Limbaugh claims Dems' interest in Darfur is securing black "voting bloc"
On his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush
Limbaugh claimed that Democrats "want to get us out of Iraq, but they can't wait to get us into Darfur." He continued: "There are two
reasons. What color is the skin of the people in Darfur? It's black. And who do
the Democrats really need to keep voting for them? If they lose a significant
percentage of this voting bloc, they're in trouble." A caller responded, "The black
population," to which Limbaugh said, "Right."
On the August 21 broadcast of the nationally syndicated Rush Limbaugh Show, a caller said to host Rush Limbaugh: "I know I'm no expert in foreign affairs, but what really confuses me about the liberals is the hypocrisy when they talk about how we have no reason to be in Iraq and helping those people, but yet everybody wants us to go to Darfur." Limbaugh responded by claiming Democrats "want to get us out of Iraq, but they can't wait to get us into Darfur." He continued: "There are two reasons. What color is the skin of the people in Darfur? It's black. And who do the Democrats really need to keep voting for them? If they lose a significant percentage of this voting bloc, they're in trouble." The caller responded, "The black population," to which Limbaugh said, "Right."
Limbaugh also stated: "So you go into Darfur and you go into South Africa, you get rid of the white government there. You put sanctions on them. You stand behind Nelson Mandela -- who was bankrolled by communists for a time, had the support of certain communist leaders. You go to Ethiopia. You do the same thing."
Limbaugh added: "Clinton sent the U.S. military off to Bosnia. No U.S. national interest at stake. The liberals will use the military as a 'meals on wheels' program. They'll send them out to help with tsunami victims. But you put the military -- you put the military in a position of defending U.S. national interest, and that's when Democrats and the liberals oppose it."
However, interest in ending the killing in the Darfur region of Sudan is bipartisan. In 2006, Congress passed the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act, sponsored by then-Rep. Henry J. Hyde (R-IL). The law contained several sanctions on Sudan, including a ban on ships involved in Sudan's oil trade docking at U.S. ports of entry. An initial version of the bill passed the House by a vote of 416-3, and the final version passed the House by voice vote and the Senate by unanimous consent and was signed by the president on October 13, 2006.
From the August 22 broadcast of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:
LIMBAUGH: Here's [caller] in Lake Orion, Michigan. Thank you for calling. Great to have you on the EIB Network.
CALLER: Hey, Rush. It's great to talk to you. I talked to you once before. I've been listening to you for a couple of years now, and I think I'm getting brighter, but there's a lot to be learned. I know I'm no expert in foreign affairs, but what really confuses me about the liberals is the hypocrisy when they talk about how we have no reason to be in Iraq and helping those people, but yet everybody wants us to go to Darfur. I mean, aren't we going to end up in a quagmire there? I mean, isn't it -- I don't understand. Can you enlighten me on this?
LIMBAUGH: Yeah. This is -- you're not going to believe this, but it's very simple. And the sooner you believe it, and the sooner you let this truth permeate the boundaries you have that tell you this is just simply not possible, the better you will understand Democrats in everything. You are right. They want to get us out of Iraq, but they can't wait to get us into Darfur.
CALLER: Right.
LIMBAUGH: There are two reasons. What color is the skin of the people in Darfur?
CALLER: Uh, yeah.
LIMBAUGH: It's black. And who do the Democrats really need to keep voting for them? If they lose a significant percentage of this voting bloc, they're in trouble.
CALLER: Yes. Yes. The black population.
LIMBAUGH: Right. So you go into Darfur and you go into South Africa, you get rid of the white government there. You put sanctions on them. You stand behind Nelson Mandela -- who was bankrolled by communists for a time, had the support of certain communist leaders. You go to Ethiopia. You do the same thing.
CALLER: It's just -- I can't believe it's really that simple.
LIMBAUGH: Well, see, I knew you couldn't believe it. But here's the -- here's one that's even going to be harder to believe and it is even more truthful. Could you tell me what vital national interest, [caller], is at stake in Darfur?
CALLER: Um, I don't know.
LIMBAUGH: Nothing. Zilch, zero, nada. Darfur is not attacking us. Darfur has not said they want to attack us. So they will -- same thing -- Clinton sent the U.S. military off to Bosnia. No U.S. national interest at stake. The liberals will use the military as a "meals on wheels" program. They'll send them out to help with tsunami victims. But you put the military -- you put the military in a position of defending U.S. national interest, and that's when Democrats and the liberals oppose it. And --
CALLER: Right. Terrorists have attacked us and our oil supply comes from, you know, Iraq and Iran and the Middle East, and yet that's not worth defending.
LIMBAUGH: Right. That's exactly right. You've got it. You've got it. Now you just have to believe your own instincts from here on out.
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
The Friday Rush: A series of conflicts
Contrary to media hype, Sarah Palin is very unpopular
Big difference Rush, in Darfur there is a policy of killing (genocide), Iraq was an American led invasion. Can he say anything worse about African Americans than what he did about Donovan McMahon?
Give Rush five minutes, and he'll always say something worse about any subject.
BTW, the black player Rush said the horrible things about was Donovan McNabb.
Thanks I am not a football fan so I do not always remember the names . I just remembered the hate from Rush that day .
Timmie and Rush
“Russert has been quick to appease right-wing criticism. After questions were raised by callers to Limbaugh’s radio show about Russert’s handling of a 2003 interview with Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Limbaugh e-mailed Russert seeking clarification. As if Limbaugh or his audience were appropriate judges of journalistic fairness, Russert promptly replied, and Limbaugh proudly posted Russert’s response on his Web site. “Rush, thanks for the note. … Believe me, Rush, I know what our troops have done for the people of Iraq. They liberated them. I hope your listeners noted my cross-examination of the Syrian deputy ambassador. Really appreciate your note. Best always, Tim.”
