Limbaugh misquoted Clyburn, identified him as "of the Congressional Black Caucus," rather than as majority whip
SUMMARY: On his radio show, Rush
Limbaugh asserted: "Three weeks ago, you had Jim Clyburn of the Congressional
Black Caucus saying, 'You know, if this report is good, it presents problems for
us,' meaning the Democrat [sic]
Party." In fact, Clyburn did not say that good news from Iraq is
bad news for Democrats in electoral terms, but rather that a recommendation from
Gen. David Petraeus
against withdrawal would impede Democrats' efforts to garner support in Congress
for legislation to begin withdrawal.
And while Limbaugh identified Clyburn merely as "of the Congressional Black
Caucus," Clyburn is also
House majority whip, the third-highest position in the House.
During the September 10 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, discussing Gen. David Petraeus' recent testimony on Iraq, host Rush Limbaugh asserted: "Three weeks ago, you had [House Majority Whip] Jim Clyburn [D-SC] of the Congressional Black Caucus saying, 'You know, if this report is good, it presents problems for us,' meaning the Democrat [sic] Party." Limbaugh cited this as an example of how "Democrats' message on this is all over the board." In fact, as Media Matters for America has documented, what Clyburn said during a July 30 "PostTalk" interview on washingtonpost.com is that if Petraeus were to report that the military effort in Iraq "is working very, very well at this point; we would be foolish to back away from it," it would cause "those 47 Blue Dogs ... to want to stay the course, and if the Republicans were to remain united, as they have been, then it would be a problem for us." In other words, Clyburn did not say that good news from Iraq is bad news for Democrats in electoral terms, but rather that a recommendation from Petraeus against withdrawal would impede Democrats' efforts to garner support in Congress for legislation to begin withdrawal. Indeed, Clyburn added: "None of us want to see a bad result in Iraq. If we are going to get in position to yield a good result, I think Democrats want to see that."
From the July 30 "PostTalk" interview of Clyburn on washingtonpost.com, video of which is available at the website:
BALZ: What do Democrats do if General Petraeus comes in in September and says, "This is working very, very well at this point; we would be foolish to back away from it"?
CLYBURN: Well, that would be a real big problem for us, no question about that, simply because of those 47 Blue Dogs. I think there would be enough support in that group to want to stay the course, and if the Republicans were to remain united, as they have been, then it would be a problem for us.
So I think we, by and large, would do wise -- be wise to wait on the report. None of us want to see a bad result in Iraq. If we are going to get in position to yield a good result, I think Democrats want to see that. We love this country. We're as patriotic as anybody else about this. And we have loved ones involved in this issue just like everybody else. I've got family and friends involved in Iraq and Afghanistan, and so I certainly want to see a good result. But I'm certainly not going to just roll over because the president said. It is only because we get good intelligence from those people like General Petraeus who can be trusted to give us good information.
Limbaugh's identification of Clyburn -- who is House majority whip, the third-highest position in the House after speaker and House majority leader -- solely as "of the Congressional Black Caucus" is not the first time he has injected race into a discussion. Other examples include:
- On the January 16 broadcast of his radio show, Limbaugh called Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) a "half-minority" in the context of criticizing Obama for supporting his hometown Chicago Bears over the New Orleans Saints in the National Football League's National Football Conference championship game on January 21.
- On the February 14, 2006, broadcast of his radio show, Limbaugh invented a "racial component" to explain Iraq war veteran Paul Hackett's departure from the Ohio Democratic Senate primary race. While reporting on Hackett's decision to withdraw from the race against then-Rep. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) for the seat then held by Sen. Mike DeWine (R-OH), Limbaugh asserted: "And don't forget, Sherrod Brown is black. There's a racial component here, too," adding that "the newspaper that I'm reading all this from is The New York Times, and they, of course, don't mention that." In fact, Brown is Caucasian -- a point Limbaugh acknowledged later in the program. Brown defeated DeWine in the 2006 midterm election.
- Limbaugh was forced to resign from his position as a commentator on ESPN following criticism of his controversial 2003 comments about Donovan McNabb, a quarterback for the NFL's Philadelphia Eagles. During the September 28, 2003, edition of ESPN's Sunday NFL Countdown, Limbaugh said that "[t]he media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well" and, therefore, that McNabb "got a lot of credit for the performance of this team [the Eagles] that he didn't deserve." On the February 9, 2006, broadcast of his show, Limbaugh said he "kind of like[s]" a caller's statement that Obama "is the Donovan McNabb of the U.S. Senate."
- On the August 21 broadcast of his show, Limbaugh asserted that Democrats are interested in Darfur for "two reasons. What color is the skin of the people in Darfur? It's black. And who do the Democrats really need to keep voting for them? If they lose a significant percentage of this voting bloc, they're in trouble." A caller to the show responded, "The black population," to which Limbaugh said, "Right." He also stated: "So you go into Darfur and you go into South Africa, you get rid of the white government there. You put sanctions on them. You stand behind Nelson Mandela -- who was bankrolled by communists for a time, had the support of certain communist leaders. You go to Ethiopia. You do the same thing."
