CBS gave Limbaugh a platform to attack nameless "critics" who are "not interested in victory," offer his definition of "patriotism"
SUMMARY: In a "Free Speech" segment on the CBS Evening News, Rush Limbaugh attacked unnamed critics who are "not interested in victory" over what he termed "Islamofascism" and who do not conform to his definition of "patriotism," specifically those who "are more interested in punishing this country over a few incidents of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay than they are in defeating those who want to kill us."
The September 7 broadcast of the CBS Evening News with Katie Couric featured nationally syndicated radio host Rush Limbaugh on its nightly "Free Speech" segment, during which Limbaugh attacked unnamed critics who are "not interested in victory" over what he termed "Islamofascism" and who do not conform to his definition of "patriotism." Limbaugh specifically attacked specifically those "critics" who "are more interested in punishing this country over a few incidents of Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo Bay than they are in defeating those who want to kill us." Limbaugh has previously referred to the prisoner abuse at Iraq's Abu Ghraib as "blow[ing] some steam off" and rebuffed allegations of torture at the Pentagon's detention facility at Guantánamo Bay by referring to the prison as "Club G'itmo."
Limbaugh has also said that the story of anti-war protester Cindy Sheehan, whose son was killed in Iraq, "is nothing more than forged documents"; spread gay-baiting sexual innuendo about Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) and alleged that Sen. Clinton was involved in the 1993 suicide of deputy White House counsel Vincent Foster; and, most recently, handicapped the "tribes" in the 2006 season of the CBS reality program Survivor -- in which the teams will be reportedly divided by race -- by assigning them ethnic stereotypes, and stating as a fact that "blacks can't swim."
On the CBS Evening News, host Katie Couric introduced the segment, which she described as one in which "where newsmakers, opinion makers, and just plain folks tell us what's on their minds" by stating that the topic was the "war on terror" and "there may be no one more opinionated on the subject than" Limbaugh. As Media Matters for America noted, nine days before his appearance on CBS, Limbaugh asserted that "[i]t would be a shame" if Couric were "hit by one of these buses" in New York City bearing advertisements for Couric's CBS debut.
From the September 7 broadcast of the CBS Evening News with Katie Couric:
COURIC: If you've been with us this week, you probably know we have a new segment we're trying called "Free Speech," where newsmakers, opinion makers, and just plain folks tell us what's on their minds. With the fifth anniversary of 9-11 coming up, the topic tonight is the war on terror, and there may be no one more opinionated on the subject than radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh.
LIMBAUGH: My friends, it's time to face a hard, cold fact: Militant Islam wants to kill us just because we're alive and don't believe as they do. They've been killing us for decades. So it's time to stop pretending these terrorist incidents are mere episodic events and face the reality that our way of life is in grave danger. Now, this threat is not just going to go away because we choose to ignore it. Some say we should try diplomacy. Yeah, well, tell me, how do we negotiate with people whose starting point is our death? Ask them to wait for 10 years before they kill us? When good negotiates with evil, evil will always win, and peace follows victory, not words issued by diplomats.
But some Americans, sadly, not interested in victory, and yet they want us to believe that their behavior is patriotic. Well, it's not. When the critics are more interested in punishing this country over a few incidents of Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo Bay than they are in defeating those who want to kill us, when they seek to destroy a foreign surveillance program which is designed to identify those who want to kill us and how they intend to do it, when they want to grant those who want to kill us U.S. constitutional rights, I don't call that patriotic. Patriotism is rallying behind the country, regardless of party affiliation, to defeat Islamofascism. Patriotism is supporting our troops in the battlefield, not undermining the mission and morale.
But let there be no doubt about this: America will prevail. We're the same country that survived a bloody civil war, defeated the Nazis and the Soviets. Each generation has a responsibility to the next. Our generation will not disappoint.
whenever Limbo speaks, disappointment follows.
Having that fascist blowhard Limbaugh another outlet for him to spew his half - truths,and outright lies is just sicking. CBS should be ashamed !
Wait. I thought that CBS News was a leftist stronghold.
Perfect example of how conservatives work the refs.
"Militant Islam wants to kill us just because we're alive and don't believe as they do."
Uh, no Rush. I think it has more to do with our foreign policies and our occupation and exploitation of their countries. But I'm sure you know that.
but calling that "blame america first" sounds so much better to him than "failed republican foreign policy". It helps him sleep at night (so does that vicaden, or whatever the heck he takes illegally)...
Sept. 8, 2006
Dear IWARRIOR,
I concur with you about your first point completely! Both Liberal and Conservative mouthpieces go to great pains to work the media against one another, and claim victories where they see fit, and cry wolf whenever coverage somehow exposes these crooks for who they really are.
And yet, I cannot see how you fail to recognize the seriousness by which you are underestimating the fundamental Islamist. Through his or her literal interpretation of his religion, their worldview includes, but is not limited to: 1) Sucker-punching the United States through carefully planned and innovative ideas of terrorism (for lack of better term); 2) Killing you, me, your children, and mine for a worldview that is inconsistant with "Allah" (according to them). You cannot reason with them, because they are akin to trying to appease the sexual predator who has no soul who is trying to rape your child or wife; and, 3) World domination--using murder as their chief weapon. It's their way, or the highway.
Though I respect your opinion, I think you need to seriously reconsider how nutty those in control of many Arabic countries are. You do not give a barbarian a gun, a missle, or a nuclear bomb, for God's sake, and not expect him to use it on you. Your view of this particular piece borders on the insane. Please seek therapy.
I guess we just have to nuke the Middle East, huh? But where will we buy oil then?
IWarrior was referring to the terrorists' motivations, not the severity of the threat they pose.
"You cannot reason with them."
Who wants to reason with them? Seriously, this inaccuracy is passed around by those on the right, but I have never seen anyone who says we should negotiate with terrorists. The idea is to infiltrate their networks and shut them down. I challenge anyone to find a source that argues for negotiation with Al Qaeda. This is not a miantstream view, to say the least.
So the fact that we have funded Israeli opression of Palestinians since the 1970s and the massive US military presence in the Persian Gulf since the 1980s and the non-stop bombardment and seige of Iraq since 1992 and the pointless invasion of Iraq in 2002 may have nothing to do with the anger directed at us? You know, I don't see ANY Moslems engaged in any landgrabs or "world domination" schemes....but Israel and the US are the ones invading and occupying.
And when we kill civilians, it's called "collateral damage" and when they kill civilians, it's "terrorism"? And when their press shows the victims of our bombs, it's "lies and propaganda" but when a US or Israeli dies, it's the crime of the century. This stinkingly racist double-standard is getting very very very old.
You say you don't see any Muslims involved in land grab shemes. Open you mind and your eyes. Read any Brief history Islam. It will outline year after year the Rise of the Ottoman Empire from the 6th century to the present, specifically the people it conquered and subjugated and slaughtered. The religion of Islam, I mean .... it's entire point of existence is a World domination or submission of all living humans to the will of Allah. Any unbelievers are open game for slaughter. The word Islam according to Islamic scholars is the word for submission or a nice word for conquer and convertand if they resist kill. This is why in the most recent video from Osama & Company he invited Americans to convert to Islam. The Koran indicates this is proper ediquette prior to cutting the throat of an unbeleiver.