David Brock -- “The Republican Noise Machine”
You weren't too far off. (Mike) McMahon was McNabb's back-up in Philly for a year.
did rush say he only played because he was irish?
Well, that would be in line with Rush's "quality control" - he called Sherrod Brown of Ohio "black", with about the same amount of accuracy as any Faux News report ... (don't forget, Faux is the only "news organization" which got the "go-ahead" to lie from the FCC ...)
Iraq is a genocide. More people killed, wounded or displaced than in Darfur.
Rush is whining about the overthrow of apartheid because Nelson Mandela "was bankrolled by Communists at the time." Hey Limbo, Mandela was in prison at the time. Furthermore, I don't care if the Black majority was bankrolled by Martians, thank God they overthrew you evil white supremacists!
That's jut not true.
"Big difference Rush, in Darfur there is a policy of killing (genocide), Iraq was an American led invasion"
Oh, of course. There was no killing in Iraq before we went there. All of those mass graves were just an illusion. Suddam was a very peaceful man who never killed anybody.
Saddam may have had a few hundred executed annually....like Texas. The US has killed an average of 50,000 Iraqis annually since 1992. The rates have increased lately, too. Saddam is dead. You can't blame him for our country's victims.
Saddam killed close to 1 million of his own people. We haven't killed anywhere close to that. The total number of Iraqis that have been killed hasn't been that high, and most of the Iraqis that have been killed were killed by terrorists. The ones that we killed were killed inadvertently. And it's just ridiculous to compare the death penalty to killing innocent people. The death penatly serves justice. Saddam killed thousands of innocent Iraqis.
"Saddam killed close to 1 million of his own people."--rino hunter
Thank you, rino. I have been waiting to read someone familiar enough with Saddam supposedly killing 1 million of his own people. Do you have a legitimate link that documents and detalis those alleged 1 million?
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/26/weekinreview/26JOHN.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5070&en=456bb1089eae8d5a&ex=1188014400
but figures of a million dead Iraqis, in war and through terror, may not be far from the mark, in a country of 22 million people.
Sounds like speculation to me...
Also, it does not clarify "war" in the least. Are we talking the Iran-Iraq war? Are we talking about the first Gulf War? Are we talking about this war? That statement seems very vague.
The article goes on to clarify that 90% of the million are generously attributed to the Iran-Iraq War and the invasion of Kuwait.
The 100,000 or so that would comprise the remainder was not described adequately in any detail. It looks as if it is just thrown in to make the nice even 1 million figure as far as I can tell.
I don't doubt that Saddam was a real b*stard, but this kind of transparent exaggeration doesn't do any real good at painting an accurate picture of what Iraq was like at the time we invaded. It appears to be mostly a self-serving, transparent and frail attempt by Republicans to create a false contrast between Saddam's Iraq and the current situation.
"DOING the arithmetic is an imprecise venture. The largest number of deaths attributable to Mr. Hussein's regime resulted from the war between Iraq and Iran between 1980 and 1988, which was launched by Mr. Hussein. Iraq says its own toll was 500,000, and Iran's reckoning ranges upward of 300,000. Then there are the casualties in the wake of Iraq's 1990 occupation of Kuwait. Iraq's official toll from American bombing in that war is 100,000 — surely a gross exaggeration — but nobody contests that thousands of Iraqi soldiers and civilians were killed in the American campaign to oust Mr. Hussein's forces from Kuwait. In addition, 1,000 Kuwaitis died during the fighting and occupation in their country."
Lol. So you are blaming Saddam for "murders" due to war? That's pretty rich considering that war was largely assisted by the US and ended in 1988. By that logic, Ronald Reagan murdered those million people or was at very least an accessory to murder - even moreso considering George HW Bush's supplying the Iranian side of the conflict with weaponry. Considering your source's generious accounting, do you think President Bush should accept responsibility for all of the deaths on both sides of the Iraq War himself? Or do you apply a different standard to Republicans?
If you are willing to apply the same reasoning to Presidents Reagan and both Bush's to call them mass murderers, then I won't argue with you - just to make you happy.
: )
Is Rino seriously trying to make the argument that invading Iraq was a good idea? Rino, what does it feel like to maintain that level of cognitive dissonance 24 hours a day? Does it help a lot to have FOX and Rush and all the other sources stroking your delusions? That must make it seem more real I guess. But what about those calmer times when you're just thinking on your own? Don't the facts kind of creep in and insinuate themselves? I've always wondered about that with people whose world view isn't based on facts.
Rino
Come on, Saddam was not a good man but he killed 1 million of his own people? And using Saddam is the defense for what?
Since he's so concerned about the number of people Sadam killed, I wonder why he's not concerned about Darfur? Not only have 2.2 million people (more than twice what he claims Sadam killed!) been killed during several armed conflicts there, they train terrorists and traffic in forced labor and sex. But he says they aren't a threat. Go figure.
"they train terrorists"
Do you have a link for that?
Did you not check the link out? The CIA world fact book specifically calls out a terrorist organization at the bottom of the page.
Ok. I don't really think that that organization is associated with Al-Quada in any way, however. So do you agree with Biden that we should pull our troops out of Iraq and send them to Darfur?
Ok. I don't really think that that organization is associated with Al-Quada in any way, however. So do you agree with Biden that we should pull our troops out of Iraq and send them to Darfur?
So much for the "global war on terror".
Great catch.
Terrorists, whatever their organizational title and whatever ties they have or don't have with Al Qaeda can threaten us.