From the September 10 broadcast of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:
LIMBAUGH: It is just startling to watch this. I can't describe for you the depth of rage, emotion, anger, frustration, all of those things that I feel when I see a four-star general in full military dress being told he's a liar. Being told that he is a puppet. Being told that nothing he says is going to be considered truthful. And he sits there, and he doesn't flinch, stares right back at them. I just -- I laugh when a four-star -- decorated four-star general in full military dress unanimously confirmed by the U.S. Senate -- and I think, last time I looked, as Duncan Hunter said, unanimous is pretty close to majority in the Senate -- the last -- the -- I look at him just not flinching. I look at Lantos telling him that his strategy of withdrawing a brigade is nothing, and I want to ask myself, where is the military expertise of Tom Lantos? Who is advising him? Has he been there? How long ago? I don't know, but I can tell you that the Democrats' message on this is all over the board.
Three weeks ago, you had Jim Clyburn of the Congressional Black Caucus saying, "You know, if this report is good, it presents problems for us," meaning the Democrat Party. You've had Durbin, a number of others, and House Democrats have gone over to Iraq and said, "This is really working. This surge -- why, Al Anbar Province" -- six months ago Democrats were using that as evidence that the war in Iraq had failed and was already lost -- "is now safe."
No surprise there, Rush marginalizing the blacks again. Of course, he is always sure to mention the minority whip, which didn't exist until - oh, last year, wasn't it?
yowza, gotta correct myself! The minority whip was always in existance. I believe I was really talking about the hubub made about a minority whip when congress changed hands. sorry!
At least you'll admit a mistake and correct yourself - something Flush Limpballs will never do.
And I'm STILL waiting for him to come clean about his arrest in the company of a male prostitute in Pittsburgh back in the '70s, under the pseudonym "Jeff Christie". (Since it appears that someone in his organization - maybe even Rush himself - is monitoring MMFA, I will include this in every Limbaugh-related thread until he does.)
I think this is a reach to say this is racial. I think the misinformation is the way he lied about what Clyburn said. This is being spun all over the place and I see some posters here using this lie as proof of their ridiculous claims. His words in context and read in full are clear and Rush and others are lying about this.
Rush didn't say anything incorrect here. He was exactly right. Clyburn said that good news in Iraq is bad news for the Democrats. He's simply one of the many high profile Democrats who are actively rooting for our defeat in Iraq. And Clyburn is in the Congressional Black caucus. There's no misinformation there.
No one is "actively rooting for our defeat."
That's garbage from the right-wing, and you know it.
Not really. Every time there's bad news in Iraq the Democrats are better off politically. That's just the reality of the situation. They've positioned themselves so that success in Iraq is bad for them politically and defeat in Iraq benefits them politically.
You have just outdone yourself with the above post. Now you are just living in a world of ConJob unreality. By your post, you are saying that the deaths of our soldiers and innocent Iraqs benefits the Republans.
No, actually I was saying that it benefits the Democrats. I don't see how you can argue otherwise. The worse that things get in Iraq the more anti-war sentiment there will be in this country. People will then start voting for anti-war candidates and the Democrats will be better off politically.
So why don't the republicans back the Dems on withdrawal and redeployment to take away that advantage?
Because the Republicans have always stood on principle. The Democrats switch their views on issues whenever it's convenient. The vast majority of them supported the war at the beginning and only began to oppose it when it became politically convenient.
Because the Republicans have always stood on principle. The Democrats switch their views on issues whenever it's convenient.
Republicans are simpleminded and pigheaded. Democrats change their views when they get new information, facts and evidence.
The vast majority of them supported the war at the beginning and only began to oppose it when it became politically convenient.
The majority of Dems in congress voted against the authorization and the vast majority criticized Bush when he pulled the inspectors and commenced the invasion.
This study explains the different thinking patterns of liberals and conservatives.
That's an incredible study. Thanks for the link. I'll bookmark it.
For the other posters here. If you haven't clicked on that link, do so, and have a better explaination as to what the differences between liberals and conservatives are.
Loonz, that's a pretty interesting study. Not shocking, but interesting.
Tom Hartman was talking about another study the other day, regarding optimists and pessimists.He made the connection, often used by conservatives, that liberals are more pessimistic than their hopin' and prayin', happy-talkin' conservative counterparts.
Seems pessimists are much more aware of reality, but optimists are often very successful in their financial and family matters. Because of, or in spite of, their detachment from reality is a guess.
The message? For short term success, pretend everythings great, and let the pessimists deal with reality and all of its inherent problems. ;0)
And, please, let's not be too harsh on RinoHunter. This is the poster who recently commented that he considers Sean Hannity (I believe the adjectives were) "Thoughtful and fair".
In RH's defense, I don't think he's lying here about the Dems "rooting for defeat", I'd say he actually believes it. Through a combination of hours of Rush Limbaugh indoctrination, and some classic Republican projection, this is the only possible reality in his mind.
It is possible that the Democrats could benefit politically from Iraq going badly. This is speculation, or what RH and his ilk refer to as facts.