How are they to be dealt with?
Yes in the 6th Century Islam was expansionist. As was most of the rest of the world. Wasnt Christianity? What were the Crusades about? The expansion into the New World more than a thousand years later. As for Islam wanting to kill everyone that is not Islamic thats ludicrous. I know Islamic people they are not nutbags. The koran says specifically that people of the book that is Christians and Jews should be treated honestly and they have no reason to fear Allah on judgement day. There is a real and credible threat by Islamic fundamentalist extremists. NOT FROM ISLAM. It is a religion, during the reign of the Moors in Spain there was religious tolerance they didnt round up Jews and kill them no that happened during the Inquisitions by Christians. A thousand years ago was a different time. Stop trying to make this a Holy War, there is no need for a Holy War.
Believe me, I'm not looking for a holy war...I am not some kind of right wing christian who says "my way or the hiway" - but I do know that radical Islam wants to kill us & to exterminate the Jews. Nobody is justifying what christians may or may not have done a thousand years ago, but you don't see them doing it now do you? When's the last time you saw a video of Jerry Falwell hacking off the head of an Arab with a rusty sword? Now, think closely...when was the last time you saw a video of an Islamic Radical do the same? Last month? 3 months ago?
Solon appears to be addressing pennesi6115's attack on Islam in general not radical Islam.
Radical Islam is indeed a threat. However that threat is needlessly exacerbated by many of our policies which have included at times acts tantamount to torture, denial of Geneva Convention Rights to prisoners as well as an apparently illegal invasion of a sovereign country that has resulted in a large number of dead civilians.
Do you think it should be our goal to simply kill all of the radical Islamists? Do you think this is practical? Why?
A. The Ottomans only arrived on the scene in the 13th Century and ruled over a multi-religious empire. In no land did they forcibly convert the natives from their previous religions.
B. Islam showed FAR more respect for the Christian and Jewish faiths than Christianity ever did. It was the Christians who lived by "convert or die", NOT the Moslems. They merely taxed the non-moslems in their realms a bit more, not slaughtered them....unlike the Christians who killed jews and "heretics". It was Christian crusaders who slaughtered some 20,000 jews and moslems when they took Jerusalem in the 11th Century. The Moslems gave sanctuary to the Jews when they were forced out of Spain by the Holy Inquisitions torture and forced conversions in the 1500's.
C. What does events in the 700's have to do with the US and Israeli agressions of the last 50 years??? I think you're just making up very lame excuses to justify killing people for their religion, the same thing you're accusing them of doing. Projection.
I'm also for dialogue instead of jingoism. Rush's view of patriotism reminds me of something the Frank Burns character on Mash once said and, I'm paraphrasing: "Unless we blindly follow our leaders, none of us will truly be free."
and the queening of Katie Couric, CBS has sold out to the corporate bidding. Putting Limbaugh on is a disgrace. His telling remark about evil always winning in a negotiation with good shows the last leg of the conservative strategy. Should Democrats take back the House, there should be some legislation to curb the propaganda of the networks. The airwaves belong to the people of the United States, not the corporations.
Nice job Katie, you've been the host of CBS news for a whole week now, and who do you have to give an opinion? A hatemongerer who already dominates the radio and television airwaves - Rush Limbaugh. You get paid $15 million annually for this? Who is next, Ann Coulter? I'm not holding my breath that you will give equal time to a progressives such as Noam Chomsky.
I love the Free Speech Segment. I thought it was a good addition to the CBS Evening News. Even Rush deserves to be heard. Now I want to see some progressives in the next few days. But great job CBS News!!!!!!!!!
"Even Rush deserves to be heard." Yeah, because those hours of broadcasting he does on publicly available radio all across the country every day is just too damn censored! Finally, he got to speak his mind!
Free at last! Thank God Almighty, Rush Limbaugh is free at last!
To think there are some people who haven't heard him speak up until CBS decided to loose the chains that had shackled poor Rush's vocal chords.
Don't we all feel much the better that Rush finally has an open forum?
--"Even Rush deserves to be heard."--
Yes, the poor, shy, retiring Limbaugh must be coaxed out of hiding to share with Americans his bigotry, smears and lies. If only he had the money to, I don't know, start up his own radio show.
Let's hope Limbaugh is persuaded to speak up again and again, and that we hear much, much less from ordinary, everyday, sit-on-their-cans blabbermouths like, say, cab drivers, teachers, nurses or steel workers.
Yeah, what you said.
Good luck and good night.
bwawk, bwawk, bwawk, bwwwaaawk, bwawk, bwawk, bwawk.
Rush - can't hear a word through that cluckin, chickenhawk.
That's the most intelligent response I've read to date. Keep up the good work. Where's someone like Tex when you need 'im? Out.
Very apt descripion of the launguage of our brigade of stay at home warriors. Bawking on the radio and boob-tube and frantically typing bawks on the internet. Their fighting the "Islamofacists" from the safety of their studios and dens.
If that hatemonger Limbaugh gets airtime, when will CBS give the same To Noam Chomsky and/ or Howard Zinn. Both are intelligent, leftist, and are truthful.Three qualities Rush doesn't possess.
That's all TV news has become - one stupid cliche after another. Forget his ideology: Limbaugh talked for over a minute and said absolutely nothing about anything.
Our nation's broadcasters think we are all idiots.
Your comments are correct. Certain bombastic and deceitful media types think that tossing out words like victory, defeat and fascism while challenging our patriotism will suppress our intellect. It has worked on some but others are beginning to realize that patriotism, as Limbaugh, Coulter, O’reilly, etc. see it, truly is the last refuge of the scoundrel.
I like what you said about one stupid cliche after another. It reminded me of a bumper sticker I saw the other day. it read:
"I Support Meaningless Jingoistic Cliches".
It appears that Limbaugh does too.
Wow. Just wow.
In the same week ABC plans to run a rightwing 9/11 propaganda piece and CBS Evening News gives Limbaugh the air time to spew distortions like his "foreign surveillance program" canard.
What will NBC do to get in the race? Maybe an "In His Own Words" segment with Bill O'Reilly?
There's a new book about the Nazi DoughBoy called "The Architect" which details Rove's plan to create an enduring Republican majority for generations to come...kind of like Hitler's Thousand-Year Reich.
He's obviously on the brink of success; they have thoroughly corrupted the media. Isn't it obvious now that the ousting of Dan Rather was a set-up?
It probably was Rove that made Rather report on a story that he didn't thoroughly research. But more importantly, it is totally Rove's fault for making Rather so old.
Damn these Republiagers, always making people so old! But, no, it was totally a set up. Out.
Where did the "forged" documents come from? How was it that the Conservative blogosphere pounced on the obscure little typographical elements within an hour of the broadcast? But, of course, Karl Rove would never set up somebody like that, would he? Even more interesting is that the woman who originally typed the real documents said the content was accurate...and she was shouted down or ignored by the "liberal" media.
