posted
In Gores' recent address he claims that Rush Limbaugh has public said that the torture in Abu Ghraib was a "brilliant maneuver" and that the photos were "good old American pornography," and that the actions portrayed were simply those of "people having a good time and needing to blow off steam."
I was in Australia for two weeks so I've been a bit out of touch and I've never followed Limbaugh but even as one of Limbaughs detractors I can't imagine that even he would have said such things.
Did he really say these things? If so, why aren't the moderates who listened to him for years crying to see his head on a platter?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
From what I've heard, Limbaugh has been making the point that while the prison abuses were really bad, if they had happened within an American fraternity, people would have laughed them off. He doesn't actually dismiss them as harmless, but he thinks that they are being trumped up by his political opponents only to make the Bush administration look bad, and not because his political opponents are actually all that horrified. He says that it is the moral permissiveness and depravity of the left that led to the soldiers feeling justified in behaving this way, and thinks it's ironic that the same people who encourage the removal of honor and decency from American culture are so shocked by the results.
Not saying I agree with him, of course. Just stating what I've heard him say.
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Having read about hazing in fraternities and in the military I doubt I'd laugh that off... But this is the same guy who thought Hiroshima was a good thing...
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Heh. Gotta love Rush. One of these days I want Bush to execute all the Jews in the country, if only to hear Limbaugh extole the greater efficiency of Bush compared to that depraved leftist sex fiend Hitler.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
as a long-time lefty, I find that comment about as absurd and disgusting as the kinds of things Rush says.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Heh. Gotta love Rush. One of these days I want Bush to execute all the Jews in the country, if only to hear Limbaugh extole the greater efficiency of Bush compared to that depraved leftist sex fiend Hitler.
posted
You mean that Limbaugh considers himself to be to the right of Hitler. I'm not suprised.
When I was a student at the U Dub (University of Washington) there was a hazing scandal involving one of the fraternities. The accusations were that pledges were being asked to stick their fists into the privates of Ewes. It was not laughed off. A major investigation was launched, and punishments were dealt out. I didn't follow the full thing that closely, but if my memory is correct the fraternity lost its license (or whatever they call that) and criminal charges were brought against several individules.
Limbaugh is simply wrong in claiming that Abu Ghraib stunts would have been laughed off by a fraternity but even if he were correct, I think that the comparison is ridiculous.
Acceptable requirements for willing pledges to an organization, are in no way the same as what is acceptable to require from prisoners. For example, it is perfectly acceptable for a private club to require its members to pledge their loyalty to Jesus Christ, but to require Islamic prisoners to do so is a clear violation of US and International Law.
If he thinks "it's ironic that the same people who encourage the removal of honor and decency from American culture are so shocked by the results." I'd like to know specifically who he is referring to. The people I know who are involved in progressive (i.e. leftist) politics are among the most honorable and decent people I know. They are good parents, dedicated teachers, charitable volunteers and commited members of the community. They are anything but supportors of hollywood ethics, most of them don't even own a TV set. They simply believe that "honor" and "decency" demand that we care for the poor, the sick and the inprisoned without regard to race, gender or religion. They think that "honor" and "decency" mean that we resolve conflicts peacefully and don't resort to violence whenever its convenient.
I recognize that not all of the left wing shares those values, just like not all of the right wing share Limbaugh's values, which is part of my point. For Limbaught to take every idea from everyone who is left of him and then say its ironic how inconsistent we are, is illogical in the extreme.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:RUSH: Exactly. Exactly my point! This is no different than what happens at the skull and bones initiation and we're going to ruin people's lives over it and we're going to hamper our military effort, and then we are going to really hammer them because they had a good time. You know, these people are being fired at every day. I'm talking about people having a good time, these people, you ever heard of emotional release? You of heard of need to blow some steam off?
And, Rabbit, the metaphor about heads and platters has definitely fallen out of use since the killing of Nick Berg.
(Seriously - Gary Trudeau published an apology for a strip that featured that as a joke - it ran after Berg's killing even though it had been completed and submitted a couple weeks before.)
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am fully aware of that sndrake and chose that metaphor intentionally. Any American who is using phrases like "brilliant maneuver" to describe what went on in Abu Ghraib is deserving of the outrage that Iraqis and other Arabs are feeling and which we certainly lead to the gruesome deaths of more of our soldiers. If Rush is saying those things, he should be the one on the ground in Iraq facing the wrath of the Iraqis.
[ May 29, 2004, 04:44 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, actually, I was out of line. In my defense, I'd like to point out that the barb in my post was directed at Limbaugh, not the Jewish population of the US -- I meant only to prove Godwin right and Limbaugh a whore, not provide anti-Semitic remarks.
posted
it's okay, jebus, you don't live in america. if you did, i'd hide you in my closet. no one looks there.
