
which was the subject of my response - not his disagreement with Rush
Limbaugh. If I didn't make that clear, I apologize to you and others who
give a damn.
(4) A vicious, mean-spirited assault in the manner of the poster to whom I
objected is indicative to me, at least, of one who has lost his ability to
reason and who fears intellectual diversity more than he fears his own
death - because if his own beliefs are successfully challanged in the
arena, in the marketplace of ideas, he is dead. The poster I confronted
is intellectually dead.
--
Tim Watson
Scott Matteson
: The fact is, is that when Rush was reading this story he was giving it
: as an example of how idiotic and wild "Whitewater" stories were
: becoming. He KNEW it was a false story and was giving it as an example
: to his listeners - saying in effect - this is what is happening to the
: "Whitewater" story because Bill and Hillary haven't come clean.
: Jerry
No, that's a line being repeated from ABC's Jeff Greenfield. In truth,
Rush claimed the Foster suicide was actually murder on four separate
occasions. He never once presented any of his allegations in the context
of demonstrating how "idiotic and wild" these stories had gotten. He
tried, on each occasion, to discuss them as truth and not unsubstantiated
rumor.
MLiebert
Re: What's wrong with Rush
>Which goes back to what I was questioning. From MY understanding, Rush
>has never gone into the Vince Foster death, and is viewed as phoney
>because of it by many people on this newsgroup.
I think Max is only partially correct here. Rush has undergone a
marked change since the time of the Smick-Johnson rumor. It's clear
that he touches the subject of VWF with kid gloves now.
But it wasn't always so. Consider this excerpt from the Switzer
summary of the show from Jan 27, 94.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Unofficial Summary of the Rush Limbaugh Show
for Thursday, January 27, 1994
by John Switzer
This unofficial summary is copyright (c) 1994 by John Switzer.
All Rights Reserved.
...
FIRST HOUR
Items
o Rush has been telling people to keep an eye on the
investigation into the death of Vincent Foster because he has
been hearing curious rumors about it. Rush didn't want to discuss
those rumors before they had been confirmed by others, and today
the NY Post has done that. Rush will talk more about this on
today's show.
...
Rush never bought into the notion that Vincent Foster committed
suicide in a park that nobody goes to, especially when the
"suicide note" was found ripped into 28 pieces, with the crucial
28th piece missing. Rush tipped-toed around this subject, though,
since he didn't want to deal with innuendo and rumor on his show,
especially with a topic as personally tragic such as this.
Rush, however, kept hearing things about the scene of the crime
which made him think that Foster's death was not a suicide, but
until some solid evidence came out, he kept away from the rumors.
Instead, he limited himself to insisting that the key to
unraveling Whitewatergate was the death of Vincent Foster.
Today's NY Post has the headline "Doubts Raised Over Foster's
Suicide" and it asks why there was so little blood at the crime
scene and why Foster was still holding the gun. His body was also
found as if he were laid in a casket, arms and legs both straight
by his side. His hand was still gripping the gun, with the barrel
perpendicular to his legs, which would be a difficult thing to
have happened, given that Foster supposedly shot himself in his
mouth. The police also haven't found the bullet that killed
Foster.
Rush has heard forensics people remark that in cases such as
this, the gun typically is found many feet away. It's almost
impossible for someone to shoot themselves in the mouth and end
up as Foster did, especially since there was only a trickle of
blood found near the scene of his death. The only way this could
have happened would be for Foster to shoot himself and still be
conscious enough to lie down and extend his arms and legs. The
forensics people quoted by the Post, though, say this is
impossible.
Rush had heard that the gun didn't have Foster's fingerprints on
it, but this information is not part of the Post story and hasn't
yet been verified. However, after the break Rush will discuss
those rumors he's heard which are now being reported by the Post.
*BREAK*
Chris Ruddy, the reporter who wrote the story in today's NY Post
about the death of Vincent Foster, interviewed many people who
were present at the scene where Foster's body was discovered.
Fairfax county paramedic George Gonzalez said he was the first
rescue worker to see the body on July 20th. Gonzalez said many
things about the scene were very strange; for example, Foster's
body was laid out as if he had been put in a coffin, with arms
and legs straight next to his side.