Yes, I know that Conspiracies are impossible in NeoCon land, but just imagine...
they were paying attention! Rather gate was so damn obvious to anyone with a brain it only took a minute to figure out the whole thing was a set up designed to sway a Presidential election. Rather disgraced himself with his futile attempt to con the people and everybody except you hard core lefties figured it out pretty fast. I bet there are plenty of people on this site that still believe the forged documents were legit. Right? Your conspiracy theories never cease to amaze me... 9/11 was an inside job, Valerie Plame was outed by Karl Rove, ect...give me a break. Osama's latest video showing him with the 9/11 highjackers preparing for the attacks, the self revelation that Armitage "screwed up" and Fitzgerald knew who really outed Plame from day one of the "investigation" ought to be enough to put your conspiracy theories to bed. But not in lefty land.
Bullsh*t. The whole forgery accusation was based on tiny discrepencies in the fonts used to print the document. No way that could have been spotted so quickly unless someone tipped them off. Try again.
First every single font related argument they brought up was WRONG, even today typographic experts cannot say and have not said they were forgeries since they only have copies thats just not possible, much less after seeing them for a second on TV. It smells of a setup alright but not by the left. CBS CONFIRMED the accuracy of what was said IN the memos by bringing in the lady that DID type Killians memos and she said they accuratly depicted Killians feelings at the time and were like memos she HAD typed up though she didnt type THOSE memos. As for the contents of the memos they were absolutly true. Even Bush idolotors admit that Bush MADE UP missed time months later, except Guard rules say the time must be made up within 15 days, and if the HADNT been AWOL exactly WHAT was he making up? Bush was AWOL its that simple. CBS deserves some criticism, using copies is always dangerous and they got burned, they were probably made complacent by the FACT they sent the story to the White House and the WH didnt dispute a word of it. Keep spinning till you fall down and pass out it was a good conjob to make it about the memos themselves instead of the contents OF the memos which they cannot possibly dispute
You strike me as an intelligent person, so go with me on this one. If I agree with you that the documents were "planted" by Rove&Co., you have to agree with me that it was Rather's fault that he didn't research the documents or question their validity enough to stop himself from reporting on them.
Even if Rove&Co. set it up, it was Rather's bias and eagerness to discredit the president in the lead up to the election that blinded him from doing his job. Agreed? Out.
Rather was sloppy. That doesn't mean he wasn't set up. And, furthermore, it has never been proven that the documents were indeed fakes. All you've got are some typographical oddities that DID exist at the time the documents were dated, but weren't very common. And, the evidence that what the documents said was true is equal in weight to the evidence that they were forged.
But, you're right, Rather should have been more careful.
"Patriotism is rallying behind the country, regardless of party affiliation, to defeat Islamofascism. Patriotism is supporting our troops in the battlefield, not undermining the mission and morale."
He is not exactly a great thinker, is he? That definition of patriotism sounds like something a 10-year old would write as an answer to an essay question.
If at least he had said "Patriotism is rallying behind the ideals our country was founded on, regardless of party affiliation. Patriotism is supporting our troops, but not by cynically using them as pawns in a political strategy, but by allowing them to defend our country when we are attacked. Patriotism is to stand up against those in power when they are not doing the people's bidding. Patriotism is finding the courage to admit when we are wrong, and the strength to make things right."
But in Rush's world, patriotism is always used like a slogan for political purposes. Pathetic.
for re-airing that. i missed it today but now i got to watch it commercial free. i love it how the best idea liberals can come up with is to re-air popular conservative commentators and show what they say to a whole new audience. It isn't like it helps your cause because those who watch them every day already heard this stuff and didn't find it outrageous. You lose.
Yeah, somehow you think that publicizing Rush's comments on this site is a good thing?
You must be one of those fools who think that any publicity is good publicity.
Here's a clue. It ain't all good.
Making a comment that MMFA loses, or that progressives lose when Limbaugh gets airtime here is a simplistic view.
I submit that when any such as Limbaugh are given a platform anywhere, we all lose. Whenever a vitriolic fear-mongering speaker is allowed to question the patriotism of ordinary Americans who see another side of the issue, we are all the less for it. When you take a position where such a person’s ideas are given priority over sound discourse that provokes thinking in all who hear the message, we all lose.
Mussolini defined Fascism (from Fordham University) as: “The foundation of Fascism is the conception of the State, its character, its duty, and its aim. Fascism conceives of the State as an absolute, in comparison with which all individuals or groups are relative, only to be conceived of in their relation to the State. The conception of the Liberal State is not that of a directing force, guiding the play and development, both material and spiritual, of a collective body, but merely a force limited to the function of recording results: on the other hand, the Fascist State is itself conscious and has itself a will and a personality -- thus it may be called the "ethic" State.... ...The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone...”
I ask, what does “all useless and possibly harmful freedom” mean to you? Further, whose personality should our government assume? What liberties are you willing to sacrifice in the name of "progress?"
Well, well,
According to this 'BAG of WIND' which would make Katrina look like a passing tempest of insignificance, WE must conclude that the 56% of Americans who have NOW come to the CONCLUSION that the Iraq war was a colossal mistake ARE in fact 'TRAITORS'. This sizable portion of the American electorate NOW encompasses individuals from both parties in addition to swing voters. What this farcical diatribe by purposeful omission fails to mention IS that some 14 Flag Rank Officers drawn from all of the Armed Services and both parties, in addition to numerous career Foreign Service Diplomats, Intelligence Officers, up to and including Senior JAG Military Lawyers, are under the Limbaugh's definition of 'Patriotism' in essence treasonous and unpatriotic.
And THIS, from one WHO shed his responsibilities as a Vietnam Era draft dodger due to some non threatening cyst on his derriere. OR as Forrest Gump would say, " His Butt-oks." Limbaugh is the ultimate coward, one who is ready to purloin reputations of honorable men and women who unbeknownst to most take a very solemn pledge to the Constitution AND not to a party, a President or a philosophy steeped in falsehoods, lies and betrayal of everything that former serviceman and women have DIED for in defense of this nation.
CBS has now joined the ranks of FOX News by presenting such a cacophony of nonsense and UNTRUTHS from one who although may revel in his creature comforts and palatial estates, ......Ask yourselves, Would you want this pompous, chickenhawk in your fox hole under combat conditions? Aside from the space limitations which his swollen carcass might satiate to the limits and therefore infringe upon your line of fire, Do you really think one WHO is so shallow in thought, compassion and understanding would give a damn about protecting your life to the point of ' giving his life so that you might live'?????
Hardly, once a COWARD always a COWARD!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Like him or not, the message is "screw partisan politics, let's band together against this very real threat". Islamofacism began way before the Bush administration took office....and if you think it's America's "Policies" that "make them angry", you are extraordinarily naive - with radical Islam, it's conversion, death or taxes - to all non-muslim peoples. After all, what had France, Russia, Spain or the Netherlands done to deserve their terrorist attacks??
Some supposedly intelligent people use this misnomer before and when pressed they don't seem able to give a definition which is either credible or rational so l will attempt to ask again.
What EXACTLY is the correct definition of Islamofacism?
- "The fire has not and will not be put out and our swords, which have been coloured with your blood are thirsty for more of your rotting heads"
- "I urge you not to throw down your weapon or give yourself or the enemy a rest until each one of you kills at least one American in a period not exceeding 15 days, with a sniper bullet or . . . explosive device or suicide car bomb, whatever the battle requires." - Al-Qaida's new leader, Abu Hamza al-Muhajir.
Even Cronkite, the revered liberal news hero, would have to say, "and that's the way it is".