This is where the leap in logic is made, and it's made by imposing his values on the rest of the world; If a short term tangible, material, financial or political benefit is to be gained through some event, the beneficiary of that event could not possibly be doing anything other than "rooting for" that event to occur, regardless of the related negative consequences.
It's the inability of the far-right mind to conceive of any motive but greedy self-advancement.
Put another way, if I told RinoHunter that my beloved wealthy grandmother was ill, his first question would likely be whether I was named in her will or not.
If I told him that I was in her will for a large sum, I'm sure he could only conclude that I was actively rooting for grandma"s death.
This is the mentality of ascribing ones primitive values to others, and refusing to believe that they may be a little more evolved or enlightened.
Hence the insistence on Government involvement in sexual and religious matters.The extreme-right T-Warrior conservative needs to protect himself from himself, and thinks that everybody else needs the same treatment.
Like the terrified,incompetent driver who expects other drivers to do 40 mph on the freeway, RH can only feel adequate by imagining that the rest of the human race is as limited as he is.
Well, the study does account for why Rino dude is willfully ignorant.
The principle you Republicans stand on is your love of seeing Americans DIE.
Rino, Didn't the elections of November 2007 prove anything? Americans want this war to end. But using your logic, EVERYONE who wants us to end the occupation is hoping for more death and chaos. By last count, that includes the majority of the country which happens to include Republans. And that my dear Rino is just not true. Going back to the Whips quote...READ THE FIRST FEW LINES.
P.S. Bad news in War is bad news for everyone. Nobody benefits.
The vast majority of the American people do oppose the War in Iraq now, which is why the Democrats now support it. They supported the war when it was politically convenient to support it and now oppose it since it is unpopular. As the situation in Iraq gets worse the Democrats get an advantage politically. And I'm not saying that any of you guys want us to lose in Iraq; only some of the high profile Democrats in Congress.
"As the situation in Iraq gets worse the Democrats get an advantage politically."
If it is helping them, why do they want withdrawal and redeployment?
Because the American people want withdrawel and redeployment. They're simply doing the popular thing so that they will benefit politically.
Oh Right. It has nothing to do with the fact that we have men and women dying? It has nothing to do with the fact that we've lost all credibility and good will among other Nations?
So, you believe their only reason is to win the next election, That opinion is so vile I want to puke!!! Now, turn it around: Republicans want to stay in Iraq on the slim hope that we might win, and if we do, they'll win the next election.
Both notions are disgusting, and only the second one has teeth.
Hello @ss. Meet plate. Yum!
Wow, now you're starting to get really strange. Do you like mountain oysters as well?
I've tried rocky mountain oysters once, and I like tripa's, but I don't see anything strange about handing you your @ss on a plate. It's not like it's a detachable penis or anything...
So I guess the republicans are "actively hoping for another terrorist attack". Since a terrorist attack would help their party out.
It's possible, but I think that a terrorist attack would actually hurt the Republicans. The fact that we haven't been attacked since 9-11 is a political benefit for Bush, and another terrorist attack would take that away.
"The fact that we haven't been attacked since 9-11 is a political benefit for Bush,
I don't think it is a political benefit for him.I can't see that reasoning, because when we talk about attacks on american soil, the mean is in the range of 10 years. Attacks overseas is what we should be measuring, has that been reduced?
We don't have any control over attacks overseas. We simply have a responsibility to protect ourselves from future terrorist attacks.
Ah, then the attacks on the Khobar towers and the 10/12/2000 blast of the USS Cole cannot be blamed on Clinton, like the Republicans love to trot out.
If Clinton was so horrible because he let Osama bin Laden run around after the Khobar towers attack, then why is Bush so heroic if the poster boy for terrorism is still running around long after the bigger terror attacks on US soil?
Nice. Another poster hands RinoHunter his ass. Gotta admit though, it's easy as shooting fish in a barrel with a machine gun.
Not really. Every time there's bad news in Iraq the Democrats are better off politically. That's just the reality of the situation. They've positioned themselves so that success in Iraq is bad for them politically and defeat in Iraq benefits them politically Rino
Again Rino you positioned the Dems to where good news = Republican, bad news = Dem. That’s been the problem with your reasoning (sarcasm). You assume that because the Democratic party thinks that after listening to lie after lie over the last 4 ½ years our unwillingness to believe another lie means we are bad. The reality caused by Junior and the Republicans is you lied from the start and when questioned, you continued to lie. There were no wmd’s or a mushroom cloud and NO imminent danger to America. The “we are winning” was another lie and we have been waiting for 4 ½ years for the Iraq army to “stand up” so that we can stand down. All of the independent reports tell us that things are not going well in Iraq and we will have to commit to Iraq for years and years IF we MAY see progress. But yet again Junior tells another lie, “we are kicking ass in Iraq” and you somehow want to paint the Dems as bad people for not believing ANOTHER lie. How many Americans have died between Juniors last lie and this one?
When will you accept that this was a war of choice not necessity? When will you accept responsibility? Stop trying to place blame where it does not belong. You want to continue this “war” you accept full responsibility for it and stop trying to place on someone else.
