Hour 3: Fill-in Steyn calls Obama "the world's oldest 13-year-old" for his comments on nuclear weapons
This
hour of the Limbaugh Wire brought to you by Princess Fluffy Bunny Obama
By Simon Maloy
Steyn got the final hour started by proclaiming that Obama is "way out of his league," as evidenced by his desire to be "community organizer in chief." Steyn was referring to Obama's speech in Prague, in which he called for a "world without nuclear weapons." Obama's comments, according to Steyn, were "beyond pitiful" and made him sound like "the world's oldest 13-year-old." We can only assume that Steyn feels the same way about George Shultz, William J. Perry, Henry Kissinger and Sam Nunn, who last year issued their own call for "A World Free of Nuclear Weapons." Anyway, then Steyn went on to suggest that a nuclear weapon will be used before Obama's time in office is over: "America is the only country that has used nuclear weapons, by the way, so far -- and those are two important words -- because if we get through Obama's term without somebody else using them, that club could be looking a lot less exclusive by the time we get to the end of the Obama administration."
After a quick break, Steyn brought up yet another story that's moved beyond its point of freshness -- reports from last week that the White House accidentally put the number for a phone-sex line on a press release. Steyn managed to breathe some new life into it though: "[I]t's the rest of the world that is getting nasty and that it would be fine if, like, the -- if the White House is going to give out these phone-sex numbers, if the White House is in the, like, dominatrix role, but, right now, it seems to be the rest of the world getting nasty and we're the ones hanging upside down in the bondage dungeon being flogged and humiliated by the rest of the planet."
Then Steyn took yet another call from a man upset at Obama over North Korea and nuclear weapons. Steyn kept it predictable, ranting a little more about how the Russians and Chinese and Iranians are laughing at Obama, he's projecting weakness, etc. Steyn moved on to another call, this one from a college student claiming that it's always the responsibility of Republican presidents to clean up the foreign policy messes begun by Democrats, and, as a consequence, Republicans end up looking like the "mean" party. While we were double-checking the party affiliations of George W. Bush and Barack Obama vis-à-vis the Iraq war, Steyn pronounced that he liked this caller's thinking, explaining: "OK, we are mean. It's a mean world and, sometimes, you need to be mean there if the alternative is Princess Fluffy Bunny wandering around all over the planet pledging to surrender American nuclear weapons."
After another break, Steyn and a caller had a good laugh over the fact that Obama, at his news conference in Strasbourg, said: "It was also interesting to see that political interaction in Europe is not that different from the United States Senate. There's a lot of -- I don't know what the term is in Austrian -- wheeling and dealing." There's no such language as Austrian, they clucked. Steyn went on to attack Obama for extolling others to learn to speak a foreign language when he's hasn't done so himself, despite having so many opportunities to do so while attending elite schools. Obama actually has studied foreign languages, though he's not fluent: "Obama picked up Bahasa as a child living in Indonesia and took some Spanish classes in high school and college."
Moving on, Steyn got into an argument with a caller who thought it was "wrong" and "dangerous" for Steyn to say that Obama is getting "rolled" over for the North Korean missile launch. The caller suspected that Steyn would be singing a very different tune if the U.S. had shot down the missile and North Korea invaded South Korea in response. Quite naturally, this devolved into an argument about the invasion of Iraq, with Steyn proclaiming that the reasons we went into Iraq don't matter, it's the result of the invasion that are important. We must say that for someone who appears very concerned about Obama's -- and by extension America's -- credibility on the world stage, Steyn seemed awfully blasé about one of the chief reasons the world casts a wary eye on the U.S. Anyway, Steyn turned all this into an attack on foreign policy "realism," claiming that "serious" national powers "lose credibility" if they allow themselves to be "mocked and nibbled away with impunity." Once again -- invading a country to find non-existent WMDs? Irrelevant. Unchecked mockery and "nibbling"? A serious threat to "credibility."
Steyn closed out the show with a caller who subscribed to Steyn's theory of American Exceptionalism, which boiled down to doing the opposite of what the European Union does. Steyn professed concern because he sees America "embracing" the "death spiral" that is afflicting Canada and Europe, returning to his birth rate argument from earlier in the program.
Well, that's it for us. Rush will be back tomorrow, and we have to say that after three hours of bondage jokes and "Princess Fluffy Bunny," we're actually kind of looking forward to getting back to teleprompter jokes and regular-old "dunce" Obama. And if tomorrow is just too long to wait for your Rush fix, you'd do well to check out Media Matters' highly addictive Limbaugh coverage.
Highlights from Hour 3
Outrageous comments
STEYN: If you were to sit down and design as weak a response to the North Korean test as could be devised, then for the president of the United States to stand up and say he believes in a world without nuclear weapons and that America ought to lead the way because America is the only country that has used nuclear weapons, by the way, so far -- and those are two important words -- because if we get through Obama's term without somebody else using them, that club could be looking a lot less exclusive by the time we get to the end of the Obama administration.
