Limbaugh on Middle East: "Fine, just blow the place up"
On the November 27 edition of his nationally syndicated radio show, in response to claims made by King Abdullah II of Jordan on the November 26 edition of ABC's This Week that "we could possibly imagine going into 2007 and having three civil wars on our hands," Rush Limbaugh said: "[W]ell, let's just have them. Let's just have the civil wars ... because I'm just fed up with this." Limbaugh then asserted: "Fine, just blow the place up. Just let these natural forces take place over there instead of trying to stop them." Additionally, Limbaugh claimed: "[E]verbody comes to us. ... So we go and try to fix it and our own people, Democrats and the left in our country do their best to sabotage our efforts, and then we get blamed for trying to clean up the messes that these people start."
According to Talkers magazine, The Rush Limbaugh Show reaches more than 13.5 million listeners each week, the largest talk radio audience in the nation.
From the November 27 edition of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:
LIMBAUGH: So anyway, [This Week host George] Stephanopoulos asks King Abdullah II of Jordan if this is the case:
ABDULLAH [audio clip]: George, the difficulty that we're tackling with here is we're juggling with the strong potential of three civil wars in the region. Whether it's the Palestinians of Lebanon or of Iraq, and I hope my discussions at least with the president --
LIMBAUGH: [heavy sigh]
ABDULLAH [audio clip]: -- will be to provide whatever we can do for the Iraqi people, but the same time we do want to concentrate ourselves on the core issues which we believe are the Palestinians and the Palestinian peace process, because that is a must today --
LIMBAUGH: Oh, give me a break.
ABDULLAH [audio clip]: -- as well as the tremendous concern we have had over the last several days with what's happening in Lebanon. And we could possibly imagine going into 2007 and having three civil wars on our hands.
LIMBAUGH: All right, well, let's just have them. Let's just have the civil wars and let the crumbs crumble and the cookie crumble where -- because I'm fed up with this. The Palestinian situation -- for 50 years we've had the Palestinian situation, and it's not going to be solved until the Limbaugh Doctrine is imposed or tried. And that is, this is a war, and until somebody loses it, it isn't going to stop. And now, you know, we've done everything we can to make Lebanon a democracy, and it's crumbling because Syria keeps killing the popular leaders there. Meanwhile, the Hezbos [Hezbollah] keep expanding their influence in Lebanon.
But what the hell! We're going to bring Syria and Iran in to fix Iraq, why not let them just fix the whole region? If we're heading to civil war -- I mean, everybody comes to us: "You got to fix this and you got to fix that." So we go and try to fix it, and our own people, Democrats and the left in our country do their best to sabotage our efforts, and then we get blamed for trying to clean up the messes that these people start. And then they come on our television show: "[Gibberish] George [gibberish] civil war [gibberish] we gotta do something. Palestinians it's a must, it's a must, we must [gibberish] right now [gibberish] war."
Fine, just blow the place up. Just let these natural forces take place over there instead of trying to stop them, instead of trying to use -- I just -- sometimes natural force is going to happen. You're going to have to let it take place. You can spend all the time you like with diplomacy, and you can spend all the time you want massaging these things with diplomatic -- you're just -- you're just delaying the inevitable.
Is that what we're doing in Iraq? What a fat liar (literally). I thought he wasn't going to carry the GOP 'water' any more? I knew it wouldn't last.
That's all the doper can do anymore, carry water and blow hot air. JWS
"I mean, everybody comes to us: 'You've got fix this and you've got to fix that.' So we go and try to fix it, and our own people, Democrats and the left in our country do their best to sabotage our efforts, and then we get blamed for trying to clean up the messes that these people start."
Hey Limpballs, in case you've been in a drug-induced haze for the past four years:
- the Iraqis did not ask us to invade their country
- the "Dems and the left" did not start an insurgency the moment we got there, and
- there would not have been a mess IF WE HAD NOT ILLEGALLY INVADED IN THE FIRST PLACE
" - the Iraqis did not ask us to invade their country "
You mean supporters of Saddam or the ones he was killing? I tend to think many were asking for help from that crazed lunatic murdering leader.
" - the "Dems and the left" did not start an insurgency the moment we got there, and "
But they sure "fueled the fire" with every chance they got to show inadequacies in our military. For what purpose did they do that? They claimed; "to be fair and humane", but what it did was give more reasons for the terrorists to recruit more bombers.
" - there would not have been a mess IF WE HAD NOT ILLEGALLY INVADED IN THE FIRST PLACE "
It wasn't illegal. All the rules were followed and a multi-nation coalition went in to remove a murdering scum leader. Wasn't there about 30 (more or less) nations that participated? If it was illegal then no one would have participated with us.