"What EXACTLY is the correct definition of Islamofacism?" --UKOBSERVER
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Wes,
This isn't really my beef, but your post doesn't look like a definition. Please provide one as originally asked. Thanks.
And Rush is right because he is sooo non-partisan?
Anyway, what is your solution? How is terrorism defeated?
How did the US defeat Hitler, Mussolini & Tojo? We did it because at some point the practioners of appeasement and the isolationists were finally overruled by an incredibly united citizenry. I don't think anybody disagrees that once America is united on an purpose, success is bound to follow. There will be very little real success in the war on terror until we all come together on this - despite our ideological differences. Sadly, I think it will take another horrible attack to drive this home. Have you seen a single 'anti-war' rally placard or pamphlet that decries the horrors and the abuse of radical islamic terrorists?? No, nobody has. And that is exactly what I am talking about - people must recognize THEY are the enemy, not George Bush. Bush will be gone soon, and even if/when a Democrat is elected, do you think terrorism will go away? Who will the Cindy Sheehan's demonize then?
Islamic terrorists are a huge problem the diffference is HOW do we fight it? I say the tactic of invading random Islamic countries is a loser as it enflames the very problem you are trying to fight. IF fighting Islamic extremism is the problem how did invading the most SECULAR Islamic nation in the entire region supposed to solve THAT problem? We all want to fight terrorism. We DONT all want to make this into a Holy War. Many of us on the left think that USING terrorism as an EXCUSE to further imperialist aims is only causing MORE problems than it can possibly solve.
So, the American people getting behind a failing policy will magically make the abstract notion of victory come to fruition? This unity you speak of comes from multiple sources of input from all points of view. How receptive have the neocons been to alternative ideas?
George Bush is not America.
Anyway, what is your solution? How is terrorism defeated?
Let's ALL get behind somebody else's plan. I don't care - I'm a libertarian and have no love lost for Republicans OR Democrats - I think they are at times equally the problem...but I do admire the Republican's willingness to confront the issue. Whether you agree with the invasion of Iraq or not (I agreed with getting rid of Sadam, but not the non-post war planning), we still have to deal with Islamic fundamentalism.
According to a Pentagon study you are flat out wrong
[link to www.sundayherald.com]
Referring to the repeated mantra from the White House that those who oppose the US in the Middle East “hate our freedoms”, the report says: “Muslims do not ‘hate our freedoms’, but rather, they hate our policies. The overwhelming majority voice their objections to what they see as one-sided support in favour of Israel and against Palestinian rights, and the long-standing, even increasing support, for what Muslims collectively see as tyrannies, most notably Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan and the Gulf states.
No the ones that are naive are those who blindly accept the absolutly moronic claim that they hate our freedoms.
What came first, our 'pro Israeli policies' or the Islamist hatred of Jews? The Koran was written long before Israel became a state. .. of course they oppose our backing of Israel, but why do you suppose that is? The Koran says that Jews are the decendants of "apes and pigs", and says they must be wiped off the face of the earth. The current president of Iran has recently said this in public. So of course they will hate ANY policy that aids Israel. Are you so blind you cannot see this? The root of this is Islamic hatred and anti-semitism!
I did read it say that Jews and Christians had nothing to fear from Allah on the day of judgement. Your propaganda is tired and worn. You do KNOW that Jews fought next to Muslims during the crusades dont you? That when the Moors ruled Spain they did NOT persecute Jews? A better question is did the hatred come from the modern Jewish states military aggressions?
None of this is on point. The assertion was that if you BELIEVE our policies is what is making Muslims our enemy then you are naive. I am only pointing out that the Pentagon study on this very issue disagrees. So are you saying the Pentagon is naive? Or put differently exacty WHO is being naive here?
Yeah because Limbaugh never calls us liberals names does he? NOOOO he is all about the facts and issues. On planet WINGNUT maybe. Bush and Rumsfeld they never attacked the messengers by impugning the motives and patriotisim of us anti Iraq war people did they? Wait, they do it all the time they did it recently. More crybaby conservative WAAHHHH how dare you liberals treat us the way we have treated you. When you have Annie the way to talk to a liberal is after you beat them with a baseball bat and Mikey Wiener the liberalism is a mental disease psycho on YOUR side and you have the gall to talk about attacking the person and not the message being a LIBERAL tactic you only show once again that there is no level of hypocrisy that is not fatal and if there were a lethal level of hypocrisy the vast majority of you wingnuts wouldnt last out the afternoon.
Of course not, see Rush has a wide audience, (albeit a less free thinking). Rush always complains about the "drive by media" like CBS, NBC, CNN, etc... why did he go on CBS? Now I'm not one to call someone unpatriotic, but it seems to me that when you can't attack someones integrity (because you have none of your own) you attack their patriotism. That has been the republican banter since 9/11 happened, its been patriotism this and patriotism that, look being patriotic doesn't mean blind obedience to the leaders, (thats fascism.. *wink wink*)
I get so annoyed with the constant attacks on my patriotism, and that of my fellow democrats. when REPUBLICANS do it its okay, if a DEMOCRAT did it, it would be hate speech. thats the hipocracy of the Republican party. Bah I hope rush chokes on his illegal viagra.
Damn! I don't know if I can take a focused, super-concentrated serving of Limbaugh. His lie per minute ratio was off the charts.
Let's see:
1. Implied that people in this country sympathize with "militant Islam" that wants to kill us. To my knowledge, no one has ever disputed this.
2. Claimed that some are apposed to "foreign surveillance" of terrorists. Classic GOP lie. This memo went out a while ago. Whenever addressing the warrantless DOMESTIC surveillance, just refer to it as "foreign surveillance." Nobody will notice and it will make people think Dems are against foreign intelligence and catching terrorists. Again, for the record, no one is opposed to foreign surveillance of terrorists.
3. Claimed that both terrorists have been "killing us for decades" yet regurgitated the Republican talking point that "the world changed after 9/11." You can't have it both ways. You can't say we live in a new post-9/11 world (using that as justification for abuses of executive power and diminished civil rights), and in the same breath say it's been going on for decades. Not unless you're an idiot.
4. Claimed that people want to give terror suspects "US Constitutional rights." Again, I don't believe anyone has ever said that. Giving prisoners of war the rights agreed to by the Geneva Convention is something quite different, and Limbaugh has either cleverly or inadvertently confused the two doctrines.
5. "Patriotism is supporting our troops in the battlefield, not undermining the mission and morale." This has become a staple of all GOP politicization of the Iraq war. Accuse those who raise opposition or seek oversight and accountability of being un-American.
You beat me to it, Nick. It's a classic Rush move, mischaracterizing his opponents' position. He's the poster boy for straw man arguments.
This is classic liberalism - if you cannot refute the facts, attack the individual. Tell me, if liberals are so against islamic terrorism, when's the last time you've seen somebody holding up a sign condeming the actions Hamas, Osama Bin Laden, Hezbollah, or Zarqawi?? War is not fought in a vaccuum - if one truly is an anti-war, then you must protest the actions of all those practicing violence, not just the US Military & their Commander-in-Chief. If this example does not clearly illustrate the "Blame America First" mentality, surely nothing will.