[...]
STEYN: You cannot un-invent nuclear weapons. Instead, what's happened is that anybody who's got the cell phone number of A.Q. Khan in Pakistan and has a few bits and parts that have managed to come his way in the mail from some former Soviet Republic, one of these no-name stans in Central Asia where there's all kinds of bits of Soviet this and Soviet that lying around -- today, anyone can join the nuclear club. You don't have to be a world power.
And so, as I said in the first hour, we're moving into a world, which is absurd on its face, where wealthy nations have no means of defending themselves and basket-case states are going nuclear. And yet, Obama stands up as the world's oldest 13-year-old -- stands up in public and commits himself to a world without nuclear weapons.
[...]
STEYN: Did you see that story the other day? The White House offered this special on-the-record briefing call for journalists with Hillary Rodham Clinton, the secretary of State, and they gave the phone number that you're supposed to call in to have your on-the-record briefing call and, unfortunately, they gave the wrong number out. This is true. They gave the wrong number out, and the gentlemen of the press were greeted by this darkly seductive voice, clearly not Secretary Clinton, offering them phone sex and seeking their credit card if they feel like getting nasty. And of course, you know, the White House subsequently corrected it and gave out the new number.
But the -- but what just strikes you is that right now, it's the rest of the world that is getting nasty and that it would be fine if, like, the -- if the White House is going to give out these phone-sex numbers, if the White House is in the, like, dominatrix role, but, right now, it seems to be the rest of the world getting nasty and we're the ones hanging upside down in the bondage dungeon being flogged and humiliated by the rest of the planet.
[...]
STEYN: If you're designated as the mean, evil party, you might as well run with it. Thanks a lot for your call, Matt, and I wish you well in your studies. And thanks for pointing out to Shahab the many areas in which Shahab might be in for disappointment for the Obama years, but, yeah, that's the thing.
OK, we are mean. It's a mean world and, sometimes, you need to be mean there if the alternative is Princess Fluffy Bunny wandering around all over the planet pledging to surrender American nuclear weapons.
















"Then Steyn took yet another call from a man upset at Obama over North Korea and nuclear weapons. Steyn kept it predictable, ranting a little more about how the Russians and Chinese and Iranians are laughing at Obama, he's projecting weakness, etc."
Hmmm . . . I seem to recall NK launched a missile back in 2006 {coincidentally, on the 4th of July} . . . I seem to recall this was not too long after Bush referred to NK as the third member of the "Axis of Evil" . . . but funny thing: I don't recall Steyn - or anyone else - saying how the Russians, Chinese, and Iranians were laughing at Bubble Boy, and that he was projecting weakness. I wonder why . . .
.
That's easy. Bush labeled them, which is how rightwingers project strength.
You're right, snoop; I forgot.
Just like that guy yesterday on this blog who claimed that when a Limbaugh fan refers to himself as a "dittohead", he's actually mocking somebody else.
The wingnut thought process: a strange thing indeed.
You can't be that dense. Well, maybe you can be. I'll type this real slow for you. When a fan of Rush calls himself a "Dittohead," he's making fun of all the liberals out there who believe that Rush's fans are a bunch of mind-numbed robots who just parrot what he says. It's kind of like the guys who used to call him and claim to be 'a lesbian trapped in a male body.' But then, you have to have a sense of humor to appreciate humor, I guess.
Steyn is not as humorous as Rush, but he is 'spot on' accurate in his analysis of what is happening in Europe, England and Canada. We are involved in a battle for the future of freedom across the globe. Internally, moral relativism is eroding freedom at an alarming rate, and internationally, Islamists are expanding their imperialistic power. Meanwhile, Obama is speaking of disarmament. Did anyone note how receptive Iran was to Obama's 'outstreched hand' today? What Steyn is arguing against is a society that flogs young women for going out of their houses.
As to cpinva below, people who read know that Mark Steyn is an internationally acclaimed columnist. You ought to try reading sometime. It's rather educational.
The problem with Obama's response: to go to the UN Security Council - is that they, not unsurprisingly, did nothing, and will do nothing. That is 'no stick,' not a 'big stick.' Millions of people in South Korea, Japan and perhaps Taiwan are now under nuclear threat from some of the most crazy and paranoid people on the planet. Since the end of WWII, we have promised our Asian Rim allies our protection. Looks like Obama plans on reneging on that promise. Makes you proud to be an American, doesn't it?
Your post might have been much more effective had not you suggested the previous writer was uneducated and illiterate. Reminds me of teenagers who gasp when you don't know their favorite band. Not everyone loves Rush. Calling someone "internationally acclaimed" is also amusing. Perhaps you'll recall Rula Lenska, INTERNATIONAL Star of Stage and Screen!