When you hate the war so much don't hide behind democrat talking points that have been widely disproven over and over again. Try telling the truth and give us the real reason you hate the war. Liberals are constantly complaining about conservatives always following 'lock step' the republican talking points, why do you liberals do the same thing with dem talking points? What? Can't think for yourself?
Because American interests have not been threatened. If we are there for humanitarian reasons, why are we not in Darfur? Why are we not in North Korea?
If we are seriously interested in defeating al Qaeda, why did we move military assets from Afghanistan to Iraq? If they argue that there had been an al Qaeda infiltration into Iraq, that infiltration was small in comparison to the forces inside Afghanistan.
Any way we look at the Iraq invasion, it makes no sense militarily. We went in with no plan other than to topple the regime. We had no exit strategy. Bush himself had said before he was elected that our military should never be sent into a conflict without a clear exit strategy.
This war was planned and prosecuted by civilians with no military expertise. The military leaders in place at the beginning were over ruled by the civilians in the administration from PNAC. Their plan had been prepared long before Bush ascended to his throne.
The administration has had a free hand in waging war and no one but the administration can take the blame for the situation we find ourselves in today. It is more than clear that our country can not settle a five hundred year old conflict militarily. Where do we go from here? the longer we stay in Iraq, the more the support of the people of Iraq dwindles. We can't fight our way out without causing more hatred for America. How many more Americans must die for the administrations arrogance?
I tend to think many were asking for help from that crazed lunatic murdering leader.
Tend to think? Is that like imagining? Please provide some documented facts to back up your assertion, e.g., specifically who asked us to invade? for what reason?
they sure "fueled the fire" with every chance they got to show inadequacies in our military.
That's like blaming the footballs teams loss on the fans who criticized the coach for a lack of preparation.
It wasn't illegal. All the rules were followed...
What rules?
a multi-nation coalition went in...Wasn't there about 30 (more or less) nations that participated? If it was illegal then no one would have participated with us.
So, if speeding was illegal, then no one would speed? But speeding is illegal and people do speed. Participation in an activity doesn't make it legal.
The actual number of nations that have contributed troops to Iraq is 49. Many were non-combat roles, with a focus on support and aid to Iraqis and not necessarily supportive of the U.S. decision to invade. One nation, Costa Rica, actually asked that they not be considered a member of the "Coalition of the Willing."
When you hate the war so much don't hide behind democrat talking points that have been widely disproven over and over again.
Which disproven talking points?
Illegal war - because the reasons we went to war were fabricated. If you don't believe that now, there's no sense in talking to you. Where are the WMDs? Saddam's gone, elections were held and a new administration is in place. Why are we still there?
Dems showed the inadequacy of our military?! Give me one example of that dittohead garbage. Just one. If this Administration wasn't scraping the bottom of the barrel trying to find some excuse to justify this war, maybe they wouldn't have put nuclear bombmaking secrets on the internet!
" Illegal war - because the reasons we went to war were fabricated. If you don't believe that now, there's no sense in talking to you. Where are the WMDs? Saddam's gone, elections were held and a new administration is in place. "
You mean the WMD's that most (if not all) of the previous administration (along with most if not all other intelligence agency's) said (and feared) they had also?
That's right...Saddam's gone.
That's right...elections were held and a new administration is in place.
Now, explain again why it was "illegal".
How did the Dems fuel the fire? Is it wrong to point out what's going wrong with a war, that was started on false pretenses and has killed many civilians and drained our money and reputation around the world?
Coalition of the willing? 98% of troops deployed there were American and British at the beginning. Oh yeah. "He forgot Poland."
Many Iraqis want us to leave anyway according to interviews and poll numbers.
" - the Iraqis did not ask us to invade their country "
You mean supporters of Saddam or the ones he was killing? I tend to think many were asking for help from that crazed lunatic murdering leader.
If saddam's killing of people was such an issue why did Poppy Bush stir up the Kureds and then throw them to the wolves in '92? Why was Dick Cheney still dealing with Saddam during the '90's when all of this mass murder was going on? Isw Rummy on the spot for his dealings with Saddam back in the '80's? Remember the "killing of his people" only became a reason after the WMD and Al Quaeda scams fell apart. Am I, as a liberal, supposed to believe that the Retthugs suddenly found their consciences here?