Analogy: Wide open Chad Johnson drops a perfect Carson Palmer pass. Does Chad blame Carson first?
who says liberals don't condemn all acts of violence? It's like Christian liberals (or any Christian), just because they don't whack you with a cross it doesn't mean that they are not Christians
Yes, we liberals should abstain from personal attacks. Just like conservatives have. Because we all know that no conservative would ever run a personal smear campaign targeteted at the likes of, say, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, Ned Lamont, John Murtha, Max Clelland, Paul Wellstone or Hillary Clinton, to name a few. Whenever a conservative lays claim to the moral high ground I just have to chuckle.
By the way, debunking Limbaugh's falsehoods is an end achieved through fact, not opinion or personal attack. Besides, I wasn't taking issue at anything about the man's personal life (although I certainly could have). I had issue with the lies this man was propagating to a very wide audience and wanted to help set the record straight. I really can't see any wrong in that.
If wearing an "I Hate Terrorists" t-shirt is what you require as a pledge of loyalty, I would gladly wear one. Again, no one disputes that terrorists are bad. What we are disputing is: 1) the way Bush clearly downplayed and possibly ignored pre-9/11 intelligence and 2) how the administration has chosen to move away from traditionally successful means of combatting terror (Inelligence, viable threat assessment, Special Ops missions) and focused on a forceful military approach.
it's become reality. Of course cable "news" has been a sham for quite a while, but now CBS has joined their ranks. OK, now we have "Vox Populi" on the Howard Beale (CBS News) show, can Sarah the Soothsayer be far behind? That whirring sound you hear is Ed Murrow spinning in his grave.
I certainly agree with you that we should "band together" against this enemy. So where do we start. Why not just nuke the entire Mid-East with an Islamo-Facist "smart bomb." This would end all of this kill or be killed attitude (the kids we kill would just be a "mistake"). Then, we can do what? Nuke Pakistan for allowing the Taliban to hide in certain provinces. Then as we band closer together, we can turn Afganistan into nothingness. But why stop there lets just nuke Russia, those dirty commies who by the way had NUKES of their own and I believe their leader once said "We will bury you". Sounds like they wanted to kill us back in the 60's. But after awhile, that ended. And those Chinese, well they are going to ruin our economy. Lest I forget North Korea....if you are wondering, Iran was nuked above.
Now that we have made our world..say again, OUR world safer from those evil people, do we disband. And if so, does the "other" band become the good guys or the bad guys. 4558, where do you intend to stop this banding?
We are occupying Iraq because now, Bin Laden says it is important..Well, thank God for this election cycle because the present Administration has to crawl out of the woodwork and defend itself by making everyone else, including Americans, unpatriotic. My question is: If one of our troops on the ground in Iraq is against the occupation of Iraq, would you call him unpatriotic, unAmeircan, an enabler? Would you do this to their face or from the comfort of your keyboard? And before you ask me the same thing, research this my MOS was 11B10..tour of duty "69-'70
Mr. Limbaugh talks and talks and collects his money and does not care about you, me or this country...if so, he would use something that we normally develop by age 7...the ability to reason. We must stop these radical nuts but our present plan cannot work unless we just kill everybody....and Rush should not get mad if they do the same to us. He wants death and destruction which means he has become them. Rush is a joke. And I will always refer to him as a joke.
Limbaugh's partisan. Everyone knows it. He offered his opinion. This is America. Does Media Matters want me to "take action" on this because we don't like the message? Someone needs to lighten up. Ok, you may start posting your attacks now...
Limbaugh partisan? You are correct. I think everyone is in agreement with that statement. We do have free speech in America and it is why people die. But I maintain the right with or without this site to counter the type of speech he spews. Why does he hate so much? I've tried to listen to what this hate-monger says on his show with one guideline...the first time he throw his disrespect toward a liberal, conservative, black, gay, woman or use the word Clinton I must turn the dial. Needless to say, in the past 8 years, I have never stayed tuned more than 1 minute. Try it...
He must do this hate thing for sponsership, to keep his base or is it for money. It is not in the best interest of this country that is for sure. To be so ONE-SIDED and NEVER EVER concede that you have been in error due to, let's say, incorrect information is not being a patriot, it is just being a talking head on a radio SHOW. And that is what the Jokester really has become. Admit it. he is always joking. So far I do not believe that I have attacked you...and if you can prove to me that this man, who by the way is a hypocite due to such qoutes as "all druggies should be sent to France" and "anyone buying illegal drugs are supporting terrorism" truly wants dialogue to discuss his unchallenged views, advise his people that other commentators such as Hartmann would be more than happy to have an open debate. But then again, Rush needs to have everyone agree to his format no matter what the subject. If you cannot concede that Rush is a hater of all that doesn't help him, regardless of free speech, then someone will attack you, not your statements. but I won't.
Ironically, Limbaugh's comments were in a segment entitled, "Free Speech." I guess no tolerance for those we deem intolerant.
Did you read PRINCEOFWHEELS post or did you have your response typed and ready to go?
Tolerance of the intolerant is fundamental to free speech. But what POW was writing about was Rush's insolated worldview. There is a huge difference between critique and intolerence. If the posters on this site were intolerant, as you suggest, your post would be flagged for objectionable content.
POW'S statement that if I, "cannot concede that Rush is a hater of all that doesn't help him, regardless of free speech, then someone will attack you, not your statements." Sure I will concede this, but there are people like this on all sides, (some who login to this site). He discounts the issue by stating, "regardless of free speech." Free speech is the point. The reason we are posting here is because Media Matters felt concern that Limbaugh was given a "platform." As for your ascertion that this site (or rather some posters) is/are tolerant, I ask that you review the rhetoric used when someone disagrees with the status quo. Flagging someone's post is not the only way to show your intolerance.
does not mean that anybody can say absolutely anything they want at any time they choose in any forum they choose. For instance, Rush couldn't have used his 90 seconds to spew obscenity, or slander, or national security secrets. CBS would have never aired it.
Similarly, individuals don't have the "right" to go on CBS and say whatever they want for 90 seconds. If you wanted to go on CBS and talk for 90 seconds, would they let you? Probably not. Would they be violating your right to free speech? No. You can still express yourself, just not on CBS.
So we're not really talking about "free speech" here, we're talking about what CBS is choosing to put over the airwaves. And some folks object to what CBS has chosen, just like they might object to another season of Yes, Dear. Nobody's rights are getting trampled.
Its official now. The corporate media have shed their old snakeskin of fairness & neutrality, & fully embraced the neocon movement. Their reward? Governmental nods to their ongoing mergers & acquisitions, & the folding of media power into fewer & far more elite hands.
CBS... ABC... Faux News... CNN... what the hell difference does it make anymore? They're just retouched photos of the same neocon face. They are the united propoganda arm of Corporate America. The network news... as we knew it... has died, leaving a photo-shopped, stylishly dressed, sweetly grinning corpse to leer out at us from our plasma screens, selling us consumer products & right wing ideology with the same dazzling, souless intensity.
MMFA now matters more than ever. The internet now matters more than ever. What other sources of truth & news are now left to us?
Excuse me now, but I need to go pound my head against an anvil. Its got to feel better than contemplating the corporate media's next mutation.
Limbaugh is one of those who believes you show patriotism by wearing a lapel pin of the US flag. The truth is that he defines unpatriotic. He is an expert in it. He had his chance to show his patriotism in Vietnam and instead he cut and ran while more than 50,000 died.
