Rush Limbaugh on the Iraqi prisoner abuse scandal:
- LIMBAUGH: I think a lot of the American culture is being feminized. I think the reaction to the stupid torture is an example of the feminization of this country.
Ahh. So all of the high-profile conservative bloggers who denounced the abuse are a bunch of wimps. I just MUST email John Cole and Citizen Smash.....And more:
- The thing though that continually amazes - here we have these pictures of homoeroticism that look like standard good old American pornography, the Britney Spears or Madonna concerts or whatever, and yet the Libs upset about the mistreatment of these prisoners thought nothing of sitting back while mass graves were being filled with three to 500,000 Iraqis during the Saddam Hussein regime.
I'm waiting for the tie-in with Bill & Hillary...We digress:
- All right, so we're at war with these people. And they're in a prison where they're being softened up for interrogation. And we hear that the most humiliating thing you can do is make one Arab male disrobe in front of another. Sounds to me like it's pretty thoughtful. Sounds to me in the context of war this is pretty good intimidation - and especially if you put a woman in front of them and then spread those pictures around the Arab world.
- And we're sitting here, "Oh my God, they're gonna hate us! Oh no! What are they gonna think of us?" I think maybe the other perspective needs to be at least considered. Maybe they're gonna think we are serious. Maybe they're gonna think we mean it this time. Maybe they're gonna think we're not gonna kowtow to them. Maybe the people who ordered this are pretty smart. Maybe the people who executed this pulled off a brilliant maneuver. Nobody got hurt. Nobody got physically injured. But boy there was a lot of humiliation of people who are trying to kill us - in ways they hold dear. Sounds pretty effective to me if you look at us in the right context.
Fortunately, this doesn't represent mainstream Republican and certainly not mainstream conservative thinking. We will not characterize this kind of thinking — but you can do it for us... in the comment box below.
.jpg?t=20120527181101)
Article comments
1 - Eric Olsen
Sounds like Rush is hitting the oyxcontin again.
1) we're supposed to be the good guys
2) it's their country
3) there are allegations of much more abuse than just humiliation, including murder
4) you show them you are serious by dispassionately doing your job and following the rules
2 - jack e. jett
Soon Rush will be placing the blame on "the gay agenda", or nipplegate.
I didn't find anything effeminate about the photos of prison abuse. Looked pretty butch to me.
jack e. jett
3 - James Golden
I think you are all being a bit overly sensitive here. Rush's comments could be certainly read into as obnoxious, but his point still stands. We as a nation have become a bunch of hand-wringing fools. And you can be absolutely sure that al qaeda does not look at our handwringing as an excersize in liberty and free thought, they view it strictly as weakness.
All of our "discussions" about whether we are doing the right thing in Iraq, and whether we should pull out, and whether Bush is worse than Saddam, they show our enemy that we can be easily swayed, they show our weak constitution. Ultimately, this discussion emboldens the enemy and takes lives on both sides of the conflict.
I know alot of you will respond to my comments calling me a neo con or a bush agent or whatever, but I know the soul of people who do evil. There is no question that our partisan bickering has ended up costing both American and Iraqi lives, and it will continue to do so.
As bad as we've treated those Iraqi's that were mistreated (not all were mistreated, although we have no real idea of how widespread it was), we have to remember the mentality on the ground. This is a war zone, people are dying, others are trying to take advantage of the situation, and still others are just trying to live their lives. This type of situation can breed all types of responses that in a normal situation would never occurr.
All I am saying is that while you are sitting at your job or your home having this stimulating intellectual debate about how terrible this was or how horrendus that was, lets bear in mind that we really have no clue, and there are people out there mired in this right now. No one should be throwing stones.
4 - James Golden
And let me just add, as shrill as you all want to be about us terrible post cons or neo cons or whatever label you give those of us who knew that this was a war going in, the statement:
"and yet the Libs upset about the mistreatment of these prisoners thought nothing of sitting back while mass graves were being filled with three to 500,000 Iraqis during the Saddam Hussein regime."
is painfully true. The contradictions of the democratic party during this time of war are disgusting. I live in NYC, so I get first hand viewing privileges to the famous "limousine liberals." They do exist and its a disgrace. Sell the limo and find just one underpriviliged young boy (there are plenty in NYC) and give that money to his or her college fund.
I voted dem before, will I make that mistake again? Not if they keep acting like this.
5 - Shark
"...Libs upset about the mistreatment of these prisoners thought nothing of sitting back while mass graves were being filled with three to 500,000 Iraqis during the Saddam Hussein regime."
Shark shakes head while looking at photo of Rumsfeld smiling and shaking hands with Saddam Hussein.
PS: Golden, You're SO macho! I loved your justification of torture. Can you stoop lower, or is that as despicable as you get?
6 - Shark
Golden: "And you can be absolutely sure that al qaeda does not look at our handwringing as an excersize in liberty and free thought, they view it strictly as weakness."
Your "handwringing" used to be known as "public debate in an open democracy." Sorry you have a problem with that.