" - the "Dems and the left" did not start an insurgency the moment we got there, and "
But they sure "fueled the fire" with every chance they got to show inadequacies in our military. For what purpose did they do that? They claimed; "to be fair and humane", but what it did was give more reasons for the terrorists to recruit more bombers
Did they "fuel the fire" by not giving the troops adequate armor? Did the Dems "fuel the fire" by invading the wrong country in the first place? Did the Dems "fuel the fire" by breaking up the Iraqi Army and then, as a going away present, let them keep their weapons on the way out the door? Did the Dems "fuel the fire" by not securing the ordinance that was laying all over the place over there?
" - there would not have been a mess IF WE HAD NOT ILLEGALLY INVADED IN THE FIRST PLACE "
It wasn't illegal. All the rules were followed and a multi-nation coalition went in to remove a murdering scum leader. Wasn't there about 30 (more or less) nations that participated? If it was illegal then no one would have participated with us.
Of course it was illegal. The US never sought the resolution it needed to actually go to war and the resolution passed by Congress only stated that war was a last resort. International law specifically bans premptive war in ALL cases... or, in your mind, Republican hater, does breaking the law only apply when you lose $62,000.00 in Arkansas or get a little yakahoola from a 23 year old intern.
The war is bad new my friend and bad news doesn't get better with age.
[i]Am I, as a liberal, supposed to believe that the Retthugs suddenly found their consciences here?[/i] And this is imho the biggest problem with US politics.
These guys seem really to get away with murder and no one dares to call them out for it. If this was the govermeant of any 'unfriendly' nation the Bushies would be throwing their 'Hitlers' and 'fascists' and calling for 'nation building'.
Why the silence? Is this some kind of mob organization?
The world knows them for what they are and that is the reason for their hate. They do not hate the people of the US but what the US does to them. 9/11 was not the beginning as many think but the first time it really struck the US. The war has been going on for a long time with millions of dead around the world.
It is obvious we have the higher ground. But they know they can hurt liberals and democrats by claiming they hate the military and whatnot. But the liberals just sit back and let it happen when we should be on the offensive.
[i]Of course it was illegal.[/i] Remember when they tried to get a new resolution passed? That would be definied as admitting the current situation was not enough to get their way.
I tend to think many were asking for help from that crazed lunatic murdering leader. Please... you need to stop hiding behind "republican talking points"! Give us real reasons why we invaded. I know it's hard to admit when a President makes such a horrible mistake. But you must admit, it is probably one of the worst Presidential decisions of our lifetime, if not the worst! I'm not sure which would come in as the worst.. Vietnam or Iraq.. history will tell. Another thing: your comment - But they sure "fueled the fire" with every chance they got to show inadequacies in our military... Showing inadequacies was not aimed at our military solely! It was aimed at Rumsfeld and all who were advised accordingly in the areas of troop numbers that were ignored. Rumsfeld was advised early on the troop numbers that would be needed and he chose to ignore with mush lesser amounts. After Mr. Bush said in his famous words... BRING M ON... which is probably the worst 3 words ever spoke by an American President during war time, what do you think this meant to our beloved troops? To me, that "fueled a fire" of imeasurable proportions! You sound as if you are still supporting Bush and that's really really sad.. for you and our beloved troops and our nation. Your other comment: When you hate the war so much don't hide behind democrat talking points that have been widely disproven over and over again. Huhh?? Widely disproven??? Don't you have it mixed up with the lies that this administration told to all of us to justify us going in? And another thing, don't you hate this war? Sounds like you need a fast track over there and then come back and defend it and our President!
They fueled the fire by poiting out inadaquacies??? Do you dispute that the inadaquacies existed or just that Dems pointed them out? Because you should be angry at Rumsfeld for ineptly trying to transform the military. By doing this he ignored Generals like Shinseki andd Zinni. He ignored the OBVIOUS consequences of an invasion, namely an insurgecy, he ignored the necessity of closing the borders after the war, but you want to blame the Dems for merely pointing out how hopelessly stupid his actions were? How criminally dumb his policies were? He is the reason for the insurgency because he ignored the threat that the Fedayeen posed during the war. The Republicans are more responsible for creating more "bombers" by appeasing and ignoring this historically idiotic administration. But you must be right it has to be the Dems fault because they pointed out correctly the retardation of Rummy and his gang. They should have shut up let Iraq continue to disintegrate and let Bush talk about the ?good" that was coming out of Iraq, like the opening of a bakery, and ignored our soldiers who were dying in the process, sometimes talking points are just talking points but sometimes they are the truth and God Bless the Dems for pointing out the truth.
a dozen GI's were abducted from the airport in Iraq. They have since been found, all dead. How does a GI get abducted from an airport in a supposedly secure military zone? Answer #1 is outsourcing, the republican mantra for lower costs. I want to know, what was your business case? I.E. how much does a GI cost vs. your savings?
tell me again what the republicans did besides offer an arm israel and do nothing else approach?
some of them made a lot of money, and most of them tried to use the war to scare people into voting for them as the security tough guys.