Gonzalez noted that a .38 caliber revolver was found in Foster's
hand, which was somewhat unusual for suicides; typically, a
handgun used in a suicide is catapulted away, perhaps as far as
20 feet from the body. Gonzalez was also surprised to find so
little blood, given that Foster seemed to have shot himself in
the mouth. "Usually, a suicide by gunshot is a mess," he noted.
Corey Ashford, another emergency services technician, said he
didn't see any blood either, nor did he see any exit wound under
the head. The first police officer at the scene also remarked how
everything at the scene, including Foster's shirt, "was really
neat - there was no blood on it."
This lack of blood and other mess raises the possibility that
Foster was killed elsewhere and dumped in the park, according to
homicide experts. The pathologist who conducted the autopsy
insisted the wound was self-indicted, but the autopsy results
have not yet been made public. Those results, however, will be
sent to Robert Fisk, the independent counsel investigating the
Whitewatergate scandal.
Gonzalez also remembers how Foster's hand was carefully wrapped
around the gun, with the barrel perfectly perpendicular to
Foster's leg. Other witnesses noted these things, too. Two
witnesses said that the first cops took a cursory look at the
scene and declared it a suicide; however, the cops later said
they may have made a snap decision.
The Post took Gonzalez's observations to several experienced
homicide investigators, who said that they would not have been so
quick to declare the case a suicide, especially since killers
often try to make their murders look like suicides. "You treat it
as a homicide, particularly if it's a V.I.P. like this case,
until you can prove otherwise," said one NYC detective with more
than 20 years of experience.
Gonzalez and others found the gun to be very clean, and noted
that it was highly unusual for Foster to be clutching the gun as
he was. "It would be very difficult to shoot yourself and still
remain conscious to hold tightly to the gun," notes the Post. A
retired detective noted, "In my thirty years in dealing with
homicides, I've never seen someone shot themselves in the mouth
and still hold the gun perfectly at his side."
One forensic pathologist added that normally in a suicide, the
gun doesn't end up in the hand; typically, when the gun is found
in the hand, it's usually a sign that someone else put it there.
A former NYC detective stated "under ordinary circumstances,
after the firing, the gun is away from the person." However, he
did admit that the gun could remain in the hand under rare
circumstances.
Experts noted that the key to all these questions could be the
bullet, but it has yet to be found. The White House did not have
any comment when the Post called them.
********
...
Returning to the death of Vincent Foster, Rush points out that
the reason he never bought the suicide story was because he
couldn't believe that the Wall Street Journal was what drove
Foster to kill himself. The media, however, insisted that Foster
couldn't deal with the pressure of media criticism, but this was
a ridiculous idea.
Rush was also bothered by the reactions of Foster's close friends
which just didn't feel right. The NY Post could be wrong with its
story, of course, but regardless there are many questions about
this death, and nobody else has been looking into them. Now that
the Post has done its investigation, though, Rush suspects that
other investigations will be done; undoubtedly supporters of
Clinton will also find experts to insist that Foster's death was
a suicide.
Even so, though, Rush will be glad to see that this death is
finally investigated as fully as it should be. It's a certainty,
though, that had Foster and Clinton been Republicans, the
Democrats in Congress would have insisted on full investigations
immediately.
...
SECOND HOUR
...
Phone Mike from North Caldwell, NJ
Mike first asks Rush who the "black and white caricature" is who
is peering out of the White House window in the Limbaugh Letter
calendar. Rush asks his staff to bring a copy of the calendar to
him, and while they are doing that Mike says that what he's heard
about the special prosecutor is that Fisk will only be
investigating Madison Guaranty and Whitewater; Mike has seen
nothing to indicate that the special prosecutor will look into
Vincent Foster's death.
Rush says that Fisk will be doing this, but Mike wonders where
his legal authority for this will be coming from. Rush points out
that the counsel will have to investigate Foster because he was
the Clintons' attorney and was very much involved in both
Whitewater and Madison Guaranty.