Rino prefers to be willfully ignorant. There is no use having an exchange with someone who lets his conscience slide even when presented with all the lies and evil his party has perpetuated. He still defends the evil and mendaciousness. It's sad and pathetic. And he still maintains that Rs have "principles". But then he didn't say what those principles were, did he? Apparently no worthy principles.
Actually since you are rooting for getting as many Americans killed as possible you are positioning YOURSELF so that leaving Iraq is bad, it is bad in the sense you wont get to see more Americans DIE
That's garbage from the right-wing, and you know it.
All the Rino Hunter is capable of spewing is right-wing garbage. He appears to be totally incapable of thinking or speaking for himself.
Rino, I have mentioned before that some ConJobbers have a problem with basic reading. I was WRONG. They can read. It is their comprehension of the printed words that gives them a problem. As I see it here, The House Whip said it, Rush interpreted it and you believe what Rush said. Now, I get it, follow the Rush, Follow the Rush.
Furthermore, I do not believe that you can read the entire statement and not understand it. Are you just trying to be a wiseguy and stirring up trouble here? By the way, the Republans are the ones wanting us to lose in Iraq.
"He's simply one of the many high profile Democrats who are actively rooting for our defeat in Iraq."
This is not for us to win. The Iraqis will decide what direction their country takes. It has nothing to do with us. Bush shouldn't have invaded their country and we shouldn't be there now.
Also, if there is such a thing as defeat in Iraq, define it.
Defeat would be Al-Qaeda forcing us out of Iraq and making us look weak. It would embolden them and be a win for them in the War on Terror. We at least have to stay long enough to ensure that the Iraqi security forces are fully capable of taking on Al-Quaeda themselves.
Maybe us being in Iraq emboldens them. Ever try to think about that one. All I know is that it emboldened them to come to Iraq after we showed up. They didn't have to come here to kill Americans. We served them on a plate.
Al Qaeda is not forcing us out of Iraq; the American people, the Iraqis, and basically the rest of the world is forcing us out of a country we shouldn't be in.
"It would embolden them and be a win for them in the War on Terror."
It doesn't matter. Anything emboldens them.
"We at least have to stay long enough to ensure that the Iraqi security forces are fully capable of taking on Al-Quaeda themselves."
The Iraqis can take care of the Iraqis claiming to be Al Qaeda. The Shiites and the Kurds won't put up with it. And the secular Sunnis won't put up with it. That's virtually the entire population of Iraq.
Excellent point. People who don't fear death don't need any emboldening. They're willing to strap bombs on and blow themselves up. How much bolder can they get?
Rhino is a shameless GOP hack.
RH,
I really don't like the rhetoric. I don't think there is a single person here who is rooting against the troops or for that matter a single Democratic politician.
As for Republicans standing on principle, when are you all going to rip Thompson for wanting due process for Bin Ladin like you all did with Dean for years ago?
If the Republicans truly had principles, they would define victory. When they were the party in charge of everything in Washington, they would have funded the troops so they could have enough body armor, Pat Tillman would not have been a mystery, Walter Reed would have been taken care of. Since you are for the war, you must be madder than anyone at Bush, right? He has sent only enough troops to keep things the same. His generals before the war wanted 300,000 plus. he scoffed. If you are truly wanting this war, let's increase the size of the army and make sure we get to the end of this conflict ASAP.
Fried,
My point is simply that the Democrats are better off politically when we get bad news out of Iraq. The worse things go in Iraq the worse off the Republican party is. It's in the Democrats' best political interest to oppose the war and hope that it doesn't go well. Do you really deny this? And OF COURSE Bush has screwed up in Iraq. His execution of the war has been terrible. And given everything that's happened Iraq probably hasn't been worth it overall. But I still think that we need to finish what we started and make sure that the Iraqis are equipped to handle their own security. The top Democrats in Congress aren't helping out matters by saying that "the war is lost" and "good news in Iraq is bad for us." And I never said that you or anybody else here want us to fail in Iraq. I was simply talking about a few top Democrats in Congress who's rhetoric has hurt the war effort.
I was simply talking about a few top Democrats in Congress who's rhetoric has hurt the war effort.
Again, Bush shouldn't have invaded Iraq and we shouldn't be there now. The Democrats are trying to rectify the greatest foreign policy disaster/mistake in American history by withdrawing and redeploying the troops.
RH,
"My point is simply that the Democrats are better off politically when we get bad news out of Iraq. The worse things go in Iraq the worse off the Republican party is. It's in the Democrats' best political interest to oppose the war and hope that it doesn't go well. Do you really deny this?"
Yes, I do deny that! I want nothing more than this "war" (which looks like an occupation) to go well and I know the people I voted for do too. They want nothing more than American security interests to be served and don't think that having our soldiers stuck occupying a country where they are not wanted is making us safer! I am disappointed you have taken to that level of discourse. I, for one, put country ahead of politics and I think many of the Dems do too.