Now many years later he cheers on from the sidelines while young men and women die in another misguided war. Like so many others of his ilk he doesn't have the courage of his convictions. Thanks to organizations like Media Matters they no longer get a free pass.
I don't like Couric - never have. How fluff piece morning show talking head became the anchor of an evening news show I will never understand - she completely lacks the gravitas of a Jennings, Cronkite, or Rather. However, IF CBS provides similar, equal time to progressive/liberal commentators, ala Franken, Schultz, Rhodes, et al, then I will have less of a problem with that. I am not, however, holding my breath. I have a feeling I won't just turn blue, I will suffocate.
As someone else said if I see Chomsky and Zinn on her segement I will be completely mollified by her giving this lying scumbag a forum. If NOT then she will be exposed as a shill and propagandist.
If the network's goal was to promote free speech, they are off to a good start, and I commend their effort to allow people with strong opinions to be heard. I doubt that their intentions were so noble, and I assume that it more of an attempt to get their their ratings up by trying to appeal to a large part of their potential audience, who had hitherto been lost to them because of a general trend, in the media in general, of making anyone who prefers 'old-fashioned, traditional, American, family-values' feel uncomfortable. Not that I think that that is only reason for their slacking ratings, nor do I think that this 'free-speech segment' will make any difference, it just the reason why myself, and many others in my community, have stopped watching network tv.
Like what... hating gay people?
Like what... drug addiction?
Like what...several marriage and divorce cycles?
Like what...making thinly veiled racial slurs and not having to feel guilty about it? Yep, those were the good ole' days.
Did you mean the family values of a serial divorcee, or a draft dodging Chickenhawk? How about a drug addled fat man who goes to another country alone with someone else's erectile disfunction drugs with him?
You're defending a hypocrite with no values whatsoever except self preservation. A value even a reptile possesses.
Not that it matters but None of you above were even remotely close to what constitutes 'family values'.
You might get a bit further in your discussions, if you wouldn't sound so whacko by trying to one up each other on your little holier-than-thou tirades. Try reading the post again.
Juanamoros was not referring to Limbaugh's personal life.
If I'm not mistaken, Juan indicated that Rush appeals to people who like old-fashioned, traditional, American family values.
Judging by what he does, rather than what he says, Rush values serial divorcing, racism, homophobia, and the illegal abuse of prescription drugs. Oh, and despite the fact that he isn't currently married, he apparently feels the need to use Viagra to achieve a strong, manly erection, which as far as I know has only one practical use. So I guess you can add fornication to the list of things Rush values.
So let's see: drug addiction, fornication, homophobia, racism, serial divorce.
Did I miss any family values?
This is getting redundant. Reread Jaun's note. He/she did not say anthing about Rush. The note only exclaimed that this new segment was a way to get people with traditional values to watch.
It is evident to me that you are not reading what is written. Instead you are conflating this note with others.
Relax. Sometimes it happens when one is as active a participant as you.
Have a great weekend.
I think I get it. Juan says that this new segment, the first installment of which featured a drug-abusing, lawbreaking, homophobic, racist, serial-divorcing fornicator, is going to lure Americans with traditional family values back to television.
I completely understand.
He was referring to the fact that swine such as Limbaugh and Savage can dictate their idea of patriotism to the rest of us. They can question our values, while theirs are not to be mentioned.
Why don't you enlighten us on what your interpretation of family values would be? how do you compare?
And please don't assume that anyone who disagrees with Limbaugh or Bush has no values. Many of us have never been divorced, have never been alcoholics or drug addicts, many are very religious, many are veterans and all of us want what we believe to be best for our nation.
But your heroes paint us all with a very wide brush. It would be like me assuming that you were a fundamentalist Christian, draft dodging, sexist, divorcee. I would never do that. Me, trying to paint you with all of the stereotypical traits of a right winger would be the same as what Limbaugh does to anyone who disagrees with him.
But it doesn't stop people like Limbaugh and his ilk to question our values and love of God & Country.
I think you've gone off the deep end and your straw man is not up to the job.
I merely am pointing out that some of your vitriol aimed at Juan is because you've misread his/her note.
Who knows where you are getting your argument that I am proposing anyone who disagrees with Rush is lacking in values.
I think you've made it clear you don't like Rush. So what? It is tired tirade.
ps. One person's family values are not another's. Who cares what mine are besides me? I'msure my definition would be a little different than yours. Even so, one can believe in family values even if one falls short just as one can be a sinner and believe in Jesus.
I still want to know what "family values" are so endangered by television. Since it is usually Religiofascists who use the term "family values", it normally follows that what they are so upset about is the "Gay Agenda" or some such nonsense.
... do you suppose CBS will try to find a countering view from the LEFT ... one which has the same access to the airwaves as Limbaugh, who is heard by over 20 million in his audience, 5 days a week, 3 hours a day?
Providing a "forum" is usually reserved for those who HAVE no such forum ... not yet another platform for one with already the largest platform in the nation.
Ah, well. WHOEVER they get to give a "differing view", one thing is sure: They will be someone who is out of favor with the corporate media and the NeoCon powermongers, and who therefore has only a fraction of the exposure of Limbaugh (and Hannity, Coulter, O'Reilly, etc, etc.)
- do you suppose CBS will try to find a countering view from the LEFT - tex
CBS has announced that Pres.Clinton, Bill Maher, and Walter Cronkite are scheduled to appear...your comment is uninformed.
...Maher is a libertarian.
He claims to be libertarian...check out his views and you'll find he's very much left of center.
- So if being politically incorrect is about telling the truth, why doesn't Maher just say it? He isn't much of a libertarian. - salon.com
Libertarians fall clearly left on some issues, clearly right on others. Within the U.S., they are generally considered right-wing. [link to en.wikipedia.org] However, I'm generally willing to grant them that, overall, they are neither and both.
On other than gun control, Maher's views line up well with the libertarians. [link to en.wikipedia.org]
- That Maher calls himself a libertarian could be taken as yet another joke if only Maher weren't so serious. - salon.com
He also supports minimum wage, dept. of education and affirmative action...all in opposition to the libertarian position.
Libertarians opposed gun control...Maher does not.
the libertarian party advocates ending all federal funding for abortions and other prenatal services....Maher does not.
Maher also failed to support libertarian presidential candidate Browne.
Well king...this case is closed.
He also supports minimum wage, dept. of education and affirmative action...all in opposition to the libertarian position.
Yes...and he also supports the death penalty, privatization of Social Security and racial profiling.
the libertarian party advocates ending all federal funding for abortions and other prenatal services....Maher does not.
Really? Read the piece again. Maher is clearly pro-choice, but I'm not aware of any statement he's made with respect to federal funding of abortion. The reference to the Dutch "abortion boat" is relevant in only showing he's pro-choice.
Maher also failed to support libertarian presidential candidate Browne.
Twice! One time he voted for Dole and another time he voted for Nader. What does that make him? A pragamatist.
Get over it. Just because he doesnt support every issue of the libertarian party doesnt mean he isnt libertarian anymore than being pro choice means you arent a republican or anti abortion means you arent a democrat. He IS a libertarian because he self identifies as one. If you say you are a liberal then you are regardless how you feel about gun control or tax cuts.