Thankfully, even if it's taken several years, most of America seems to be figuring out their scam.
I admit that I listen to El Rushbo pretty often, and his show never stops fascinating me. He goes into pinheaded rants like the one above, and I'm just busting up thinking that somebody with this infantile world view thinks he has any listeners who are there for any other reason than the comedy of his stoopidity.
Then he takes a phone call from some huckleberry praising him as America's Anchorman, and thanking him for being so honest and thoughtful, and I stop laughing so much.
I've listened to him even since he's admitted to being a lying GOP towel boy, and it doesn't seem to have affected the terminal dittoheads.
And they vote. Yikes!
New term, I just coined it. Think of the similarities..
Serves the red states. Meant to bring disinformation faster. Claims their bravado is better than technology. Lots of horse shiite to clean up after.
Those are just a few. Fitting, yes?
Faux news, Limbaugh, Colterd, et. al, the phony express. Please use this term liberally!
YIKES is right! Thanks for adding your comments. It's like turning on FOX occasionally just to hear how far right they are going today!
" about 6 weeks ago...a dozen GI's were abducted from the airport in Iraq. They have since been found, all dead. How does a GI get abducted from an airport in a supposedly secure military zone? "
I feel a need to add: "and why don't we hear about that in the media?" This is new news to me and I keep up fairly well on the war. If there isn't a media bias leaned toward the left why isn't this horrific event making more prominant news?? I can tell you why, because Americans may start supporting the war if that happens, then the dems would lose the power they just gained and would have to continue fighting instead of cuttin and running.
If that were truly the case then why didn't the phony express ride that pony into the ground on Faux News? Face it, your own channel didn't waste time repeating that abduction ad nauseum. My bet is they didn't want to open the can of worms I just mentioned, i.e. that they were abducted straight out of the airport in a supposedly secure military zone...
If you've been paying attention (even in the slightest)...you'ld know that the tired phrase "liberal media bias" doesn't exist. Besides, as Snoopy says... publicity of this atrocious event would only heighten people's anger re an increasingly dangerous and unstable Iraq. We (the military) have done nothing to help Iraq... it is far worse than when we started, worse than when Bush declared "mission accomplished", worse than when Bush declared "major combat operations in Iraq have ended", worse since Bush first derided others as "cut-and-runners" and pledged to "stay the course".
Come on. You can do better than that.
The administration and media critics have been complaining that "the public only hears the bad news," an issue which "could cost the United States the war." [link to www.twq.com]
Sigh. I bet Rush cuts a sahing figure in his desert BDU's. Perhaps Rush "Blue Pills" Limbaugh can join the US Army and inspire legions of right wing cowards to go with him?
Rush sounds defeated and beaten.
There is a bit of a defeatist tone... I also believe there's a 'take my ball and go home' attitude. That is, the poor neocons and their dream of 'taming' the ME has literally blown up in their (our) faces. So, instead of taking the high road and trying now rectify a painfully treacherous endeavor... well, these lazy sissies throw their hands up and propose preposterous solutions. No matter what, he will ultimately blame the failure on the Democrats for finally putting and end to the madness.
Did Liberals largely sell us this defective war in the first place?
Is is the fault of Liberals that we weren't greeted as liberators (like we were supposed to be)?
Is it the fault of Liberals that postwar planning was so terrible?
Did Liberals somehow disband the Iraqi army?
How are Liberals not training the new Iraqi Army/Police fast enough?
Are the Liberals responsible in some way for what is now being called a "Civil War"?
Who has been running the country for the entire time this war has been underway? Liberals?
Yup. Sure looks like it is all the Liberals fault to me.
" Did Liberals largely sell us this defective war in the first place? "
No! They refused to fight the terrorists when faced against them. Instead they bombed Serbian hospitals and schools. In my opinion, liberals would rather run than fight. They would prefer to be drafted than join, then protest against a draft.
" Is is the fault of Liberals that we weren't greeted as liberators (like we were supposed to be)? "
Yes. The biased news stories slandered the truth and broadcasted only criminal activity by the US military and convientiantly skipped over the good that was being done. Like schools reopening in major cities. But, were always sure to point out the few autracities that occured while ignoring brutal head cuttings by the enemy. Who were they trying to impress with this type of news coverage?