Posts: 3936 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
sorry - I wasn't sure how much of that news you had followed while on your trip. The exact timelines are beginning to blur for me.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
sndrake, No need to apologize. I was in Australia when Nick Berg's killing was in the news and heard little about it. I did read the disclaimers about the Doonesbury strip so I have been aware of the controversy. Perhaps my missing the reports of the killing has made me insensitive to the issue. If so I apologize.
Since I was attending an international conference in Sydney, I've had the opportunity to see first hand the reaction of people from all over the world. Gore hit the head on the nail. It will require years and much effort for us to recover our reputation. Comments like those made by Limbaugh are like pooring gasoline on a fire. They not only add to our collective shame, they endanger the lives of our men and women in Iraq.
Rush is correct about two thing. We are being held to a higher standard in this than much of the world, but this only fair. We are the ones who set the standard. We are the ones who claimed that we were liberating Iraq from oppression, bringing democracy, justice and human rights to this nation. We are not being asked to accept a double standard, we are merely being asked to live up to the standard we set.
Rush is right that "This is not about us: This is War." Which is precisely why War was a completely inappropriate means for ridding Iraq from Tyranny. This is why war is never acceptable as a diplomatic tool or in an effort to promote human rights. War always leads to a devastation of all that is good in humanity which is why War is only ever permissable in self defense -- once the enemies troops have already started firing on our homes. As Americans, we know this. This is why Bush had to use lies about WMDs and connections between Saddam and 9/11 to gain support for this war. This is why our adminstration current rhetoric about how Saddam's political prisons and mass graves alone justify the war will never be good enough.
[ May 29, 2004, 07:19 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:This is why war is never acceptable as a diplomatic tool or in an effort to promote human rights. War always leads to a devastation of all that is good in humanity which is why War is only ever permissable in self defense.
I find it hard to believe that anyone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances would be willing to limit it to self defense. It's an inherently selfish criteria - we can use force to defend ourselves, but we can't use force to defend others.
I'm not saying the Iraq war necessarily is the defense of others. I am saying that the first Iraq war to oust them from Kuwait was, however. Even if you don't accept that, I could construct a hypothetical that exposes the hypocrisy of your criteria very easily.
posted
Dagonee, Self-defense is a short summary of hundreds of years of treaties and philosophers that define the just war doctrine and not my personal stance. Personally, I would not kill even in self-defense, but I would also not condemn others who would. I think I could justify killing in the defense of innocent children after all other possibilities had been tried and failed.
War is killing taken to its most destructive extreme. It always results in the death of thousands of innocent people, the violation of human rights and unspeakable autrocities. Always. When we choose war, we choose those things which is why we should never choose war. Does this mean that I believe we are never justified in fighting a war? No. There are times when war comes not by our choice. When Hitlers tanks rolled into Poland, when Napoleans troops marched into Russia, when Turks laid siege to Vienna, those people had no choice but war.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:War always leads to a devastation of all that is good in humanity which is why War is only ever permissable in self defense -- once the enemies troops have already started firing on our homes.
Always and never are words used too often, I think.
Edit:
quote:Personally, I would not kill even in self-defense, but I would also not condemn others who would. I think I could justify killing in the defense of innocent children after all other possibilities had been tried and failed.
Well, hopefully you will never have to test that assertion-and that's all it is at this point. And frankly, you do condemn those who would kill in self-defense...if they do it before 'all other possibilities have been tried and failed', that is.
quote:When Hitlers tanks rolled into Poland, when Napoleans troops marched into Russia, when Turks laid siege to Vienna, those people had no choice but war.
So 'peace in our time' was, in your opinion, the right thing to do? Had that abortion in diplomacy never been used, millions of lives and trillions of dollars would have been saved.
posted
Oh, and as for Limbaugh...he was, is, and in all likelihood will continue to be a demagogue, blowhard, hypocrite, and jackass, both believed in and used as a standard by fools.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Man. I need to learn to finish in a single post
quote:I think I could justify killing in the defense of innocent children after all other possibilities had been tried and failed.
(italics mine)
I think that if you refrained from killing in, say, defense of innocent children, you would have made a selfish, illogical, and evil choice. Because you would be valuing your own stainlessness above the lives of innocents.
But then again, I don't think you'd really have to think about it. I think you would kill in defense of children as soon as you thought trying other methods endangered them. I think statements like, "Oh, I'd fight the mugger / burglar / rapist / soldier," or, "I'd never do such and such," are statements made about trials by fire. They are events that by their very nature cannot be foretold, only guessed at.
The best those of us can do who haven't been through them is say, "I hope I would fight, or kill, or refrain from killing."