I have watched him and read his book he IS libertarian. Despite this foray into irrelevancy the bottom line is to be a counter to a rightwing polemist like Rush CBS needs to go that far left and NONE of the people you list meet that criteria. When they put on Chomsky or Zinn as someone else pointed out I will be satisfied.
Overwrought and uninformed? Which of those people are heard for 15 solid hours every week, week after week? THAT was the criteria I suggested -- to "match" Limbaugh -- and you seem to have failed to respond to that factor. Good try at "changing the subject", though.
What difference does that make? I think President Clinton can hold his own even if he doesn't host a talk radio show.
Your paranoia is showing.
However Clinton is NOT as far left as Rush is right. Bring on Chomsky or Zinn.
- one which has the same access to the airwaves as Limbaugh, who is heard by over 20 million in his audience, 5 days a week, 3 hours a day? - tex
So Rush should be shut out of the network news because he is successful...LOL.
There isn't anyone comparable on the liberal side because they have all failed...Alan Dershowitz, Bernie Ward, Mario Cuomo and Jerry Brown, Hightower, Randi Rhodes, Al Franken...to name just a few who have tried to generate an audience as immense as Limbaugh.
Overwrought and uninformed...you bet.
For those patriotic German and Japanese citizens who rallied behind their country in the 1930's & 1940's, who supported their troops in their mission.
Yes, each generation has a responsibility to the next. Limbaugh shirked his responsibility. When he had the chance to show his patriotism, he, like so many others on the right, chose to let others do the dying. If he had not evaded his own involvement during war, he might be trying to prevent the next generation from experiencing the horrors of war. But, he has no point of reference. Nothing to remind him that war is neither glorious or heroic, just cruelty and savagery.
but it has nothing to do with one giving one's opinion. After all, don't we all believe in freedom of speech?
Oh wait.. I forgot. The Democratic Party's Leadership use facist tactics by it's thinly veiled threat against ABC with revoking their broadcast licenses would be the exception now wouldn't it?
Why is MY freedom of speech being denied by not allowing ME on CBS? Wait its not a Freedom of Speech issue is it? The airwaves belong to US not to CBS, they have an obligation to use it at least in part for public enrichment, that is the tradeoff to allow them to make money off OUR resource. It is obviously a valid argument to say IS the public being served by allowing Blowhard Limbaugh an uncontested rant on CBS, IF they balance that with Chomsky in a week or so I would say yes. IF they ONLY put far right partisans and middle of the road democrats without balancing their FAR RIGHT with a FAR LEFT then I am saying NO, but this is no more a freedom of speech issue than me having a RIGHT to put up a lefty billboard in YOUR front yard.
There are lots of stories here.
Limbaugh, as ever, is a drug-addicted liar who probably delivered his CBS crap in a blackout. I wonder if he needs to listen to the transcriptions of the previous day's show to know what he said.
But he is not alone. His attacks on Hillary, a person for whom I have nothing but disgust, are beyond disgusting. Rush, who not just say it?--Hillary was boffing Vince Foster and then had him killed. That would make her a murderess, right? It would make her no better than her creepy husband, right? Because Bill Clinton is a creep. He reminds me of Willie Stark in All The King's Men, a man with ideals who sells out and who can't keep it zipped.
But now we have Limbaugh, Hannity, and the Court Jew Mark Levin all accusing Clinton of all but drawing a target on the Trade Center and telling Osama where to have the planes go. Clinton's responsible, Clinton's to blame, the alcoholic frat boy Bush was a blameless victim instead of the lying sonofabitch who set up the whole thing because of his family's filthy involvement with the Ben Ladin family and other parts of the Saudi royal house. If anyone is a traitor in this scenario, it is not Bill Clinton, it is George W. Bush.
I didn't think Rushie would trot out his full-force insanity for the CBS segment. He must not realize that the CBS News audience, unlike his radio audience, contains members of the reality-based community. He looks and sounds like a clown. Because he is a clown.
You're treading on thin ice. Tommy may stop in and accuse you of making a personal attack against this fat..., wait a minute, now you've got me started.
Rush Limbaugh is a fat, balding, cowardly, racist idiot with a big smelly boil on his ass.
Sometimes you dissapoint me.
Sorry, AA. I just wanted to be sure that if Worrierking was right and I was about to get my knuckles rapped for making a personal attack, that I at least got to make a nice juicy one first.
Tommy wasn't assigned this thread today. AA drew this one.
This is the best thing that could happen to the left - who better to make a fool of Rush than himself. Sure there will be idiots who swallow this stuff hook, line and sinker, but I believe our generation won't dissapoint - the vast majority of us will see this for the rediculous bs it is.
I watched the first show on Tuesday night and I thought the "free speech" segment was a lame idea. When she said Limbaugh would be doing one Thursday, I thought about it and decided not to watch the CBS Evening News with Katie Couric again. There are plenty of places to get the news and I could see baby Suri Cruise's picture later that evening on dozens of internet sites.
(Keith Olbermann is another media idiot with his attacks on that baby. What is he thinking? For Jackass Olberman to use the line, "Have you no sense of decency?" about Rumsfeld after Olbermann's been attacking this baby since she was conceived --- UGH. I hate it that people on the Democratic side champion Olberman because he's a jerk. )
I don't think Keith Olbermann is "attacking" that baby. I think he's poking fun at her media attention hungry parents... particularly the nutty dad.
Is smarter than the average bear. They treated those photos like they were the long lost evidence of alien life forms at Area 51. Top secret, but the nets can promote the magazine by showing a few choice pix. Marketing brilliance, TomKat be damned.
I remember a story about Uncle Walter on CBS when Elvis Presley died. Walter reacted with, yes, I remember him. Nice kid. When his producer told him they were going to lead with the story, WC couldn't understand.
Quite a difference from perky Katie.
Limbaugh's "commentary" was much ado about nothing. He didn't change any hearts or minds, the faithful swallowed every syllable with megadittos, and--in the end--the one who will talk the most about this commentary will be Limbaugh himself.
Bill Clinton had barely taken the oath of office before Rush Limbaugh began attacking him. Clinton hadn't even been in office long enough to do anything offensive to the right wing. Rush attacked the President simply because he was Bill Clinton. I wonder how this fits in with Rush's perception of patriotism.
question for prince of wheels
If you have never listened to Rush for more than a minute .....where then do you get your opinions of him....media matters?
I don't understand why the left has concern over people like Rush expressing his views. He obviously has an audience who appreciate and agree with his views. Those who don't like him should not listen. Its not like ANYONE else promotes him. Another thing I don't undertand.....how come the left has not been able to find a voice able to sustain a viewership or listenership such as Rush? If people listen or watch .....it stays on the air. a very simple concept! its called capitalism and free speech. The danger is when someone veiled in ideology with views such as Rush or Al is put in a position of delivering NEWS with no disclaimer. I would agree with those that place this distinction upon FOX.......and up until this week on CBS. An unbiased observer offering platforms to Rush and Franken leaving the viewer to decide is a great idea.
To that end I have to give CBS credit.