BTW: Since when does anyone give a flying fuck what Al Kayda thinks?
If you do, Golden, that only shows weakness.
[heh.]
7 - Hal Pawluk
Golden: "and yet the Libs upset about the mistreatment of these prisoners thought nothing of sitting back while mass graves were being filled with three to 500,000 Iraqis during the Saddam Hussein regime." ... is painfully true. The contradictions of the democratic party during this time of war are disgusting.
Not so fast, JG - pictures from the time most of the kiling happened show Rumsfeld the Republican shaking hands with and smiling at Saddam , and that time was during the Ronald Reagan and George Bush (The Lower Father) Republican administrations (when America was selling Weapons of Mass Destruction to Saddam).
How on earth do you hook that to the Democrats?
8 - Hal Pawluk
Golden: I get first hand viewing privileges to the famous "limousine liberals." They do exist and its a disgrace. Sell the limo and find just one underpriviliged young boy
You might take a closer look at those limos.
You'll find Tom Delay, Bill Frist, Newt Gingrich, Vin Webber, and huge numbers of supposed "conservatives" in many of them.
Perks of power, don'cha know.
9 - boomcrashbaby
I get first hand viewing privileges to the famous "limousine liberals." They do exist and its a disgrace
Why is it a disgrace? If they made money, it's through capitalism, that we so admire. (I'm a proud pro-capitalist liberal myself). They don't want individuals to help the poor, they want society too. Of which they are a part. Sounds like a far truer definition of Christianity than what conservatives bellow, if you ask me.
10 - Shark
Hal: "You might take a closer look at those limos. You'll find Tom Delay, Bill Frist..."
You might take a closer look at Bill Frist; when he leans a certain way, you can see metal bolts in his neck.
"~It's AAAAALLLLLIIIIIIIIIIIIIIVE!"
11 - James Golden
First off, if you actually read my comment, you would know I was quoting Rush. Nowhere in my comments do I support the torture of ANYONE. So please before you say something like that, be sure you are right.
Secondly, while debate is democratic, we are at WAR. America changes during a war, usually we have the sense to put the bickering aside and focus on the task at hand. In this case, the task is to establish a free Iraq.
Thirdly, you keep mentioning the Rumsfeld photo. This was a photo taken in the 80's and while it was cute and funny two years ago, the fact is that Rumsfeld has engineered the invasion of Iraq and the capture of Saddam. So while at one time 20+ years ago, he may have reached out to Saddam diplomatically, obviously Rumsfeld would not do so today.
I wonder how many photos there are of Saddam paling around with the leaders of the very Sec Counsel countries that would have vetoed our invasion of Iraq? Those pictures to me would be much more relevent and telling.
Point is, drop the photo, its not helping your argument.
Finally, the problem with the limosuine libs is that they talk about how we use too much energy, yet they have a limo, three SUV's and a bentley (9 MPG). They talk about how healthcare is terrible, but they spend their money at Mt. Siani, not elmhurst hospital. How many of these people send their kids to public schools or take out books from the library? Yet they do not support vouchers? Yes, they want society to fix the problems, not just them, but the reality is that the top 25% of earners pay 84% of taxes received by the government (and the numbers do not get better the higher the earner). So actually, it is already on them. Excuse me for seeing this as a disgrace when you go ten blocks above the upper east side of manhattan into spanish harlem and see how people really live.
12 - James Golden
And yes, many republicans ride in limos, because they are rich. And thats fine, they aren't pushing for tax increases, they won with capitalism and they are staying with capitalism. That makes perfect sense to me.
13 - Hal Pawluk
Golden: Secondly, while debate is democratic, we are at WAR.
No, we're not.
The war in Iraq is over. What we see now is an insurgency against an occupying force in a nation that doesn't want it there.
The photo of Rumsfeld with Saddam is relevant because it shows the opportunism of the hard right. When it was convenient, they sold weapons of mass destruction to Saddam; when he got unmanageable and no longer supported their interests, they took him out.
And your stats are spreading wrong data about taxes that people actually pay on their incomes - I'll be starting a series on this in a week or so. One major aspect is that there needs to be an understanding that there's a distinction between "income tax" and "tax on income" - the reality is a different picture from the one the right paints. My tentative working title is: "Taxes - the right is wrong" (that may have already been used).
14 - boomcrashbaby
the top 25% of earners pay 84% of taxes received by the government
This claim made, of course, without any reference to back it up, to which I can only respond:
pee-shaw.
15 - James Golden
Here is your reference. I don't BS.
http://www.house.gov/jec/tax.htm
here is an article I wrote on the topic:
http://www.mbgz.com/view_commentary.html?commentary_id=15
Note that people who fall into the top 25% of earners are making as little as 55K a year. The tax cuts helped those making as little as 40K a year. Who else deserves a cut really? Those who don't pay taxes?