Mike says he also looked at the NY Times stories that appeared
right after Foster's death, and saw that Clinton in his eulogy of
Foster said "his failure to protect himself was beyond
understanding." Mike finds this a strange choice of words. Rush
says at the time he found Clinton's first reaction to Foster's
death a bit strange; Clinton seemed unflustered by Foster's
death, almost as if it were expected.
Mike recalls how those in the administration at first claimed
they had no idea why Foster would have committed suicide, but
then quickly switched to saying that everyone had known for some
time that he had been depressed. Mike found this very troubling
at the time, and even more so now.
Rush agrees - first nobody knew of any reasons why Foster would
do this, then everybody said they knew he had been depressed, and
then the blame was put on editorials in the Wall Street Journal.
And, of course, within two hours of his death, Foster's office
was sealed, after the files were taken out, and those files
stayed a secret for nearly five months. All of these
irregularities will give Fisk the right to investigate Foster's
death.
The EIB staff brings Rush a copy of his calendar, and he states
that the figure in the window is none other than the ghost of
Eleanor Roosevelt. This, of course, is in reference to Hillary
Clinton's statement at Lincoln Center that she would at times
"talk" to the spirit of Mrs. Roosevelt to get guidance about the
job of First Lady.
Mike is glad to have this mystery solved, and then mentions how
much he appreciates "Mr. Switzer's excellent summaries on
CompuServe." Rush notes that John Switzer used to live in Santa
Barbara but now lives in the Bay Area, "and this guy is just a
dittohead par excellence and extraordinaire."
"Ever since this show began, this man has been writing daily
summaries of this show, in addition to everything else he does,"
Rush points out very kindly although erroneously as the summaries
actually began on August 15, 1991 <<sigh, I missed three years of
summarizing Excellence In Broadcasting>>. He points out that
every summary is a 43KB file <<or more>>, and it's the closest
thing available to a transcript of the show.
"And it's coupled," Rush adds with a bit of a chuckle, "with
Switzer's wry sense of humor." The summaries are available on
CompuServe in the ISSUES forum <<but most of you already know
that>>. He thanks Mike for calling.
*BREAK*
...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
BTW, the stuff at the beginning of my call had to do with the
legal charter of Special Counsel Fiske. It continues to be my
opinion that that charter did not grant him authority to investigate
the circumstances of Mr. Foster's death. (I have the text someplace
if anyone is interested.) Perhaps I did not make myself clear, but
I don't think Rush really knew what I was talking about. Maybe he
just assumed that de facto supersedes de jure.
The bottom line is that Rush =was= once interested in the curious
circumstances surrounding the death of Vincent Foster; and not
without cause.
ML/NJ
----------------------
Gerald Vimont
O'Donnell) writes:
>
>In article <Do3Dt...@iglou.com>, mken...@iglou.com (Max Kennedy)
wrote:
>>pyo...@serdp20f.ciesin.org wrote:
>>
>>[...]
>>Rush claimed
>>[...]
>>
>>: He lied about having a fax that claimed Vince Foster was killed in
an
>>: apartment owned by Mrs. Clinton.
>>
>>I've never heard that Rush every mentioned the Vince Foster
"suicide".
>>When was this?
>>
>>
>
>Rush got a report that a financial newsletter (Strategic Investor?)
was going
>to go with a story that VWF was killed in a "safe house" used by
Hillary
>Clinton. He mentioned it in the context of talking about the wild
rumors
>which were abounding, mainly because the White House was being so
short with
>answers of their own.
>
>Later in the day, it turned out that the report he got was
incorrect... the
>article simply stated that VWF was found dead in a house which was
used by
>Whote House people from Arkansas. (This has never, to my knowledge,
been
>refuted, by the way).
>
>So, saying that Rush lied about this is like saying that Dan Rather
lies when
>he reports a story which later turns out to be incorrect or
preliminary.
pyo...@mhpcc.edu
> Rush got a report that a financial newsletter (Strategic Investor?) was going
> to go with a story that VWF was killed in a "safe house" used by Hillary
> Clinton. He mentioned it in the context of talking about the wild rumors
Almost. Rush said he had a fax that had a story that would be
published that said that Foster was *murdered* in an apartment *owned*
by Mrs. Rodham-Clinton.