OK.....back to Fox and Rush!!!!
if you are aware Rush has been on for many years. On his show, remember it is a show and he is an actor, I must admit that there were discussions, not the monologues of the past decade. When he became god-like in his own and his followers heads, he changed his format. He became inspired by MONEY. Others were creeping onto the scene and he was concerned about losing parts of his audience which means ratings which means money. Etc. etc.etc....therefore, after realizing what he had become, the dial changed. So, I had an awareness of the old Rush and it is not the same...and I am just guessing that you will probably look at your watch and realize that after a minute, the Rush will not be spewing venom about those he hates, notice, HE HATES, but agree with him that all not loved by him are the enemy. TICK,TICK,TICK
My new motto for Islamofascism is "who cares?" Nothing gets these blowhards more upset than "who cares?" And really, who does? Not counting military installations (which, if you accept that we are at war with them, wouldn't fall into traditional definitions of terrorism) Al Qaeda has had exactly 2 successful attacks on the US in 13 years! Al Qaeda was done before we invaded Iraq and gave them a hideout. If only there was a way that Rush could keep his money for Oykontin and be able to lighten up, we'd all be better off. And Katie should be ashamed of herself. Hope she gets canned.
---that CBS gave this fat fascist air time to spew his BS! What were they thinking? Aren't the airways already filled up with enough right-wing drivel that we have to be exposed to even more of it? As others have stated it will be intersting to see if CBS lets a progressive like Chomsky have several minutes of air time. But I am not going to hold my breath. I can see CBS saying, "We intend to air all views; both Right and Far Right." >Sigh<
Rush Limbaugh....the 'drive by junkie' on the BIB netswork....BS in Broadcasting.
Hmmm. The Islamofasciast sound similar to the Reilgious Right except for the killing part. But then again, we have a president and an administration that have invaded 2 countries, killed 10 times plus as many people as were killed in 9/11. Our country annouces to the world that we can and will invade any country that we feel threatens us. We have reiogious right leaders that annouce almost daily that Christianity is the only way to be saved and appear to be on the way to making this country a theocracy, not a democracy. I understand the horrors of terrorism and the dangers, but don't you think that they look at us and see the same thing????
So inconvenient, the religious right is the same as the Islamofanatics except for that little insignificant "killing part". Wow, great analogy.
And many of you accuse Limbaugh of fear mongering when it is actually this whole theocracy silliness that you fear monger about.
And No, I don't think you and many here understand the terrorism threat we face, it's evident on this website by dozens of poster every day. If you can't even identify the real enemies, they how do you expect anyone to take any of you seiously about defeating it?
and many of the posters on this site obviously don't want to understand / don't understand why we continue to drive people to become terrorist in droves through out the middle east. I would love to hear your thoughts on this topic Tommy.
My observation - the problem that many conservatives have - attack the symptom and ignore the cause.
I have posted many times about the mess Bush has created in Iraq, but we are there and, in my opinion, need to get out as quickly as militarily possible. Let the Iraqi people take over and fight for their freedom, I have said that for awhile now since I have seen how Bush and Co. are meandering and screwing it up.
But that wasn't the topic of my response.
How do we defeat terrorists?
Addressed this before. Among many ways is to attack their infrastructure, training and breeding grounds, recruitment, support democratic environments that do not harbor or allow them safe haven, strict border enforcement within our country, create a coaltion of nations that support us and our effort in this war, smart and comprehensive intelligence.........and most of all, be realistic, smart and aware with respect to our enemies and their capabilities.
What would you do?
Our views on counter-terrorism are similar in many ways, Tommy.
The greatest portion of overlap in our views is the creation of a coalition of nations. That requires degrees of compromise and the sharpening of definitions as to who and what the enemy is. I also agree that comprehensive global intelligence and infiltration of terrorist cells is essential, again that effort lends itself to coalition building/cooperation.
I would have to ask what you mean by infrastructure, training and breeding grounds. I would take that to mean the entire world since terrorism and terrorist recruitment is not confined to borders.
Some liberal posters on this site might agree with much of these stated views as would some conservatives. I know there are better ideas than these, better than the inflammatory jibber-jabber we all get drawn into. The reason I asked is because so many people come to this site with their own views and assume the opposition is ridiculous, even-though there may be a hair's width of difference among their views. The semantics of language, the degree of contempt one holds for the enemy and the breadth of generalizations that people use tend to be the lines of demarcation from left to right.
Anyway, that's enough wasted space for one post.
How did the British defeat the Irish terrorist? The British left Ireland and went home. How did the British defeat the Kenyan terrorists? The British left Kenya and went home. See a pattern? No occupation, no terrorism. It's so damn simple.
Yeah Tommy!!!! Can't you see that it was 8 months of GWB's neconservative administration that made Al Qaida bomb the trade center twice ( if at first.........) and the Embassies......and the Cole......Hmmmm when was the last bombing in the US or an embassy afar?
So silly to make this about politics.
I HOPE we can all agree that Muslum extremists ARE THE ENEMY. You all can coddle and "understand" them all you want if and when you get elected!!!!!
Peace!
We have no need to understand an enemy in order to fight him? Sun Tzu would disagree. No one I know wants to coddle terrorists. However seperating terrorists from reasonable and moderate Muslims. Seperate them from their support and infrastructure. THIS is an important step to assure the reasonable Muslims of the world we do not see this as a holy war against them. This cannot be done militarily. The more we bomb and kill innocents the more terrorists we create what would YOU do if YOUR family had been killed by say al Queda? Isnt it obvious that when we kill a mans family who KNOWS they were innocent of any violence or even violent intentions it might make him a NEW enemy? There is certainly a military component to this struggle but we will never bomb our way out of the threat of terrorism. This is NOT a disagreement between the left and right about whether terrorism needs to be addressed thats mindless propaganda, its an argument about HOW TO ADDRESS IT.
Democrats would benefit by pointing out, over and over, that Republicans get our arguments wrong--and by stating Democratic arguments simply and clearly.
Republicans have a self-interest to keep in power so they definine our arguments as the opposite of what they want. The left takes it for granted that Americans understand that Democrats want to disable the terrorists, that we have more intelligent ways of doing it, and that's why we're like, "Gees, Bush is so incompetent, what the hell is he doing torturing prisoners in addition to not catching the terrorists?" Yes, we are the peace party--which means we are willing to fight for American peace--yet Bush's goal now is not PEACE. On this point, why are we so afraid to invoke Clinton's successful, brief war? There sits Bosnia, Croatia, et. al, peacefully co-existing. Iraq could use such a "let's break up and you live over there and rule yourselves, and we'll live over here. Peace."
In nature, behavior that goes in, comes out, patterns occur as above, so below. We do not benefit ourselves or our soldiers by adopting terrorist tactics. Guess what? The terrorists enjoy having Bush as their warmonger (the terrorists, like American hawks, thrive on having a constant state of war). Chris Mathews has it all wrong when he implies terrorists want Democrats to win...the terrorists helped Bush get re-elected by scaring us with Bin Laden just before the 2004 election (I still think Bush cheated to win the electoral college in Ohio and Florida, at least). The terrorists KNOW that fear works for the Republicans. But who cares about applying logic to big problems these days?
Who died and made this overweight, drug-addicted chickenhawk the Patriotism Czar?
Wasn't that Paul Wellstone? The stunt afterwards pissed off a lot of conservatives.... It goes that far back....
catie couric is not one of my favorite newscasters??? i'm through with cbs news i'll still watch 60 minutes for my magazine show allen mcclintock