If someone doesn't understand this, it's because they're truly uneducated about terrorism and/or they've been drinking too much Bush-flavored KoolAid.
Rino, explain this:
U.S. firms have been barred from doing business in Sudan since 1997.[4] The United States has listed Sudan as a state sponsor of terrorism since 1993.
And also note, what you are saying is the US enlisting countries to join the global war on terror to only attack terrorists who are a direct threat to the US. No wonder the alliance is leaving in droves!
Why is it that we have to take the administration's claims on faith, yet the Bush sycophants insist we provide them links?
Don't respond...it was just another stupid strawman argument. Just pat them on the head with pity and move on.
There is no way to get anywhere NEAR that figure without including those lost in the Iran/Iraq war and the Shiite uprising. All of which happened WHILE HE WAS OUR ALLY. HRW said about 300 a year were being killed in Iraq by the time of our invasion. Bad but its a good MONTH in Columbia and FAR from genocide. Once again you know the rightwing propaganda but reality has no ability to penetrate the atmosphere of Planet Wingnut.
Wino, the number of people killed by Saddam keeps being inflated. But here's the point. The reality is that in certain tribal societies with longterm ethnic and religous strife, a strongman or women is almost requisite to keep such conflict to a minimum (Saddam and Tito in Yugoslavia are good examples). Even O'Lielly has stated so much albeit reluctantly. I AM NOT defending Saddam, I am stating positive as opposed to normative theory, which reflects the way things are without a value judgement as opposed to the way things out to be (hey isn't that a Rush title) with a value judgement? Repugs need to get a better grasp on reality before they set about reinventing the world in our own image. Saddam could have been, and was, contained.
I don't apologize for stating that you guys are simply not that bright. Well, maybe you are when it comes to acquiring and retaining wealth by any means necessary. A very un-Christian worldview.
Nice straw man you've built there.
I challenge you to show us where anybody said what you're inferring.
I already copied the quote. Here it is again:
"Big difference Rush, in Darfur there is a policy of killing (genocide), Iraq was an American led invasion"
He claimed that Darfur has a policy of killing but Iraq didn't before we invaded there. He claimed that there was no killing in Iraq until we got there. No strawman there. Just his words.
Wh
Sorry, not sure what happened there.
When we invaded Iraq, Saddam was not killing lots of people. The mass killings had ended years before.
There are terrible things going on in Darfur right now, including lots of unnecessary deaths of innocent people. That was not happening in Iraq when we invaded.
"That was not happening in Iraq when we invaded"
That's BS. Saddam was torturing and killing his own people until the day we removed him from power. The fact remains that the same people who are urging us to go into Darfur to stop the killing are the same ones who opposed us going into Iraq to stop the killing. From Wikipedia:
Aren't you the one who's always saying wikipedia can't be trusted? ;)
I don't think so.
Hey Rino,
I can't believe you dittoheads are still embracing apartheid. I guess democracy isn't as important as white supremacy.
So you throw out numbers like "1 million" and then provide stories that describe 130 alleged murders.
I would argue that both are bad, but why do you feel the need to exaggerate the situation by referring to astronomical numbers that simply aren't supported by any of your. It seems your goal is to make the difference between the number of people dying now and under Saddam much different than what it really was.
You see, several of the prewar claims about Saddam's alleged brutality have been proven to be false. I am pretty sure a bunch of the stuff said about Saddam was either American Propaganda or the effort by some Iraqi's to get sympathy or rewards or citizenship from gullible right-wing Americans - as in Jumana Hanna's case.
Rino, don't worry. Help is on the way!
I'm surprised Media Matters let you link to that.
You have learned from the masters, Rino, at cutting and then distorting the meaning with a single sentence cut out of a multi-sentence post.
Saddam was not killing lots of people when we invaded. We had stopped that years before with sanctions and no fly zones and we limited his access to the Kurds.
If the criteria for invasion is people dying, then we should not have invaded Iraq in 2003, because there were not lots dying then. There are lots dying in Darfur, and it's an ongoing problem.
Sanctions killed a lot of people as well according to the studies.
You're right, sanctions did cause the deaths of many people because of missing food and medicines.
Saddam was not a nice guy, and as a result, many of his people suffered. But Saddam wasn't killing lots of people right before we invaded. He had done that years before.
There are lots of countries like that around the world, and we have not chosen to invade them.
We invaded Iraq because they were supposedly a threat to us. We might help in Darfur because of the massive crisis they're facing there, just like we helped in Bosnia and in Haiti. We aren't suggesting that we go into Darfur because we want to win black votes, which is what Limbaugh said.
LIMBAGH IS A BIGOT. TIGER WOODS IS THE BEST GOLFER IN THE WORLD AND LIMBAUGH LOVES GOLF . HAVE U EVER HEARD HIM COMLPIMENT TIGER. SOMETIMES ITS NOT WHAT U SAY ITS WHAT U DONT SAY.
Your full of crapola.
Rush on Tiger:
I'm going to tell you what. This is the kind of situation where 30, 50 years from now people are going to be writing books on it. There will be movies and stories. The Legend of Tiger Woods is going to be every bit as big as Bobby Jones and Jack Nicklaus, and the people alive now watching it don't have nearly the appreciation of it because we're living our lives at the same time, and it's just part of the fabric. Sometimes we don't have the ability to stop and appreciate what real unique greatness is when it's amongst us, and I think that's him.
Tiger is only 5 majors away from matching Jack Nicklaus' lifetime record. If Tiger stays healthy, he should exceed it easily.