He did, indeed have a fax, but it was not a story that would be
published, did not mention murder, and did not mention
Mrs. Rodham-Clinton in conjuntion with Foster's death. After the
break he did say that the report was a rumor, but he never admitted
that the fax he claimed to have was fictitious.
> which were abounding, mainly because the White House was being so short with
> answers of their own.
>
> Later in the day, it turned out that the report he got was incorrect... the
> article simply stated that VWF was found dead in a house which was used by
> Whote House people from Arkansas. (This has never, to my knowledge, been
> refuted, by the way).
I suspect what really happened was that his lawyers warned him that he
better save that fax to prove it, so he changed his story, since he
didn't have the fax.
Well, actually, if Foster committed suicide in the park, then he
couldn't very well have been found dead in a house which was used by
anyone, could he? Have you told people that Vince Foster wasn't found
dead in your house? Why not? Because nobody questions it. Perhaps
this one in-house newsletter was never refuted because it was simply
too silly to bother with.
>
> So, saying that Rush lied about this is like saying that Dan Rather lies when
> he reports a story which later turns out to be incorrect or preliminary.
But then Dan Rather doesn't rattle a paper and say that he has right
there, in his hand, a report which it turns out he doesn't have, does
he? He knows better than to lie quite so blatantly.
It's really interesting to see the revisionists protect Rush as they
do. Almost as good as that claim that no riots happened at the
Chicago Democratic Convention in 1968 because Mayor Daley took such a
tough stand with the demonstrators. This is great stuff. Keep it up,
folks.
--
Phil Anderson
> {Magnus snippus}
> Which goes back to what I was questioning. From MY understanding, Rush
> has never gone into the Vince Foster death, and is viewed as phoney
> because of it by many people on this newsgroup.
>
>
Rush devoted LOTS of airtime to a series of articles from that journalistic icon
The New York Post which were among the first high-profile sources to suggest
Foster was murdered. Not long thereafter, Nightline ran the long piece with the
corpse photos and "suicide" evidence and Rush stopped chortling about this
issue for a while.
Rush also took a call from an adoring woman who said she had trouble with the
murder theories because the Widow Foster never said a word about the matter,
even though she was clearly privy to the investigation. Rush thought that one was
obvious. "She's scared", he said, not bothering with anything so prosaic as evidence
or reasoning to support his bold assertion.
----
Phil Anderson
pand...@cencom.net
Phil Anderson
I heard the same broadcast, but I did not hear the same reluctance. Rush referred to
"something big" throughout the hour, but gave few clues what it might be. Thats just
a variation of the "keep listening for more exciting details" technique used by
everyone from Adolf Hitler to Betty Crocker. He held on to it, however, until the super short
segment he runs just before the top of each hour. The advantage, or disadvantage, of that
segment is that you've gotta be quick, and have no time to explain. You hit 'em with the punch
line and break straight for the news. Its a very dramatic technique, and Rush is nothing if not a
master of technique.
I heard not reluctance, but relish in Rush's voice as he read the report that Vince Foster
had been murdered in a DC apartment owned by Hillary Clinton. When he came back for the
next hour he pointed out the whole thing was unconfirmed, and then just moved on as
if nothing had really happened.
He's done it before. I recall tuning in to one broadcast where a woman caller who obviously
admired Rush was expressing scepticism about the Foster "murder" scenarios. Why,
she wanted to know, wasn't Foster's widow saying anything? She was obviously privy to
the investigation. If there was something wrong, why didn't she say anything? Rush's reply
was dripping with innuendo, without actually saying anything. "Its obvious", Rush said. "She's
not saying anything because she is afraid". He never bothered to follow that up with anything
resembling evidence or reasoning. That's just how Rush works.
----
Phil Anderson
pand...@cencom.net
Tim Waldowski *or* Barbara Blackwell
What are you guys angry about? That Rush is not reviewing the Vince
Foster death in more detail? (Hey Scott Metteson: for a Rush hater
you sure got lots of detail on the guy - maybe you should offer your
database up for archive searches for one and all).
And Phil Anderson: are you upset that Rush did not go into detail
about why V.F's wife should be afraid because you do or do not believe
she has reason to be afraid?
Tim