" Is it the fault of Liberals that postwar planning was so terrible? "
No. That isn't the liberals fault.
" Did Liberals somehow disband the Iraqi army? "
No, but lack of support to our troops and mission sure gave the enemy a stronger mental attitude and made them more aggressive. Knowing that any killings they did would always get positive media coverage in the US and abroad. Which, imho, is predominantly controlled by liberals.
" How are Liberals not training the new Iraqi Army/Police fast enough? "
Well, if we follow the liberal ideal for the war strategy, then there won't be any training by the US, because the majority of liberals simply want us out of there.
" Are the Liberals responsible in some way for what is now being called a "Civil War"? "
See earlier response concerning 'army disbanding' and 'liberators'.
" Who has been running the country for the entire time this war has been underway? Liberals? "
No. Thank God.
" Yup. Sure looks like it is all the Liberals fault to me. "
Me too.
Given his hearing problems after the hillbilly heroin binges he probably wouldn't hear it anyway....
I hope he was talking about his Network. Wasn't he? Please tell me he was...
Blow the place up, that is--I hope he blows up his network...
I knew Limbaugh wasn't the brightest knife in the shed, but I would've thought he'd at least have read "Heart of Darkness" or seen "Apocalypse Now".
I agree with Huntingtonbeachlefty in that when I listen to the Big Fat Idiot I can't help but chuckle over his simplistic worldview. He keeps babbling about how we need to "win" in Iraq even though it is obvious to anyone with half a brain that it can't be done. Of course Rushy never says HOW we can win this war. He just says we need to win it. Oh wait, I forgot, he has his "Limbaugh doctrine" that he says will solve everything. To those who don't know the LD states that you just go in and slaughter and bomb your enemy until he unconditionally surrenders. Rush has no problem with killing women and children either. They are just "casualties of war" in his book. Nice little fascist philosophy there Rushy. But what gets me is that there are so many "dittoheads" who are in awe of this buffoon. They call in and heap praise on him as if he were the second coming of Jesus. I wonder if there really are that many stupid people out there. I guess there are. Now that is a sad commentary on society!
However:
- ...the most informed audiences belong to the political magazines, Rush Limbaugh's radio show, the O'Reilly Factor, news magazines, and online news sources. Close behind are the regular audiences for NPR and the Daily Show. - PEW Research
Looking at The Daily Show and Limbaugh...they have the same number of college graduates...the average age for The Daily Show is 23-years old and Limbaugh's audience is over 50-years old...Limbaugh's audience demonstrated a significantly higher level of knowledge about what's going on in the nation and the world...hmmmm.
Hmmmm......
Well, no kidding! Imagine that! politically curious people, the type that would listen to a political talk show, would be more informed and have a greater knowledge of political affairs.
Hidden from sight in your poll numbers is the way Rush transforms outright statement of fact to relatively meaningless matter of deleterious opinion.
- politically curious people - roundhouse
That's the point of the research. Of those "politically curious people" Limbaugh's audience is more knowledgeable than most.
As to Rush's "deleterious opinion" he can defend himself. I'm speaking to the knowledge base of news audiences...and his rank very high.
[link to people-press.org]
It's a bit of a fluffy study when one considers PEW's parameters of 'informed' as defined by their three questions: The three questions asked respondents which party has a majority in the U.S. House of Representatives (Republicans); the name of the current U.S. Secretary of State (Condoleezza Rice); the name of the current president of Russia (Vladimir Putin).
While PEW's definition of informed barely approaches meaningful it is sad that roughly half to two-thirds of respondents incorrectly answered the questions.
Nope. They THINK they know a lot of stuff about politics and war and international affairs, but the stuff they know ISN'T TRUE.
[link to americanassembler.com]
Seems Limbaugh and FOX and all the other rightwing screech monkeys feed their minions a continuous line of crap, and then those people THINK THEY ARE INFORMED, when in fact they know a bunch of propaganda.
BIG DIFFERENCE between being informed, and being MISINFORMED, and the best way to be MISINFORMED is to listen to a guy who ADMITS he doesn't believe the crap he bloviates every day, but he's just "carrying water" for "those that don't deserve it".
WESLEY, take note: You may THINK you're informed, but if you're relying on information from the Rightwing media, you are MISinformed and thus dealing from a position of false confidence. In other words, every day, you support LIES.
No soap tex. I do not rely only on right wing media for info...evidenced by my daily reading of mmfa. I view, watch, read, and listen to a variety of news sources every day.