Rush on Tiger:
I'm going to tell you what. This is the kind of situation where 30, 50 years from now people are going to be writing books on it. There will be movies and stories. The Legend of Tiger Woods is going to be every bit as big as Bobby Jones and Jack Nicklaus, and the people alive now watching it don't have nearly the appreciation of it because we're living our lives at the same time, and it's just part of the fabric. Sometimes we don't have the ability to stop and appreciate what real unique greatness is when it's amongst us, and I think that's him.
-----------------------------------------
Tiger is bigger than Jack Nicklaus and Bobby Jones combined. Golf did not become a real sport until he started playing.
That doesn't really mean anything. Most bigots don't have a problem discussing black sports heroes. Besides, Tiger isn't exactly Jackie Robinson considering he is probably the least political athlete on the entire planet.
He was merely debunking drsfinances claim that Rush never talked about Tiger Woods. You prefer to leave lies unchallenged?
Bruce,
You may be confused here. My response was to drsfinance's flawed premise.
Rush never complementing Tiger? ....dont listen very often do you? Oh thats right you already know what he has to say so its not nesseary...my bad.
Is this Rush's way of saying that black voters don't just "look alike", but they also "think alike". He is also saying that black people around the world know each other.
And isn't he also saying that white people don't care about what's happening in Darfur?
And he is also conflating Iraq (as bad as Saddam was he was not in the middle of commiting genocide in 2003) with the genocide in Sudan.
Limboob is a joke...
Is it possible that people can actually listen to this crap and then run around thinking they "know something."
Happens every day. They make up the bulk of the 30% crowd.
In Al Franken's book "Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot", Franken refers to a study that was conducted of radio talk show listeners. Those who listened to Rush felt they were the most-informed prople on the issues of the day, but when they were quizzed on current events they turned out to be the least-informed.....
If Limbaugh is a joke then Biden must be an even bigger joke. Biden and a few other Democrats want to take our troops out of a civil war in Iraq where our national security interests are at stake and put them in another civil war in Darfur that has absolutely nothing to do with our national security.
We have a national history of putting troops into places where we have no compelling national interest. Why should Darfur be any different?
RH,
One on topic, one off,
1) On topic, if this war is truly about our national security interests, why are we not drafting people to fight it? The Pentagon has said that it will have trouble maintaining the increase of 30,000 troops beyond April 2008. If that is indeed the case, why is there not a draft to relieve those who have served so honorably? If this war is truly about our national security, why aren't more people signing up? Why are we not sacrificing at home?
2) Sorry to ask this again, but are you going to write your Congressman/representative about the egregious violations of free speech the Executive Branch is engaging in? I would love your help on this one!
We got rid of the draft a long time ago. The military is more efficient when the soldiers actually want to be there and like what they're doing. That's what the military commanders say. And sorry, but I don't usually write to my representatives. I don't think that I could make too much of a difference. But keep up the good work. You're a good man.
Except that we can't sustain these levels of troops that we have now according to the Pentagon past April 2008
Also, I am very disappointed in your lack of desire to write your Congresspeople. You are more tban willing to spend time and energy here when you think Imus is censored, but when the Executive Branch of the United States is basically convicted of free speech violations, you won't step up. Whatever works for you....
I didn't write my Congress people about The Fairness Doctrine either. It's just not something I do.
Yeah, but you don't believe in the Fairness Doctrine, you believe in Free Speech.
Yeah. But my point was I didn't write to my representatives telling them to oppose the Fairness Doctrine.
Fair enough,
I just thought that this outrage would be something you would like to be aware of and spur action on your part. I think this is something both Republicans and Dems can agree on. Take care.
Nice talking point.
Could it be because there is nobody currently in the Senate or the House talking about re-instating the Fairness Doctrine? No legislation has been proposed, no trial balloons have been sent up, nobody is talking about bringing it back, except for, yes, you guessed it, right wing talk show hosts. They are using it to say that the "evil" democrats want to take away their free speech, except for, you know, the FACT that nobody is talking about bringing it back.
Keep on believing my friend, some day, you might be correct.
Don't look now, but...
I have questions for those who believe that the conflict in Iraq is a threat to our National Security:
1) Are you miffed that Bush did not send in more troops than he did and that his generals (Shenseki (sp?) called for?
2) Just how important is our national security to you (I am speaking to all of the posters who make this argument)? What are you willing to give up and/or sacrifice for our national security? If it is as vital as the President and his supporters say, why aren't you there fighting for the security of our country? Why is there no draft if this battle is so imperative? Why does our President insist on extending the tours of our brave men and women instead of relieving them and making sure they are refreshed and ready to battle again if this is so important?
At the very least, if it's a question of national security, that probably means that oil figures prominently as an issue. So why aren't we rationing gasoline and other oil-derived products?
What....and cut into Exxon's profits? NEVER!
Decency doesn't strike you as being in the national interest? Perhaps preventing murder isn't, as well?
Explain, please.
Invading a country that didnt threaten us would be considered decent HOW?
Our national security is at stake in Iraq? Just because that is YOUR delusional take doesnt mean it in ANY way represents reality
No Darfur is not attacking us. Has Iraq ever attacked us? No. I can't stand Rush Limbaugh.
WHY ISNT DAVID BROOCK ON THESE SHOWS TO SHOW THIS BIGOTRY AND LIES OF ALLLLL THESE RIGHT WING NUTS
They won't let him. Brock has been essentially blacklisted.
He comes off well on TV, but apart from MSNBC occasionally, no one wants him on.
I doubt David Brock is waiting by his phone waiting for a call from a Limbaugh booking rep.
This is chilling. His millions of mindless listeners will be echoing this view right up until the '08 election. After Don Imus' remarks and the raucous that ensued, Rush Limbaugh's employment status should be a no-brainer after this bombshell.