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Yeah, actually, I was out of line. In my defense, I'd like to point out that the barb in my post was directed at Limbaugh, not the Jewish population of the US -- I meant only to prove Godwin right and Limbaugh a whore, not provide anti-Semitic remarks.
My apologies, dudes.
Man, you totally folded.
::makes "L" shape out of thumb and forefinger::
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yah, I put Rush on for entertainment value...and to get my blood boiling! Arrrgh. Rush would be apologetic to anything that happened in the Bush Whitehouse or during his administration. What is constantly hilarious is how Rush can STILL tie any Bush concerns with the Clinton Whitehouse. When the Abu Ghraib scandal broke, he said it wasn't as bad as having sex with an intern. He then went on to say the things posted above. He still ridicules the abuse as being no worse that "men with panties on their heads," meaning that he either hasn't read the reports (doubtful) or he is simply the tool of the Rebublicans doing what is expected of him (more likely).
Ugh. Not sure why I still turn the show on, but I can't resist. I keep waiting for him to go, "Dang, people! Bush is a ninny! Aaaaaaah!" but I doubt that will happen. I know he is a shill of the Republicans, but I bet Rush would LOVE to have Kerry win. His ratings probably were never better when he had Clinton in office. He misses having the easy target.
quote:Always and never are words used too often, I think.
Always and never maybe over used none the less, there are times when their use is appropriate. Murder always result in death. War always results in devastation. If you disagree, prove it. Show me a war that did not cause devastation.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think at this point in his career, Mr. Limbaugh will say anything that generates enough attention to warrant his presence in the media.
When a fraternity loses it's license, it actually loses its "Charter" and cannot actively recruit or meet during this period of charter revocation.
Thirdly, I would never wish any group: ethnic, religious or otherwise be killed just to hear some self-important radio personality make a comment that I might find enjoyable.
Lalo, I think I get the gist of your comment, but it has the potential to offend. You might want to retract that one.
Posts: 1870 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Show me a war that did not cause devastation.
I cannot, but fortunately that was never the point I was trying to make-that war does not cause horrendous devastation in both lives and other, non-irreplaceable areas.
But there are worse things, and that is my point. Your philosophy-'diplomacy until it is absolutely, undeniably, hopeless'-could be said to have led to one of them, i.e. the Holocaust.
Selfish-and stupid-American isolationism (based largely on, "It's not our problem," but also in part on, "War is just too awful.") prior to Pearl Harbor might also have prevented it, as well as prevented other things. Hiroshima and Nagasaki, for example.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki became necessary only because of the Doolittle/etc firebombing raids on Tokyo and other Japanese cities*. War crimes which convinced both the Japanese military and the average citizen that only suicidal resistance (including kamikazee) to USmilitary might could possibly delay Japan's inevitable surrender** sufficiently to lead to a negotiated settlement. MacArthur's battle tactics*** didn't help either.
Use of the atomic bombs was seen as a demonstration of America's ability&willingness to squash Japanese cities with the physical&moral ease*** of a child smashing an anthill. Which undoubtedly saved many many more Japanese lives by convincing them that any resistance was totally futile, and that an immediate unconditional surrender was the best course.
* Arson (an automatic torture&death penalty crime in preModern Japan) which killed many times more civilians than the A-bombings. The PearlHarbor attack killed a handful of civilians.
** There was never the slightest chance of anything other than delay after PearlHarbor: the US industrial base was ~20times that of Japan; and ~5times that of Germany.
*** The Japanese were unaware that MacArthur had convince US military planners and civilian decision makers that the myth of all Japanese soldiers' willingness&desire to die rather than surrender was true. Or of the tremendous effort that went into making those three bombs, which were all that were available at the time. Or that Truman didn't fully comprehend -- through the first A-bomb's effect on a desert -- the level of devastation that would be visited upon the cities.
posted
What about the fact that the only really viable landing zone on the Japanese mainland was the best-defended beach on the planet, at the time? Don't be so quick to write off the tactical benefits of causing abrupt and total destruction to force an opponent into submission, when the alternative is either as bloody or more bloody.
As far as Rush is concerned, Franken hit it on the nose--He's a big fat idiot. I have a friend who's very conservative (he's from a conservative family, so I'm not going to hold it against him ), and occasionally Rush's TV show ends up on the TV (after some news-network programming or something), and I can't help but have a rant about Rush right there.
posted
Yes, well, I was trying to avoid a discussion on the decision to use atomic weapons against Japan. A willingness to go to war before Pearl Harbor might well have prevented Hiroshima and Nagasaki, not necessarily directly but indirectly through the radically altered course of events.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
), and occasionally Rush's TV show ends up on the TV (after some news-network programming or something), and I can't help but have a rant about Rush right there.