"And OF COURSE Bush has screwed up in Iraq. His execution of the war has been terrible. And given everything that's happened Iraq probably hasn't been worth it overall. But I still think that we need to finish what we started and make sure that the Iraqis are equipped to handle their own security."
So, since Bush has screwed up in Iraq, why do you continue to support his policies? You think that we need to "finish what we started." What did we start? When will we start working diplomatically? When will Bush start making decisions based on what Generals say and not replacing those with whom he disagrees? If you are truly wanting us to "win." Stop blaming Democrats who are not in charge of war strategy and start advocating to Bush for a change.
"The top Democrats in Congress aren't helping out matters by saying that "the war is lost" and "good news in Iraq is bad for us." And I never said that you or anybody else here want us to fail in Iraq. I was simply talking about a few top Democrats in Congress who's rhetoric has hurt the war effort."
Their rhetoric has not hurt the war effort! What has hurt the war effort is the constantly evolving mission and goals that our troops face. What has hurt our war effort is the longer deployments and shorter time between tours for these brave men and women. What has hurt the war effort are the President's budgets which lead to private donations for equipment and armor. What has hurt the war effort has been the recruitment goals of our armed forces being low.
Since you are so pro-military, did you agree with the Republicans during Black Hawk down when they wanted to get out of there ASAP?
Where were you during another President when a commentator said this about our military?
"No goal, no objective, not until we have those things and a compelling case is made, then I say, back out of it, because innocent people are going to die for nothing. That's why I'm against it."
Guess who said this one and when:
"Congressman, a couple of things that are in my mind. Number one is the president has really failed to lay out before the American people the reasons why we need to be involved militarily. That's number one.
And then we go back to Henry Kissinger's test, which is number one, is there a vital U.S. national interest? And do we have a plan to disengage? What's the exit strategy? I don't see that we've met that test either. And why does it have to happen this second, this hour? Why don't we have a national debate first?"
Sound unpatriotic? Continued in next post....
What about this one:
"But you know what? There's a lot of massacres going on in the world. As you know, 37,000 Kurds in Turkey, over a million people in Sudan. We have hundreds of thousands in Rwanda and Burundi. I mean, where do we stop?"
Or this one:
"But if you know - every mistake we've made up to this point, there's no stated goal. There's no definition of success. All these important things. There's no exit strategy. One mistake after another. Why would you go in deeper when we have not been successful up to this point? That seems to me to be folly."
Do you think the person who said these things about our military hates America and is a wacko lefty?
Mind you, this was when troops were on the ground! Do you think this person was "hurting the war effort with his rhetoric? I don't.
For the answers, go here
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/2/3/202851/3778
Ok. I see your point. We just disagree on the Dems' intentions here. I think the fact that they supported the war at first and now oppose it has more to do with politics than anything else. But we simply disagree. And I don't think that they're unpatriotic for opposing the war. I just think their partisan blinders are on and they don't see some of the good things that have been happening in Iraq. And I think we should listen to the military commanders on the ground and implement the strategy that they want. I don't necessarily support what the Bush administration wants; I simply think we should listen to the commanders on the ground.
They agreed with the war because of the GW Bush sales job, and the absence of complete intelligence reports that he had. A good decision is never made without analyzing ALL the evidence.
If we should listen to the guys on the ground, why did Bush replace so many of them? Did you notice the source of those quotes?
Also, before you claim there was the same intelligence for everyone, check this link:
http://www.mahablog.com/2007/09/06/he-knew/
That's why I said that Bush has screwed up. He should've listened to the commanders on the ground from the very beginning. We didn't have enough troops in Iraq at the beginning.
You must be out of your mind. If you're taking a walk down memory lane, how about this one: WE SHOULDN'T HAVE GONE THERE FROM THE BEGINNING. And if Bush had given all the intelligence to Congress, we probably wouldn't be there now.
By following Bush in lockstep, and defending the little bastard makes you and all the others just as responsible for 3800+ troops who have died. That blood is on your hands. And it will be there until your dying day my friend.
The next time there is talk of war, spend two minutes--two full minutes, looking at your hands. Then try not to form your opinion until your children or grandchildren are sitting nearby. Then, either take them down to the recruiting station, or help them organize/join a peace march.
In the meantime, practice what you preach: ie "The party of personal responsibility" and quit blaming the Democrats.
No its not just we disagree. YOU are pulling venal motives you cannot POSSIBLY know out of your ass. You have no reason to believe that thier intentions are what you say they are other than your hatred of anything left and you WISH it were true.
Just because something is in my best interest doesnt mean I WANT that to happen only a greedhead republican thinks that is the ONLY consideration. I would be better off if ten people ahead of me in seniority suddenly DIED. That in no way MEANS I want them to DIE. You were only talking out of your ass with your claim about what ANYBODY wants you DONT have amazing mind reading powers, assigning venal motives is easy. I could say that the only reason you want us to stay in Iraq is because you love seeing Americans DIE. You would squeal like a stuck pig but I would only be doing exactly what YOU have been doing assigning venal motives that I cannot POSSIBLY know. Its weak and its ALL you have.