So you want Limbaugh fired for his comments?
That is a little chilling.
I do not want Rush fired, he is a valid voice of the right. All of America should be able to hear his racist rants.
Say a little more about this. Why is it chilling? I don't think any government should silence Limbaugh. I don't think laws should be passed against this kind of speech. But I would have a great deal of respect for a company that refused to offer him a national forum.
No need to say anymore than you just did. I completely agree with you.
So then why did you say that the idea that Limbaugh should be fired over racist comments is "chilling"?
Not to worry...Rush's job is secure. He's doing exactly what they pay him to do.
This is chilling because he is marginalizing the genocide in Darfur, a region where 300 people starve to death every day, more than half of them children.
We signed onto the UN genocide treary in '88 and this administration has CALLED DARFUR A GENOCIDE.
We should be forming a coalition to send peacekeeping troops to the region as soon as possible.
Unfortunately, sound diplomacy has ranked underneath privatizing social security and vetoing children's health care on Bush's "to-do".
Rush is wrong. Bush remains wrong. As a Christian, I call every human being my brother and sister and the human rights abuses to the Sudanese in the region are UNACCEPTABLE.
This is CHILLING because these "compassionate" conservatives fail to value human life on this vital issue.
Rush is accusing the majority of America of playing politics over a death toll...like a death toll is a talking point.
He should be fired, yes. If Don Imus' racism got him fired for hurting Rutgers' womens' reputations, then Rush should be fired for endangering and marginalizing the lives and well-being of millions of persecuted Sudanese.
In the neo-con virtuous world, every human life outside the U.S. has a dollar value. National interest prices your head. If you're an unprosecuted "enemy combatant" you get tortured. If you're region's population is getting slaughtered, but you don't live on top of a natural resource, we'll look away.
It's this simple; Fascism, the belief that one is self-evidently better than another because of race, creed, or status.
Amazing that all of these rants on Darfur do not include the cause of the genocide:
Radical Islamists.
Why is it so hard for you to use those words?
Radical Islamists. Radical Islamists. Radical Islamists. etc.
Now what?
How about that is an oversimplification. The GOVERNMENT of the Sudan deserves the blame not Islam. It is a north/south conflict more than a religious one.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.non.racism/browse_thread/thread/f6b5fa5c6976dadf/f489ef034f3c285c?lnk=st&q=Sudan+Islamic+groups+join+southern+Christians+fighting+&rnum=2&hl=en#f489ef034f3c285c
Although religion plays a role, the war in Sudan is not fundamentally religious. Large numbers of rebels fighting the central government are themselves Muslims, and many fighters allied with the government are Christian or practice traditional African religions. Contrary to the account of some advocacy groups, most Southern Sudanese are not Christian, but animist. Large parts of rebellious Sudanese regions are Muslim, including about half of the inhabitants of the Nuba Mountains.
Groups like Christian Solidarity International (CSI) and the American Anti-Slavery Group (AASG) distort their core issue, slavery in Sudan, to fit their "Islam vs. Christianity" scenario. "Slave raids, together with conventional warfare, are among the means used by the Government of Sudan to carry out its policy of Islamization," reads a CSI publication.
But the Sudan Human Rights Organization, a Cairo-based group of Arabs that opposes the Khartoum government, reports: "There is no reliable evidence that the purpose of enslavement is Islamization or Arabization."
"I strongly believe that if there was no war in Sudan, there would be no cases of slavery," said Charles Omandi, an official with the Sudan Catholic Information Office of the Diocese of Rumbek, Sudan. "Incidents of abductions are equally rampant and sometimes pit African tribes against each other…these mostly involve women who are forced into concubinage, say when the Dinka raid the Nuer and vice versa."
Wouldn't that be a confirmation of a need to send troops to Darfur? If radical Islamists are the core of the problem, and we are in a Global War on a Noun, would Dafur then not be a valid front on that war? The southern Sudan is rich in oil, but of course the Chinese own a huge concession there, and since we have seen fit to move so much manufacturing to China, there is no way we could attack and threaten our note-holder's interest.
not quite as chilling as a person who is say indifferent to genocide huh????
Agree. Genocide is as chilling and deplorable in Darfur today as it was when Saddam innocently slaughtered his own citizens during his Iraq rule.
I know that's how you feel Tommy, I was ribbing you as ususal
Oh, I just thought you were being condescending, oh wait, that's me.
OK then, hmmmmm?...ummm?.....how about this > "Oh come now Lynn, my dear, I am not sure you even know where Darfur is?" ;)
I do so as George Bush would say it's in the country of Africa.
Tommy,
If Lynn is giving trouble just say the word and I'll let her have it :)
We didn't go into Iraq to stop any killing. Your analogy is bogus.
True, I notice WHEN that was happening we happily stayed allied with him and didnt even break diplomatic relations with him. In fact Raygun STOPPED a UN investigation into Halabja to protect him. Why is that?
Maybe I'm am misremembering, but didn't Limbaugh chastise Liberals a while back for NOT wanting to go into Darfur? I could be wrong...maybe someone with a better memory could help me out.
This is the reason you don't abuse drugs. You wind up talking crazy just like junkie Limbaugh.
I don't think Rush can use that excuse. He's been spouting this nonsense for at least 15 years. I, for one, don't think he actually believes much of what he says; he's just a highly paid liar.
It's obvious that the only reason the Republicans wanted to invade Iraq, is because it didn't want to lose all of the fat, annoying, racist drug addicts that tend to vote in large blocs for Republican candidates.
Look, it worked!