Dittohead originally came from Rush asking callers to just say the word "ditto" instead of clogging up the calls with groveling introductory praise for the host. I don't know whether it was the audience or Rush who coined dittohead, but the term has come be defined as someone who agrees with everything Rush tells them. I'd be ashamed to call myself a dittohead of anybody. Next time someone calls you a dittohead, tell them.......
spoken like a true reichwinger...
"When a fan of Rush calls himself a "Dittohead," he's making fun of all the liberals out there who believe that Rush's fans are a bunch of mind-numbed robots who just parrot what he says." - edrossinoelwein9669
And yet . . . strangely enough, that's exactly what you did [below], when you repeated Steyn's [fill in for Rush] characterization of Obama as a "13-year old" . . .
.
I'm sure we all are aware the Steyn is a Canadian citizen, living, legally, I assume, in New Hampshire.
Explain to me again why any American should listen to a foreigner with a forced British accent when it comes to US politics. Now, if he became a citizen then he may have some clout. But, until then, he's just another whiner.
Remember when the Chinese didn't knock down one of our planes and didn't hold the crew hostage, because BUSH was President at the time? You can bet that if Clinton or Obama or any of those other Democrat fairies had been President, they would have held the crew for days and then sent the plane back to us in crates.
Remember also when terrorists didn't dare touch us when Bush was President? Remember how they didn't fly planes into skyscrapers, because they were afraid of our retaliation? If Clinton or Obama had been in charge, you can bet we would have been hit by terrorists between 2001 and 2009.
This is why we should never elect Democrats. Our Enemies simply do not respect them.
I believe the terrorists flew into the World Trade Center WHEN Bush was President. I believe it was a Democrat in charge when we defeated Hitler. Again, the teen theme seems to be lurking around here. I love this logic though. Conveniently blame democrats for starting a war, then puff up your macho republican feathers. Make up your mind.
Wow. For a group that despises Rush and Steyn so much, you certainly do spend a great deal of time listening to them, reading about them, then posting about them. How does the expression go? "Me thinks you doth protest too much."
There's another expression.
"Methinks thou thinkest not at all."
Ahhhhh... Shakespeare. And Hamlet no less. Quite appropriate too don't you think?
Queen Gertrude is refering to a character in a play who represents her. Remember "the play is the thing" that would be her and Hamlet's uncle's undoing. He would find the truth by observing their responses. Upon asking his mother how she was enjoying the play, she responds with one of the most quotable lines in all of his plays.
Sadly this is almost always misquoted, or misued if you prefer, because the word "protest" has changed since it was written. Today we almost unfailingly use it to mean that the guilty person protests so much as to lose credibility. Funny, you do not use this phrase when referring to the protests of Mr Steyn and Mr Limbaugh about the current administration... but, that's not my point.
When it was written into the play, the word "protest" actually meant "vow" or "to declare openly/solemnly." This is why I think that the quote is so important, even by your usage.
Rush/Steyn/Hannity/O'REily etc... this is Queen Gertrude and the traitorous Uncle
Media Matters is the play that will lead to their undoing
The rest of us are Hamlet, watching their responses and looking for the evidence to confirm our suspicions of guilt.
I believe this comment of Steyn's may well be a prime example of the almost completely reactionary nature of today's conservatives, because I read a blog post comment at HuffingtonPost.com the other day claiming that today's conservatives appear to be operating at the level of twelve-year-olds.
Likewise, after a comment here at Media Matters likened Rush Limbaugh to the owner of Nevada's [Mustang?] Bunny Ranch brothel, suddenly FOX News claimed Nevada Senator Harry Reid was advocating funding for a train to ... guess where ... the infamous Bunny Ranch.
Obama sounded like a 13 year old in Prague. Nuclear armaments are here and won't go away just because 'good' people want them to. He is naive if he thinks he can eliminate nuclear bombs by disarming the US. And he is more than naive if he thinks that goodwill will cause the Iranians and the North Koreans and the Chinese and the Russians to disarm. Enacting treaties that won't be enforced might be a liberal feel good ploy, but it won't do anything but encourage rogue states and terrorist organizations to acquire and use nuclear weapons.
Do you honestly think Obama would disarm the US before everyone else? If so, welcome to wing nut world.
Reagan called for dissolution of nuclear weapons as well. God, how could a liberal like Reagan do such a thing?
Is it so bad, really, to try and attain no nuclear weapons for anyone? Destroy them all? Yeah, it's not, but don't be so ignorant as to think OBama is going to get rid of ours before anyone else. That's just stupid thinking.