I enjoy the diverse viewpoints offered...even from the tinfoil hat crowd.
Wesley: I think that you missed Tex's point. While I think you are definitely right to obtain your information from different sources, you say that you like to get different "viewpoints." What Tex is pointing out is that certain sources of information are deliberately CHANGING THE FACTS to support the "viewpoint" that they want to espouse. Different viewpoints are important and healthy; different facts are undermining our entire system of elective government. No news source has the right to cahnge the facts to support a predetermined viewpoint. That is not news; it is propaganda. Everyone in this country should be concerned whenever a source of news gets its facts wrong, and downright appalled when a source of news deliberately misstates facts to support an agenda.
- different facts are undermining our entire system of elective government. -
I agree completely. News audiences have to be very careful today in discerning the real facts. In the old days we were captive to the newspaper and the three major TV networks...with the amount of news sources available today...there is no excuse for being uninformed on important issues...you just have to filter a lot of agenda driven news.
Not necessarily.
Their "knowledge" was extrapolated from these three questions; nothing more:
"The three questions asked respondents which party has a majority in the U.S. House of Representatives (Republicans); the name of the current U.S. Secretary of State (Condoleezza Rice); the name of the current president of Russia (Vladimir Putin). "
I'm just in awe of their vastly superior knowledge.
No, Really.....
My 12 and 10 year-old kids can also answer the same questions correctly, so congrats to you DittoBots; you're as "smart" as two pre-teens.
(But since the Junior High School-level is about as far as Radical Righties can go, it's apropos...)
They are way ahead of the curve. However, on the 3 questions asked by Pew Research...republicans scored higher than democrats...on all 3 questions.
they go out and actually try to earn money... and they dont have time for humor/tv and they definately dont vote for idiots/morons..... seriously.... how could you possibly vote for people like kinky freidman after getting an education?
there's a reason all major corporations are outsourcing their research and development... we did at one poit in time have a great valued education... but some us voted for idiots and decided the futures of our kids... and if you choose a side before you hear the situation.... that constitutes as a MORON. and to talk to a king like the way limbaug did..... AHAHAHAHA no wonder... DISRESPECTFUL.
people with intelligence look for value..... states alot about you alma mater.
Rush is not funny. It's a nice example of how 'these people' mix up every fact they know to advance agenda. The mess in Iraq only really started after the US created the power vacuum. The mess in Gaza only really started after the US so eagerly helped Israel while the Palestinians were left with their freedom to starve. The mess of our Western 'democracies' (democrapathy?) and that of international justice only really started on the 2000 election. Some 'politicians' are trying their best to make this an age of ignorance but it's hard to be ignorant when we're facing an age of reckoning: the earth is warming, our forrests are dieing, our oil and water is gone and we still see nothing better to do then to kill each other?
If the Iraqi people want a democratic government and security, they must claim it for themselves. Putting a half million U.S. troops in Iraq wouldn't guarantee this outcome.
Perhaps there is a bright side to this civil war -- fanatical Muslims killing each other is preferable to fanatical Muslims killing innocents abroad. Mission Accomplished! :-)
Let's call this "the limbaugh doctrine". Civil wars need to be contained, let then fight it out. I have two questions
- Do we lock civilians inside or do we allow them to flee (and do we contain them in adjecent countries if we do, or do we spread them out temporarily all over the globe). I suppose the Limbaugh doctrine would involve letting survival of the fittest weed out the toughest members of society.
- Do we allow financial support of either faction OR do we lock off all imports, weapons or otherwise, to either side. So even if one side is desireable to win, we support neither side? Or if russia likes one side to win and the US cant afford the other side to win, do we, as an example, make the UN make neither muddle the issue with weapon/financial/food/military advisor aid?
I mean, we have to look at all the variants. I even think we can televise a lot of civil conflicts. I think some civil wars can generate good advertising revenues. I for one would like to see some atrocities in the Congo, and with product placement that would do a lot of creating a rebuilding fund, after the necessary civil war ends.
And last but not least, If for one reason or another, a civil war breaks out in the US - it could happen - the rest of the world sits by as well, ofcourse. Internal business, no diplomacy, I am sitting in front of my widescreen with nacho's hooting for the green faction.
If your draft number is called, complain about cystic bumps in your anal cavity.
And this is the alleged man who was accusing the Democrats of having no ideas?
Democrats are the party of no ideas and Republicans are the party of really bad ideas.