DAVE WHAT ABOUT MY TIGER WOODS ANALISIS
I agree with you. He never mentions Tiger Woods during a broadcast. I don't know why that is. I don't know if he's being racist or not. But don't look to me for support, I'm an Ernie Els fan and I hate Tiger, too. :-)
Why do you hate Tiger Woods? You don't like excellence or something?
LeatherHelmet already debunked your lie about that.
"...you go into South Africa, you get rid of the white government there..."
Am I imaging things or is Rush saying that ending the government behind Apartheid and the exploitation of the majority population by a small elite minority was a bad thing?
Yes, he is saying that the white minority government should have been protected. He says what his listeners implicitly believe as they hide behind "conservative" labels. Notice that none of them here have spoken on that little comment while they go on and on about whether Saddam killed 130 or 131 people.
To begin with, does Rush actually believe that Democrats are in any danger of losing the majority of the Black vote?
Democrats are not, IMO, pandering for the African-American vote by supporting intervention of some sort in Darfur. They don't have to, they already have the Black vote.
I hear about Darfur now & then. I see ads on TV about the suffering, read an article here & there about the need for the World to help.
But it seems as if the world can't seem to fit it into their schedule on their Things To Do List.
The UN is a weakened body. Too bad, because they, along with the richest industrialized nations should be joining together to do something.
How can we allow this genocide to continue? I guess Rush figures it's of no concern to us because Darfur is no threat, & hasn't attacked us.
Mmmmmm....did Iraq attack us?
And hasn't Bush & Co. claimed [as one of their many reasons] that humanitarian relief was one reason we went into Iraq?
How dare you apply logic? Of course, you're right. How many times did we hear Saddam referred to as a "brutal dictator". How many times did we hear that Saddam gassed his own people? Once it was clear that we had been lied to about WMD, they defaulted to the humanitarian "liberation" excuse. Of course, they've boxed themselves into a corner with that one. The hawks who appear on this forum occasionally saying that our troops have had their hands tied, are essentially advocating total war against the population. Yeah, we could do that, but what would be our excuse then?
The Repubs were eager at one point to point to Darfur as evidence of Arab bloody minded-ness and the violence inherent in Islam (it's actually a war over water between nomads and subsistence farmers). When we didn't buy that, they ignored it.
Frankly, if the Dems wished to show how humanitarian they are, they could end US aid to Israel and remove our forces from Iraq. But Israel pays them far too much for that.
Here Here Jeter, The thing about Rush and Coulter (she said something much worse about Darfur than this) is their indifference to the suffering. I know everyone says that Coulter and Limbaugh are just putting on an act, but you can't feign that kind of heartlessness. I think they really don't care about what is happening in Darfur and the fact that Limbaugh chose to use the suffering of Darfur as yet another tool in his race baiting arsenal reiterates that. You are also correct about the Black vote, people like Limbaugh your hitters (smile) pretty much serves to keeps AA away from the Republican Party. NOW in the past Limbaugh made the statement that Blacks made up such a small percentage of the American populace that what we think really doesn’t matter, he told this to a caller. I believe he believes that the Republicans really don’t need our vote to win that’s why he doesn’t hesitate with the insults and I guess they don’t since they took it all without us in the past, however keeping people like Rush front and center and vocal I think will ultimately hurt Republican politics and they are going to eventually run off a lot of folks. Actually I think that might be happening now. I don’t know if your remember Bill O’rielly telling JC Watts that he should go and be the leader of the Blacks (well it was too funny) but Jeter would you please go and be leader of the Republicans.
"Here Here Jeter, The thing about Rush and Coulter (she said something much worse about Darfur than this) is their indifference to the suffering"
The thing about you and other liberals is your indifference to the suffering that the Iraqi people went through when Saddam was in power, and also the indifference to the enermous suffering and bloodshed that they will go through if we simply leave and leave them to be slaughtered.
OK Rhinny if you are that concerned about the suffering of the Iraqi people as you say you are why you aren’t concerned about the folks in the Sudan. If you truly believe that the Iraqi war was done to save the poor people of Iraq from the Tierney of Sadam why not don’t you wan them to do the same in Darfur? Now I'll let you go and think up a clever reply now (dog gone that was condescending) I'm going home now, have a good night.
For one thing Darfur doesn't have anything to do with our national security and Iraq does. And I was just pointing out that many liberals seem to care about the killing that's going on in Darfur but didn't care about the killing going on in Iraq before the war. I think that there's better ways to stop the killing in Darfur then sending our military there. The sanctions that Congress passed were a good idea.
According to republicans, sanctions don't work. That was one of the excuses they used to gin up support for the Iraq war. Now y'all think they're good again? I think you are proposing a convenient excuse to not attack Darfur because as you keep trying to point out, they apparently don't rate as a threat to US security (though they do create and train terrorists there!)
Rino's problem is that he equates "national interest" with "white supremacy."
Since the killing going on in the Sudan is at a completely different MAGNITUDE than what was going on in Iraq when we invaded and since our National Security concerns in Iraq exist mainly in your HEAD, you have no point. YOU only care about killing going on in a country that is an official enemy if it is a hundred times worse in a country NOT an official enemy apparantly you couldnt care less.
The thing about you and other liberals is your indifference to the suffering that the Iraqi people went through when Saddam was in power, and also the indifference to the enermous suffering and bloodshed that they will go through if we simply leave and leave them to be slaughtered.
Actually, before the first gulf war, Iraqis were probably the most educated, professional, upwardly mobile people in the region. While Saddam's policies were brutal, and his war with Iran a disaster for both countries and both peoples, his people had a relatively western lifestyle. A lot of the suffering that followed were caused by the US led sanctions against Iraq, which hurt the people of Iraq more than they hurt Saddam.
Surprisingly, it was just rumblings about lifting those sanctions started going around the world that Saddam became this huge "threat." Go figure.