Then RINO, why don't you take your war loving arse and head on down to the recuriters office and get in the action. If we need to be there for years to come I expect you to do your civic duty and serve. If you don't you are simply a coward.
Defeat would be Al-Qaeda forcing us out of Iraq and making us look weak.
Rino, when are you going to face the fact that Al Qaeda is NOT the only problem in Iraq. When will you understand that the largest population in Iraq (Shites)and the government Junior help install are aligned with the Iran, the other “axis of evil” member. Saying Al Qaeda this and Al Qaeda that makes great “talking points” but you got to face reality sometime. Iraq is much more than Al Qaeda.
Al Queda wanted us to STAY in Iraq. Several times I have linked to a captured AQ communication that said so directly. AQ cannot force us to do anything but the IRAQI PEOPLE want us gone. You have no capacity to think only to regurgitate rightwing propaganda. Its dumb. Bush has done AQ more good than anyone alive. Their stated purpose is to bring Islamic governments to all Islamic countries with secular governments. They could never have HOPED to do this in Iraq so President GUMP did it for them. Their recruiting has never been so good and will continue to be that way as long as we are in Iraq. Not to mention we shouldnt be basing OUR foriegn policy on what a TERRORIST GROUP might think or claim. We need to leave Iraq to fight al Queda effectivly. When France had a series of bombings on their subways in the 80's they didnt invade Portugal. They didnt SAY anything they just found out which terrorist group did it and killed them one by one until they were gone. They never admitted it but everyone knew French intelligence was killing them. They had no further problems from those Algerian terrorists. If we want to fight al Queda then we need to fight al Queda. Iraq is irrelevant to that battle. Al Queda is active in over 60 countries which DIDNT include Iraq until we got there. Whatever THEY think we can garner the resources and go after THEM once we leave Iraq more effectively. You see everything so simplemindedly you will never understand the dynamics of complicated situations like this one.
Rhino -
Your razor sharp analysis of comedians comments are thought provoking. What exactly did el-rush-bo say that was inaccurate? (Hint: you can find the answer if you actually read the entire MMFA column).
I'll bet comedian could use another sharp as a tack fact checker.
He's simply one of the many high profile Democrats who are actively rooting for our defeat in Iraq. >>>>>>>>>>
Only in the same way you are one of the morons activly rooting for getting as many Americans killed as is humanly possible
As vile as he is, Hal Turner is honest about his hatred of blacks and Jews.
Limbaugh uses code words and phrases, and ties black leaders like Nelson Mandela to communists.
I was watching a PBS program about "The Religious Right," and they showed a 1960's program of a TV preacher named Billy Hargis.
He tied just about anything he didn't like to "communists." (Including Elvis and the Beatles.)
But Hargis tied the Civil Rights activists to communism, and called Martin Luther King a "communist traitor."
Watching Hargis as he was back then, it was like seeing Rush Limbaugh. He spoke just about exactly like him.
And Hargis' show was broadcast in Limbaugh's hometown.
Unlike your post, of course.
"...top Democrats in Congress who's rhetoric has hurt the war effort."
So now it's the Democrats that hurt the "war effort". I thought the commanders on the ground, the president and his administration were responsible for the "war effort", whatever that is. Just how did the democrats "hurt" this (futile) "war effort"?
Fat drug addict!
Don't forget that Rush declared Sherrod Brown as "Black".
Rush has done so much disinformation/lies/outright errors that he makes Dan Rather look immaculate ...
WOW MM you are really getting desperate for material with this headline..lol Limbaugh misquoted Clyburn, identified him as "of the Congressional Black Caucus," rather than as majority whip
I see. When it comes to choosing either limpaugh - the self-avowed truth-meister - spreading disinformation, or MMfH nit-picking, you prefer to live with the disinformation?
I guess we all have our own values...
Rush loves to bring up race at odd times; he seems rather obsessed with it. That's really why he mentioned "black caucus" That brings a whole set of opinions to his listeners.
The only ones who lose this war are the neo-cons. They don't give a damn about the troops (many never served) and the only refrain you hear from them is about the "anti-war crowd", you know what? Jesus Christ is part of that "anti-war crowd", I count myself along side him.
That's exactly what the religious right don't want to hear.
Jesus Christ in his physical body was a middle eastern man who declared "blessed are the peacemakers."
Doesn't really jive with the enablers of this current fiasco, does it?
When did Jesus ever condemn war? Can you give me an example from the Bible?
RH,
When did he promote pre-emptive war?
I meant "He" not he.
He didn't. He didn't really talk about war at all. He just said that individuals should be peaceful in their daily lives. That was my point.
From Matthew 26:
50Jesus replied, "Friend, do what you came for."[d]
Then the men stepped forward, seized Jesus and arrested him. 51With that, one of Jesus' companions reached for his sword, drew it out and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear.
52"Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword
Maybe Rhino can show us the verses where Jesus condemned homosexuality, or advocated the accumulation of wealth.
Our good buddy Rino and a few of his friends from the 101st Fighting Keyboardists have gone down to their local recruiting office to do their patriotic duty. They plan to lend their bodies to "the Surge" That is evidently what they think Jesus would want them to do.