How is it possible that someone like RL can have a such a huge following on a daily basis and still be such an arrogant and ignorant person? It certainly says something about his audience but it also says volumes about him, his character and his values. RL is a disgrace.
But that huge thing behind him isn't his following, it's his ass.
...of pseudo-Christian ethics in action. "Fine, just blow the place up" -- WTF? Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't one of the reasons given for our pre-emptive invasion of Iraq our desire to liberate the Iraqi people from a brutal dictator? You can't have it both ways -- people are either worth saving or they're not. To say that they're worth saving when it's convenient for you and not worth it when they're not is nothing more than callous and self-serving tripe.
And at least with regard to the Iraqis...who was it, exactly, that came to us and asked us to fix the problems there? If memory serves, it was the Iraqi National Congress headed by Ahmed Chalabi, an accused embezzler who allegedly had aspirations of leading Iraq once Saddam Hussein was overthrown -- not exactly the most credible individual! Not only that, there are some who consider the INC to be little more than an extension of the American government since it not only received funding from us but also supposedly received assistance from the CIA both in its initial setup and funding. In any case, it was Chalabi who introduced US intelligence officials to the individual code named "Curveball" -- the brother of one of Chalabi's lieutenants -- on whose claims the government based most of their accusations of WMD against Saddam Hussein. I for one (and I'm sure I'm not the only one) find it hard to believe that the US government would have been inclined to take the claims of the INC and "Curveball" at face value if they didn't already have a vested interest in doing so -- it's not exactly a secret that PNAC (The Project for the New American Century, at least three members of which are or have been influential in the current Bush administration) publicly stated the desire to see regime change in Iraq at least two years before Bush was elected President. In short, it's hard to argue that anyone -- apart from a few Iraqi exiles with an agenda, heavily funded by and closely connected to the United States government -- really asked us to go into Iraq as Limbaugh would have us believe.
We DID go in and blow the place up!
I think Rush has a short-term memory problem. He seems to have completely missed the last fifteen years of US policy towards Iraq. There's a lot of bomb damage over there...a LOT of bomb damage.
Here's a sad note...rumours going about now that ex-Marines are telling tales of how they were commanded to go into houses in Falluja and shoot everyone...men, women, and children. This corroborates the tales from some of the civilian survivors about Marine behaviour towards civilians found inside the city during the assault. The generals in charge of the operation were making religious remarks prior to the attack and it's now obvious they used our troops as weapons of religious genocide.
A command decision to intentionally murder women and little girls. The Marine officer corps throughout this war has shown very little respect for human life. Finding out that the generals ordered their men to kill entire families is just disgusting. This has gone beyond sick.
Investigations? Silence from the Democrats. Silence from the Republicans. Protecting war criminals. Complicit in war crimes.
Revolution begins in the mind. Reject what you are being given, demand better.
When are conservatives going to stop taking this disgraceful bag of hot air seriously?Rush is "fed up".He's been one of the biggest(as in fattest)supporters of this pathetic illegal monstrosity of a "war" in iraq,yet now that everything is an utter mess,rush has had enough.Well boo hoo you fat slob. This isn't one of your failed marriages you can just wash your chubby hands of nitwit.
I was going to post a comment on Newt Gingrich's stupid and seditious suggestion that we should revisit and reduce freedom of speech and along comes this idiot and gives me pause. If there was a drop of intelligence or intelectual honesty between them, you could parse for a real point.
Amazing that this guy earns a living! He is an ignorant jerk. How dare he speak this way ! Thousands and thousands of people killed, maimed, dislocated and this guy gets a chuckle ! Furthermore, he has selective memory and no knowledge whatsoever on world history or facts.
Once a jerk..always a jerk!
fatboy does have some sound info. and opinions, he just doesn't come correct.
i am a liberal, i'm just not all the way to the left. common sense should guide us all.
Sir Assboil
[link to aliberaldose.blogspot.com]
has proven time and again what a useless waste of perfectly good oxygen he is. If only his true believers knew the details of his viagra-stocked jaunt in the notorious boy-pedophile haven of the Dominican Republic.....
Ah well, justice will be served eventually, even if only through his eventual plummet into irrelevency. Sartre himself couldn't have devised a more apt damnation for the narcissistic clown king of radio.
" If only his true believers knew the details of his viagra-stocked jaunt in the notorious boy-pedophile haven of the Dominican Republic..... "
Oh come on, now. If that was true he'd be a hero to the liberal left, not a villian! You've got to come up with better lies than that. I could say the same thing about randy rhodes, and be just as acurate as you are!