Surprisingly, it was just about the time that rumblings about lifting those sanctions started going around the world that Saddam became this huge "threat." Go figure.
Since the first was at its WORST while he was our ally and the second is YOUR speculation alone, do I really have to point out again how spectacularly WRONG you wingnuts have been about every single prediction you have made about Iraq? You have no point. People would have to be INSANE to base policy on your NEWEST I Ching inspired GUESS about what is going to happen in Iraq considering your complete FAILURE to be right about ANYTHING thus far.
"But it seems as if the world can't seem to fit it into their schedule on their Things To Do List."
Exactly. So true, so sad, so shameful. How can the world stand by and let yet another genocide take place?
"Right. So you go into Darfur and you go into South Africa, you get rid of the white government there."
I guess Rush and his listeners long for the good old days of apartheid in South Africa.
To Limbaugh, racism is no longer something to be ashamed of but something to be proud of.
DAVE I AM NOT LOOKING TO U FOR SUPPORT JUST THE FACT THAT IF WERE A WHITE MAN DOING THAT GREAT HE WOULD BE MENTIONED EVERY WEEK. RUSH DOES NOT BELIVE BLACKS CAN BE DOMINATE IN ANYTHING. .2 YEARS AGO HE SAID THE US GOLFERS WERE INTIMIDATED BY TIGER AND EUROPEAN GOLFERS WERE NOT . NOTICE ALL THE GOLFERS HE MENTION ARE WHITE AND WHITE SHOULD BE DOMINATE.. U WILL NOT SEE MY POINT BECAUSE U ARE A VERY CONSERVATIVE WHITE MAN. RUSH COULD USE THE N WORD AND U WOULD DEFEND HIM HA HA LOL
I'm afraid there are still some vestiges of racism in the sport of golf, mostly at the Country Club level. It's getting better, and I think Tiger has done much to bridge that gap. I heard a lot of jokes about how the old boys at Augusta were scared to death when Tiger won the Masters...that they would be forced to allow a black man into the private clubhouse. Jokes aside, they apparently survived it just fine.
Drsfinance: Which political party do you think Tiger Woods supports?
I don't know but it might be the Republican Party. Money has a way of doing that. Quite a few gaillionaire AA sports figures become Republicans when they become rich. I think the greed factor kicks in and they don't want to help contribute to those less fortunate than themselves. Maybe Tiger might think hey if people want health insurance let them work hard just like me and do something really important for society and play golf just like I do.
Lynn, I think if you read about Tiger Woods and the Tiger Woods Foundation you might want to retract those comments. And I agree, he is likely a Republican although he has never said as much as far as I know.
The broad brush with which Republicans are painted around here is very disappointing.
Bruce,
I thought I was being funny and I certainly don't know anything about Tiger Woods. I'm not a big sports fan. I do know there are many decent Republicans and conservatives, and I do know that there is a fair share of AA sports figures who change political affiliations once they've become rich and my assumptions about why that is are just that asumptions.
Tiger Woods is no Republican. His father taught him well about concealed white racism. See Tiger's Prowl on DVD
I have not heard Rush mention anyone on his show, except for Justin Leonard, and only because he played against him about 3 years ago and lost. Since Rush doesn't have a sports show, I can see why he doesn't mention the PGA tour much. And being a white guy and an avid golfer, I would be intimidated by Tiger, too, Conservative or not. I think there's too much color in your world. Tiger is the number 1 golfer in the world, whether Rush says it on his show daily or not. Satisfied?
What a horrible thing for Rush to say!!!
"But you put the military -- you put the military in a position of defending U.S. national interest, and that's when Democrats and the liberals oppose it."
What a scumbag and a liar he is.
When the national interest of the USA was being defended in Afghanistan, I don't know of hardly anyone who opposed it.
Our national interest was not being protected when we went into Iraq. In fact, our national interests were sabotaged when Bush invaded Iraq.
dave i just know when i see and hear a racist . when i walk into a bank they look at me as black first. when u walk into a bank they look at u as a new custermer. rush makes racist staements regularley and u just dont know how to interpret them. and he is very good at it. have a great day.
also ask the few black friends that u have if i am right. ok
I am not always certain there is a there there. Look, I am a cracker and no racist, but I don't think everywhere you walk in you are perceived as a threat. I am certain it happens quite often, but everytime? Come on. I have been followed around stores by sales clerks. If I were black, I would automatically contribute it to that, I suppose, but what do I blame? I have been the victim of racism while living in Hawaii and have had a gun put to my head twice by Puerto Rican police (once, while helping a local girl get the keys from inside her locked vehicle and the very next night while a passenger in her car as she turned down a one way street the wrong way - it is good she was an executive at the Caribe Hilton), and slightly know how you feel, but to think that EVERY Whitey is afraid of you (you can't say that some blacks don't try to convey an image to capatalize upon this), hates you, or wants you dead is a form of racism as well. Rush Limbaugh is a racist idiot, I'm just an idiot. I'm just sayin'.
I'm sorry you have a chip on your shoulder about being black. I do not believe Rush is racist, IMO. And I don't have any black friends to talk about this with. They simply don't live in my neighborhood. You can golf with me anytime, and we won't invite Rush. Promise. Have a great day, too.
Dave
Sorry for butting in but I've noticed that this chip on the shoulder thing gets leveled at Blacks if we believe that someone is a racist and say so. I believe that Rush probably is or at least he loves playing one on the radio. So if we say what we honestly believe than there MUST be chips on our shoulders; and Dave being born Black isn't like being born without arms or legs it. It isn't a deformity that we're angry about. Do you guys think we sit around wishing we were White and we resent White people because we want to be White? We don’t Dave.The only people who don't think Rush is racist are racists.