16 - James Golden
Here are the links LINKED:
http://www.house.gov/jec/tax.htm
http://www.mbgz.com/view_commentary.html?commentary_id=15
I looked at your link. Including excise tax? Lets get real sir. I am linking to the House.
17 - James Golden
Here is another interesting link (that I detail in my article)
Recent NYTimes survey that shows Rich and Poor pay the same percentagewise - about 18% of income
Thats the NYTimes saying this.
18 - James Golden
One other thing, Hal we ARE still at war. How can you claim that we are not?
The war in Iraq was never declared "over" and the war on terror certainly is not over.
Also this:
"When it was convenient, they sold weapons of mass destruction to Saddam; when he got unmanageable and no longer supported their interests, they took him out."
True, when he was unmanageable and when he was no longer supporting humane and rational interests, we decided he was a threat. That was 12 years ago. WHAT IS YOUR POINT?
We didn't install Saddam and everything including the photo with rumsfeld and the exchange of weapons is known as DIPLOMACY which is practiced among all nations. Again, I wonder how many weapons were given to Saddam by the very SEC COUNSEL countries that would have vetoed our invasion. That would be much more interesting and relevant to this discussion than some photo that is 20+ years old showing the very man who is responsible for his capture.
And yes, there is a difference between income tax and taxing income. But the fact is, ALL income is taxed, and in some cases (i.e. dividend tax) it is taxed TWICE.
Yes, there are rich people like the fine gentleman behind Berkshire Hathaway who can leverage their worth to buy pretty much anything on credit, never collect paychecks and therefor never actually have to pay any taxes on income as their income is the equity in their company. I don't support loopholes like this, but as long as there are "wealth redistribution" systems like the EITC, I am not going to get too upset about those few rich people who climbed the ladder and are enjoying the benefits of our extremely obtuse tax law.
If you call for a flat tax, I'll call it even.
19 - Hal Pawluk
Golden: That was 12 years ago. WHAT IS YOUR POINT?
The point is that 12 years ago is exactly when Saddam had the WMD's and when he was doing his mass killing. If neocons can use that kind of data as an excuse for an invasion, so can opponents.
As for taxes, the fact is that 74% of taxpayers pay more in FICA taxes on their income than they do in income tax. Talking about and cutting only income tax is a way to give more tax cuts to the rich. They do no good whatsoever for those the Wall Street Journal calls the "Lucky Duckies," those who don't earn enough to pay income taxes (aren't they lucky, though? We should all be so lucky, right?). Those lucky people still pay 15.2% on their earnings and all the income tax cuts in the world aren't going to help them.
Anyhow, that's it from me on taxes for now. When I post my series, we can hash the issue out in a more fact-filled environment.
And a tip - shouting (all caps) is generally seen as an acknowledgment of weakness in an argument.
20 - James Golden
"The point is that 12 years ago is exactly when Saddam had the WMD's and when he was doing his mass killing."
Following that, what proof did you have that the weapons had been destroyed? I hear it all the time that he had no WMD's yet you acknowledge that he had them 12 years ago. What would make you think that suddenly he got rid of them? The UN, the US and ALL of the member nations would disagree with you on this point, as they all thought he had them.
Remember that the only disagreement in the security counsel was whether or not to go to war NOW or to let the inspections continue. There was no question about the existence of WMDs. ALSO note that the whole point behind the inspectors was not to FIND weapons in Iraq, it was to destroy the stockpiles of WMD's that the UN ackowledged existed. Remember when Saddam turned in the 12,000 page report? That report was supposed to detail what stockpiles he had and where they were. He didn't acknowledge them. If he had destroyed them as some claim, he did not provide any proof or even any excuse for that.
It is not truthful to say WMD's never existed in Iraq, it IS truthful (and much more disconcerting) to say, he had WMDs and one way or another, they are now gone.
As far as your tip, I know full well about netiqute, and so what - I'm allowed to break it from time to time. If you think my argument is weak, then attack it, but don't attack the way I argue (which you have to admit is quite nice and gentlemen-ly if I do say so myself).
21 - Hal Pawluk
golden: It is not truthful to say WMD's never existed in Iraq
You seem to have this distinct propensity for setting up these straw man statements, statements that were never made, then arguing against them, as above.
And your statement:
I hear it all the time that he had no WMD's
seems to be deliberate obtuseness.
What you do not hear is anyone saying "he never, ever ever had any WMD's" because people talking about the issue generally do know that he used chemical/bio weapons on his own people (counting the Kurds) that famous "12 years ago" and earlier. (Note that he was getting chemicals and toxins from this country at the time.)
Today, the statement "he had no WMD's" is understood to be shorthand for "he had no WMD's when the U. S. invaded."
Ask the next person you hear using the shorthand statement if they mean "never" and I'm sure you can guess what they'll say.
22 - Mac Diva
James, you see to be having some problems with research. Hal has the situation covered (which is not good for you), but I'll throw in a single hint. There's a difference between fact and opinion. Opinion from someone in the government does not somehow convert it into fact. Now, go and sin no more.