God condemned homosexuality in the old testament and the new testament, but you are right that Jesus didn't mention the subject. And I've never argued that it's good to accumulate a lot of wealth. I just think that it's more efficient to give money to charity rather than a large and inneficient federal government. Jesus never advocated higher taxes or a bigger central government.
Absolutely Not! Show one verse in either Testement where homosexuality is condemned. Allow me to help, the closest thing in the Bible is the story of Lott and his wife: the pillar of salt.
Leviticus 20:13
"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them"
There are many more examples.
Where to begin? Jewish Talmudic traditionrecognizes that God actually gave 613 Mitzvot (Commandments) to Moses. For the five books that constitute the Torah, this would be 3 commandments in Genesis, 111 in Exodus, 247 in Leviticus, 52 in Numbers and 200 in Deuteronomy. These included 365 prohibitions -- a number equal to the nominal number of days in the year. Also included 248 positive commandments which Rabbi Simlai said corresponded "to the number of organs and limbs in the human body." Hundreds of these dealt with animal sacrifices and other topics that are not currently practiced. That leaves about 300 commandments that can be practiced today. The Holiness Code ofthe Torah permits slavery. Let's leave aside the question of whether the Old Testament must be followed meticulously by Christians. Let us also leave aside that there are other ways of interpreting the verse you cite. Leviticus the book you cite says among other things:
For everyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death: he has cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him (20:9).
The man who commits adultery with another man's wife, even he who commits adultery with his neighbor's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death (20:10).
The daughter of any priest, if she profanes herself by playing the prostitute, she profanes her father: she shall be burned with fire (21:9).
He who blasphemes the name of Yahweh, he shall surely be put to death; all the congregation shall certainly stone him: the foreigner as well as the native-born, when he blasphemes the Name, shall be put to death (24:16).
Harsh stuff wouldn't you say? I also hope you avoid intercourse with menstruating women (18:19), never harvest the corners of a field (19:9), eat fruit from a young tree (19:23), cross-breed livestock (19:19), sow a field with mixed seed (19:19), shave or get a hair cut (19:27), get a tattoo (19:28),charge of interest on a loan (25:37), or eat non-kosher foods. If you can keep 300 Mitzvot I bow to you. As for me I will take moral instruction elsewhere.
Obviously, Jesus opposed vigilanteism. He wanted people to love each other and not resort to violence. But he was simply talking about INDIVIDUALS, not NATIONS. Never did he say that war is immoral. In fact, there are a lot of wars mentioned in the Bible. It is often times justified.
Here is an interesting one. Bush is announcing troop cuts and a timetable for them. Does that mean he is telling al qaeda when we are leaving?
If you think the surge is working, why would he cut troops?
I think he realizes that we can't stay in Iraq forever. The surge was necessary to provide security during the political process. We can withdraw troops as the Iraqis become better equipped to take over their own security. And I don't think that Bush actually came up with an arbritrary timetable. He just stated that our goal should be to have about 130,000 troops in Iraq by next summer. Obviously, conditions can change and that might not be able to happen.
But if this country needs to maintain its current level and the troops who were part of the surge now need to be rotated off, how do you suggest we maintain troop levels? If troop enlistments stay at their current levels, there will be no way to maintain. What do you suggest then?
We could start by removing troops from places we don't need them like Germany and Russia. There are many places around the world where we have troops where we don't need them. We could also go deeper into the reserves. But from what I've heard we won't have that problem until April. At that time we'll probably have to start withdrawing troops.
Wow!! How many troops do we have in Russia?
You would have to check out the news from Planet Wingnut to find out. Here on Planet Earth that answer would be ZERO.
So, what would it take for you to fight in any war? I am not asking about Iraq, but if I believed what you believed about this war, you would see me there in a heartbeat.
Was this war justified? If so, why are more preachers not advocating for it?
I don't think that you can claim that it's either justified or unjustified. The Bible doesn't really say anything about pre-emptive wars. I think it's simply an issue of whether it was necessary or not. Looking back on it it probably unded up being unnecessary, but we simply didn't know that at the time when our intelligence and most intelligence agencies around the world said that Saddam had WMD's.
Come on with that one! Even if he had WMD's he was not linked with Al Qaeda and he was totally contained. Iraq was not a threat.
By the way, did you look up the source of those quotes I posted? Was the person saying those quotes cheering for our conflicts to go poorly? Was he hurting the troops?
Double by the way, the fact that you think those Senators want the U.S. to "lose" or for the war to go badly suggests that anyone who voted for them feels the same.
There was always a chance that Saddam could sell the WMD's to terrorists. He did support terrorism at least on a small scale. And my comment about the Senate Democrats simply come from their words and actions. They won't acknowledge any good news in Iraq and openly claim that good news in Iraq is bad for them politically.
And also, Hannity's comments were before 9-11. The pre 9-11 war was completely different. And I think that he was making the case that the war in Kosovo had nothing to do with our national security, and he was probably currect. It's debatable whether the war in Iraq is directly connected to our national security, but Hannity believes that it is and opposes timetables and withdrawel because of that.