What gives you any confidence that he won't? Is it because he has advocated virtual surrender in Iraq since he came on the national scene? Perhaps his less than robust response to Noth Korea last week? His decision to call terrorist acts 'man-made disasters?' His waffling on our promises to eastern Europe of a missle shield? His refusal to acknowledge that at least a part of Islam is at war with us? Perhaps it's his historical ignorance? Perhaps it's his arrogance?
Bolten accurately called Obama's speech in Prague "naive," "arrogant,' and "historically ignorant." Ironically, while Obama was calling for disarmament, North Korea was demonstrating their ability to put millions of our allies at risk of nuclear attack. Iran mocked him. We are about to witness the largest escalation of nuclear capability in the history of that weaponry. Hand wringing and naivete are not worth much when face to face with evil.
That's what we have Intelligence for, so called rogue states. By the way, Mark Steyn is not an internationally claimed columnist. He's a relatively unknown movie critic, originally from the UK and I believe he resides in Canada now. Why take a foreigners opinion? I thought the conservatives didn't care what the rest of the world thought. He wrote columns in the Chicago Sun-Times for awhile but most people thought he was less than enlightening.
I really don't care where Mr. Steyn resides, though I believe he now resides in the US. What I care about are his ideas. He is accurately describing and warning against the virtual surrender of western civilization to barbarians. And he does so with wit and humor. Your idea that conservatives don't care what foreigners think is just an ignorant prejudice on your part.
"you're either with us or you're against us". That's about the extent of conservatives caring about what foreigners think...
Thank you for sharing your bigotry.
Perhaps you can describe for us a scenario in which you believe a nuclear response of anykind is an appropriate response.
I will save you the trouble of refering to the two that we used to finally end WWII. Please remember that these two nukes were the equivilant of flatulents in the wind compared to conventional nukes today... though I don't think the folks of two Japanese cities would agree to that analogy.
So saving a long and costly war that has left us with no other option, what scenario do you see us using a nuclear weapon?
I would also be interested to hear your take on what should be the appropriate response by the international community towards us, after having used a nuclear weaopn to settle a disspute, should be.
MAD worked in the Cold war - it was a lousy idea, but it worked. I don't think that the Iranians, the Taliban, Al Qaida, et al, are going to be dissuaded by nuclear threat. That being said, unilateral disarmament just sets us up for nuclear blackmail.
I think Obama's supposition that the possession of nuclear weapons inevitably means the use of them is false. He is just too pessimistic about US power and leadership.
I do believe that Iran and North Korea intend to use the weapons they develop. If terrorists get them, I think they will use them. I think China and Pakistan are capable of using nuclear weapons given the right opportunity. But the weapons we have developed are for deterrence, not aggression.
I can see Iran, having put a nuke into Israel, and threatening another, perhaps needing the application of nuclear weapons to stop further aggression. But it's a last resort, not a first response.
PLease explain. In particular, how would we be more vulnerable to blackmail (I'm assuming you are refering to political pressure or something along those lines)because another country posesses a nuclear weapon and we do not?
Any particular city that you have in mind within the country of Iran? The capital? One of its larger cities? Do you go for a high body count to make a point or is it strategic? Say, a city next to a millitary installation? Maybe you go right at the heart and bomb an important religious city wiping out centuries old monuments, masques, holy places and the like?
Perhaps you are thinking something on a little more larger scale. Multiple targets and installations. Let there be no doubt that the enemy has been defeated. Strike at the heart of their government, their infrastructure, their history, and even their population in one swoop. It would take only seconds for it to be over.
Then why do we need more than three thousand of them if it is a last resort?
I am neither a military tactician nor a student of international warfare. I have no desire to see any nuclear weapon used. if you care to speculate on those things, feel free.
My point is that if we surrender our leadership in that arena, someone else will be the leader there, and we probably won't like the outcome. Disarming the US isn't going to make nuclear weapons go away, and it is naive to think that it will.
If there are going to be nuclear weapons in the world, I'd rather the US have them than anyone else. At least the US has a history of respect for life and responsible governance.
Do you think the world would be safer if the US had no nuclear warheads?
I am afraid that you are correct. We are certainly the leader in this arena. Now, I am sure you are refering us to being the leader in the technology, or leader in our possesion and strategic deployment of our nuclear arsenal... and you would be correct. We are certainly ahead of everyone else in this regard. Of course that makes us number one in the weapons of mass destruction arena too.
How did you feel about bullies in the park? Wasn't much fun... unless you were one. (Not you in particular... I don't know you from Adam. More of a metaphorical you.)
Of course you would. It is only natural to be the one who wields the biggest stick. I'm afraid it is also kind of the point too.
How can you say that, knowing we launched two of these weapons in our history? The ONLY times these weapons have EVER been used is by us. In comparison to all the other countries in the world, our track record is the worst.
I am sure there are plenty citizens of Japan who would have opinions on the matter.
So, the US is a 'bully in the park?' We have the worst track record on respect for human life? Do you really think the US is evil?