It is my sincere hope that Rush would launch his inhumane "doctrine" by grabbing a gun, taking his chicken-liver a$$ to Iraq and jumping headlong into the fray himself. Then we can watch as his cookie crumbles.
advocating violent overthrow of governments ....is that not what terrorist advocate...rightwingers like Rush are terrorist, thus anti american, thus traitors..........Hey just using his terrible logic and remember he is also a draft dodger, whoa even more anti american...Gringrich said we need to reexame free speech to prevent terrorist recruiting more like themselves so that means Rush must be removed also
If I recall It was the republicans who gave loans ,chemical wapons and scret information to the crazed lunatic murderer just at the moment he could have been over thrown. Or was Rumsfelt a democrat when he was photographed shaking the lunatics hand?
The tough get going. Away that is. Isn't it time for Rush to retire and spend more time with his family ? Funny thing, O'Reilly has also had enough. The angry Right never was about the war in Iraq or anything else that mattered. Their party is over. Question is: how does Rush justify his outrageous salary? He needs a new act. The people he has beaten up on for years are now in charge. Rush is irrelevant and his job has been outsourced to the Weather Channel or somewhere. Time to Update the old resume! Thanks, ANNA
Anybody who doesn't think that Rush and his listeners aren't smart think again. His folks got us to go to war on a lie. you have to think about how smart that was. He and Fox are part of a tradition of very smart Americans . The got Americans to feel superior to everyone else because America was the first country to figure out how to destroy the whole planet before any one else did. The first to make cluster bombs and use them on children. His kind of Americans figured out how to steal most of the worlds resources and use it to transform the North American paradise into one of the ugliest urban blights on the planet. Pod malls ,mega malls(full of garbage), rat like tract housing and condos, freeways, fast food junk on every corner, millions of miles of parking lots ,from sea to shining sea. You got to be pretty intellegent to get the masses of people out in the streets to feeling proud of such a fantastic bufoonery. All you republicans wave that flag.
Rush, you're espousing inaccuracies to listeners. Bush got us into Bagdad. Saddam had control of Iran, Syria and Lebanon. We have created a 4-headed monster. Even though the Palestinians have been a problem since '48, 70% of the population is below 30. They don't remember Arafat and Camp David. We've created it and it is our job to fix it. lyn@wedodeps.com
When they stop being fun, he wants to smash them and throw them away.
I wonder if Tweetie considers him one of the "grown-ups".
BLUESTOCKING: "Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't one of the reasons given for our pre-emptive invasion of Iraq our desire to liberate the Iraqi people from a brutal dictator?"
You're not wrong and we weren't the only ones. The Iraqi people tried to rid themselves of Saddam and his murderous regime. The Kurds paid dearly. There was also an Iraqi underground youth opposition group called al-Nahdah or "The Awakening" who some believe were responsible for an assasination attempt on Uday Hussein in 1996. They shot him eight times but he recovered and continued his brutality and his rape and murder spree.
The Clinton administration also had plans in the works for regime change in Iraq but that's seldom mentioned.
I don't think so. This argument wasn't used until AFTER we were already in Iraq, and after the WMD lie got shot down.
I can't believe this pig can continue to spout his hate on the peoples air waves,( fcc wake up, and dem's put these guys under investigation asap) . How could anyone who claims to support the troops brodcast to our military this kind of hate when they are in the middle of it. www.whatnowtoons.com
Aside from sounding like an an insane asylum escapee, Rush seems to be making a case for an immediate and precipitous withdrawal of all American troops from everywhere in the world. Not a bad thing! Too bad Rush is some 600,000 Iraqi lives and almost 3,000 American lives too late. Rush`s incoherent rant is merely symptomatic of his endemic evil, that is, his utter lack of empathy, his contempt for human life, the principles of America`s own founding.
Right-wingers of his ilk talk a lot of silly rubbish about traitors. It is THEY who are the traitors to the very principles of the founding of the United States of America. It is Limbaugh in particular who has done more than any other ludicrous right-winger to poison debate and meaningful dialogue in America. It is Limbaugh and his ilk who have enabled the crippling right-wing attack on freedom, Democracy, decency, and, indeed, logic, science and the very idea of a free and democratic society.
and stay out of other peoples buisiness.
Americans wonder why the world hates them? How would you feel about a country that supported Saddam, The Taliban and Osama to name a few?
Maybe they will stop hating the US if the US stops supporting those that hurt them in order to further the US' own gains.
The US is not some kind of world police then a world oppertunist.
Unbelievable. He just sang Randy Newman's "Political Science." He must watch the Colbert Report! Perhaps there's hope.