No offense, RH, but that is weak. Troops are troops. He jumps on anyone who he thinks is disparaging our troops and he was doing the same if not worse.
No there WASNT any chance he could sell WMDs to terrorists since he didnt HAVE any WMDs. Also the CIA said directly in the 2002 NIE that he WASNT likely to comit terrorism against us or allow any of his weapons to be used by terrorists to do so. YOUR wishful thinking notwithstanding. They also said they had NO evidence of ANY international terrorism linked to Iraq since 1993.
Seriously RINO. I want to know how someone who supports this action in Iraq such as yourself is not willng to actively participate. If this "war on terror" is vital to our survival, why are you not willing to fight for something you believe in? All jokes and snide comments aside, I want to know are you willing to fight for this cause you support? Folks after Pearl Harbor, quit their jobs and left to fight for our survival. Why won't you do the same now?
RH,
He also thought that since we had no exit strategy we shouldn't be there. All of his criticisms were legitimate and could be made with 1000 times more clarity with this conflict and yet, he doesn't.
Does that sound like principle or just politics like you were accusing Dems?
"When did Jesus ever condemn war? Can you give me an example from the Bible?"
If you read the Gospels and internalize them fully, you would never even ask this question.
OMG. Bozo the Limbaugh is playing the race card, and rhinohunter is defending him? Whodu thunk.
Limbaugh is so full of crap that this little fib barely registers. He's done untold damage to this country with his lies. Yesterday he told one of his fawning female callers that "we must defeat the liberals before we can defeat Al Qaeda".
The man is a lying pig, and his followers are sycophantic imbeciles.
Well, considering how ineffective cons are at defeating Al Qaeda, I don't think liberals have anything to worry about.
To get back to the topic, does Rush ever refer to any other Congressional Representative by referring to what committees they sit on? If he is just singling out the Black Caucus, which I am guessing he is, this article does have a point.
I don't understand the idea that the Troops/ Bush/ America/ Dem/Rep are the problem. Their is an language barrier between U.S. troops and Iraq police which slows the process of helping Iraqi taking over policing their lands. The other issue is they have three different Relig. Factions all wanting to have the political advantage when the troops leave. I think that those in Iraq that had Family members shot as Sadam and his burgade rolled through Bagdad are happy we took him out. The FOOD FOR OIL scam wasn't going to improve the infrustruture in Iraq under Sadam so no loss their. My final thought goes to the weapons not found in Iraq. I think one has to consider that Bush went in front of the U.N. 12 different times before the inspectors went in to investigate, and the fact that the weapons were not found doesn't surprize me. I am sure ENRON wished they had the time Sadam had to cover their tush!
Bush didnt go in front of the UN before 1996. Since both Kay and Duelfer said NOT that they couldnt find any WMDs but that there hadnt BEEN ANY since that time, you HAVE NO POINT.
Here is an interesting quote from the study that was provided (thanks for the link): "Previous psychological studies have found that conservatives tend to be more structured and persistent in their judgments..."
Persistence in judgment for one person could mean maintaining your principles while another would call it willful, stubbornness in the face of reality\truth. I admire those who have principles, but what if the belief you are holding on to is dead wrong?
A good example would be the issue of slavery. A couple centuries ago, the majority of people considered it normal and appropriate to own other human beings. The abolitionists were few in number, but persisted despite the odds because it was a matter of principle: people of all races deserve freedom. The future of slavery should not be determined by a vote or by "state's rights".
Eventually the abhorrence of slavery became a majority belief and laws were a reflection of that as well. Those officials who still held on to the notion of slavery or Jim crow laws were the minority; in spite of what was "popular", they stuck to their principles no matter how repugnant they actually were. Just because most people thought it was immoral didn't mean it was.
Principles can be funny like that.
A funny example though since those trying to CHANGE the status quo are usually considered to be liberals not conservatives. I dont think anything in the study can be construed to say that Liberals dont have principles. Rather that they are less dogmatic and are willing to LOOK at new information. I cant think anyone would seriously consider Abolitionists to be the conservatives of their day. Rather they were the liberals of their day.
Impeding the process of our troops going home. They are not on vacation, and they are doing their job they signed up for. So when you send them home with half the job done, then what. Rush is a touch overboard on his comments, as always. The question is what happens when we leave with half the country in termoil. I mean does Iran finish the Job, does Egypt, Syria, ect. I don't believe they are ready to be abondend yet, what about the infrustructure..i.e. schools/utilities/hosp./ect. I don't think we are looking at the hole picture.
The soldiers cannot finish "the job" They already did their job; now they should come home.
It is condescending beyond belief to think that the Iraqis can't manage their own country. The reason BushCo doesn't want the troops out is simple. They are there to ensure that the corporate elites can loot and steal the oil. They still believe in their unfettered crony capitalism.
Exactly the military job was finished long ago. The problems left to solve are POLITICAL not military. A military is a broadsword not a scalpel. Trying to use IT to solve political problems no matter how big is like trying to use a chainsaw to perform brain surgery.