I'm sorry you have a chip on your shoulder about being black. I do not believe Rush is racist, IMO.
- dave / Thursday August 23, 2007 06:18:36 PM EST
I just needed to see that one again.
Funniest. Comment. Ever.
I dont know anyone spouting the BS he did about McNabb and telling a caller to take that bone out of his nose sounds pretty racist to me.
i dont have a chip on my shoulder that is a fake argument i am giving u a fact. the fact that u have no black friends tell me all i need to know about ur opinions in the future . thanks for the back and forth .it was pleasentalso i am proud american who happens to be black.
AND RUSH IS A RACIST U JUST DONT REALIZE IT. THANKS
Rush is the kind of racist that doesn't believe that he is one, perhaps. At least that's his pretense.
But he keeps bringing up color of skin at odd moments. Methinks he is uncomfortable in his own skin.
....and then the folks that defend Rush deny the existence of racism while simultaneously making statements like You're mad because you're Black or Black people can’t help that they’re Black. This makes me think that THEY are really the ones who think there is something wrong with being Black and that they are the ones very grateful that they were not born with such a deformity that might be detrimental to them. It’s very interesting.
Oh, I think that Rush absolutely knows that he's a racist. He's only just smart enough to not say the n-word over the air. Other than that, he couldn't be more explicitly racist than he is in this clip.
What a nasty horrible thing for Mr Rush to say. In 2007 still discussing who "Blacks" will votes, not mentioning that we are all Americans? So sad. So very very sad.
THANKS LYNN
Agreed, Thanks Lynn.
Thank You Very Much Lynn!
Sam I Am
Wow. Has you ever seen a man so lacking in compassion, so devoid of Humanity as Rush? He has a $32 million dollar home in Florida, yet lives alone. He is simply a sad human being. I feel he is just a sad little man .
Rush Limpbrain wakes up from his sleep around 3:20 am in a cold sweat and says to himself:
Gosh! What a disgusting, hostile, hurtful, hateful, harmful excuse for a human being I truly am!
And then he says, Oh well, at least the Neocons and a few Republicans love me.
And when Clinton went into Bosnia, which voting bloc was he going after? Muslims?
These comments by Limbaugh are so twisted on so many levels it's hard to know where to start.
All you have to do is wait long enough and Limbaugh will step in it. In this case, he shows who he really is...a racist.
Are you surprised?
As sure as the sun will come up, Limbaugh will make another ignorant, bigoted comment. Bet on it.
Why doesn't whoever pays limpballs just cut the back end off of a horse and throw it in front of the microphone? It would sound the same, wouldn't it?
No, Rush should be fired for libel and being an idiot.
I've been reading through some of these posts and im not sure if any one caught how Rush bated the caller into saying this at the end:
"Right. Terrorists have attacked us and our oil supply comes from, you know, Iraq and Iran and the Middle East, and yet that's not worth defending."
Since when was the oil supply in the middle east OUR oil supply?
Good catch, thanks. Typical arrogance.
Voters from all races will rise up and take our country back soon. Thanks in part to people like Rush it will happen even sooner than if he didn't exist.
Rush is wrong again, no Democratic bloc of voters is in jepardy. In fact I'm an independent and many of my Conservative friends and others of all races wish the Presidential election was today. We want to Impeach Bush, Cheney and others today.
Nancy Pelosi, will you please put impeachment back on the table.
Thanks! And Be sure to Vote!
"There are two reasons. What color is the skin of the people in Darfur? It's black. And who do the Democrats really need to keep voting for them? If they lose a significant percentage of this voting bloc, they're in trouble." A caller responded, "The black population," to which Limbaugh said, "Right." This statement seems logical on the surface, but can be easily be burst with the following pinprick: Just who are the Democrats going to lose the "black vote" to?
The Republicans? After Katrina? After Willie Horton? After Bill Bennett? After the RW media's defense of Don Imus? After support for Apartheid? After McNabb? After years and years of Republicans and their mouthpieces smearing every single successful African-American leader?
Limpboy recently began to (oh so cleverly, in his mind. As a comedian, the man is a joke.) call Barack Obama Obama-McNabb. After getting canned from ESPN for his racist statement about McNabb, he applies the same racist logic to Obama: that the media want to see him do well because he is black.
Sorry Rush, but aside from the a few lapdog sell-outs like Michael Steele and Clarence Thomas, your party isn't getting the "black vote" anytime soon.
This topic shows how sleazy MMFA can be! It's possible for the libs to be inconsistent on the use of military force AND for the Darfur issue to be "bipartisan."
RUSH'S comment was about the lack of consistency about how Dems/libs want to use military force is some situations but not in others - Bosnia and Darfur are two regions that do not impact US national interest.
...Democrats "want to get us out of Iraq, but they can't wait to get us into Darfur."
MMFA's sleazy response is to switch the issue -
...However, interest in ending the killing in the Darfur region of Sudan is bipartisan...
Notice how the issue was switched from the consistency of the libs position on the use of US military power to another entirely different issue about partisanship. It's irrelevant that both the Republicans and Democrats want to use military force in this situation.
I understand why left/libs do not like Rush Limbaugh. But this is a pretty lame attempt to smear RL.
It is not lame OR sleazy. First of all since the sleazy one himself was accusing DEMS of wanting to go into Darfur it IS relevant that the desire to do something about the Sudan is relevant and since they are two TOTALLY different situations one an invasion of a country that didnt threaten us and the other a peacekeeping action there is NO contradiction or inconsistancy in supporting one and not the other. Your post was partisan Con claptrap