He Takes Your Breath Away

As one reporter noted about Rush Limbaugh:

His controversial quips come faster than a locomotive and he leaps over spineless Republicans in a single sound bite.

Here’s one for the annals.

28 Responses to “He Takes Your Breath Away”

  1. Menth says:

    Exceptionally stupid. Even for him.

  2. EdG says:

    Agree with #1. And it distracts from the real question, which is why did they decide to take this step now? Reminds me of how Vietnam got going.
     

  3. ‘They’ decided to take this step “now”? 
    “In the Lord’s Resistance Army Disarmament and Northern Uganda Recovery Act of 2009, Public Law 111-172, enacted May 24, 2010, the Congress also expressed support for increased, comprehensive U.S. efforts to help mitigate and eliminate the threat posed by the LRA to civilians and regional stability.”
     
    But please, don’t let me knock your conspiracy hat awry. It looks so good on you.
     

  4. hunter says:

    Limbaugh, and many, were wrong to think of this as anti-Christian.
    It would be nice if this time, unlike Yemin, Libya and elsewhere, the Administration would, you know, explain the decision and put it in context.

  5. TerryMN says:

    Keith – as opposed to easy pickings like this, any thoughts about the book that Donna Laframbois recently published?  Just curious…

  6. thingsbreak says:

    I can top that: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2011/10/17/sybil_was_hoax_that_became_accepted_science_sound_familiar
     
    Sybil was fake, therefore global warming is a hoax! Brilliant. I love the requisite Goremongering.

  7. EdG says:

    #3. Steven

    Thanks for that background info. Was not aware of that. Still doesn’t explain the timing.

    As for this added comment: “But please, don’t let me knock your conspiracy hat awry. It looks so good on you.”

    Do you think they decided to do this now just by chance? Call it what you want, decisions like this are made for a reason. Why wasn’t this done on May 25, 2010, the day after the legislation was passed? Why now?

    Seems like a very simple and obvious question.

  8. Keith Kloor says:

    @5
    Is Donna as prominent as Rush is? It would be easy pickings if I chose someone 1/10th as influential as Limbaugh. 

    But to your question: I’ve read of the book being praised at all the climate skeptic sites. I’d welcome it being discussed, but I wouldn’t do so personally until I’ve actually read any of it.

  9. TerryMN says:

    @8  – No she’s not as prominent, by any means.  But she is much more of a journalist and the book, IMO, has a lot more content worth discussion than anything Rush has ever shouted about (and yes, the rushbar is pretty low – I think Billy Mays was as much of an objective reporter as Limbaugh is).  

    I’ve never hawked, or even mentioned, a “book being praised at skepic sites” and am not trying to spam, but I think it has a lot of things worth discussion about the IPCC process.  Just my .02, YMMV.

  10. EdG says:

    #8. Well Keith, that is a far better approach than Gleick, who apparently reviewed it – with a predictable response – without reading it.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/16/donna-laframboises-new-book-causing-reviews-in-absentia-amongst-some-agw-advocates/

    I haven’t read it either but what I have already read from it on DF’s blog looks very, very inconvenient. I expect this book will have far more real impact on the AGW Team than anything Rush could ever say, as he rants to his ‘converted’ audience while this exposes things that nobody can ignore. Look forward to seeing the discussion here, “crankery” and all.  

  11. harrywr2 says:

    EdG Says:
    October 17th, 2011 at 4:47 pm
    <i>
    Thanks for that background info. Was not aware of that. Still doesn’t explain the timing.</i>
    We’ve had Special Forces types floating around in all kinds of countries since 9/11 in training/support roles. The deployments weren’t classified but they weren’t announced at White House press conferences either.
    Rush likes to open mouth – insert foot. No news there…
    The commander of Africom was talking about the LRA mission 10 days ago.
    http://www.africom.mil/getArticle.asp?art=7306&lang=0
     
     
     

  12. Keith posts a thread illustrating the fatuous yet horribly influential buffonery that is Rush Limbaugh, and the response of the usual suspects is to try to change the subject.  Priceless.

  13. If we’re going to change the subject, at least let’s change it to what Limbaugh claims about AGW.  Which is that it’s a hoax, made up by scientists at UEA. His words, not mine:
    http://www.desmogblog.com/rush-limbaugh-seizes-and-freezes-climategate
    As Mooney notes (http://desmogblog.com/why-did-climate-progress-stall-it-s-called-conservative-ideological-activation), this malignant pig has millions of followers who accept his word as truth…and who vote.  The rampant climate know-nothingism in the GOP today can be traced partly to Limbaugh and his ilk.
     

  14. hunter says:

    Steven Sullivan,
    “malignant pig”? My, how civil.A malignant pig who never took a dime of tax payer money, never demanded a tax payer subsidy and who for over 20 years has carried the largest radio audience in history. I don’t even like him very much, but when I read over the top ignorance, I think it is worth commenting on, and you are over the top. BTW, since he has lost a lot of weight, maybe the title for malignant pig, if we are going to pick on large media presence, would be better given to Michael Moore, the super rich representative of the poor and hater of the rich?
    As to the UEA, since the climategate leaks have been carefully ignored and the behavior of those who wrote them has been carefully white washed, you actually have no idea beyond your faith that the UEA did not, as their own words indicate, lie.
    As to the topic at hand, I would be interested to see how defenders of Obama’s poorly explained and barely announced deployment of American troops would have gone over if the President making the announcement had the last name, “Bush”. Have the accusations of Bush committing genocide on Iraq, ‘war for oil’, etc. etc. etc. etc. been forgotten so quickly?
     
     

  15. Eric Adler says:

    Hunter @14,
    “As to the topic at hand, I would be interested to see how defenders of Obama’s poorly explained and barely announced deployment of American troops would have gone over if the President making the announcement had the last name, “Bush”. Have the accusations of Bush committing genocide on Iraq, “˜war for oil’, etc. etc. etc. etc. been forgotten so quickly?”
    Come on now.  Counter factual arguments like you are making here are stupid and childish.
    Sending 100 soldiers against a barbarian gang that has been maiming and murdering people and kidnapping children, pursuant to an act of congress  is nothing similar to the invasion of Iraq. 
    Maybe you need to read up on what is going on there and the background of this story. We have already had some US soldiers helping out there, so there is no big deal about sending 100 more.
    http://news.yahoo.com/obama-sending-troops-aid-africa-anti-insurgency-183816681.html
    “The deployment drew support from Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., who has visited the region.
    “I have witnessed firsthand the devastation caused by the LRA, and this will help end Kony’s heinous acts that have created a human rights crisis in Africa,” he said in a statement. “Today’s action offers hope that the end of the LRA is in sight.””
    Get with it Limbaugh! A Christian Evangelical Republican who has visited the region thinks it is the right thing to do.
    The invasion of Iraq resulted in costs of trillions of dollars, and the deaths of 100 thousands of Iraqis,and the deaths of 4,000 American soldiers and the destruction of the lives of many more due to physical and mental injuries.  It was justified on the basis of falsified intelligence. 
     

  16. Nick says:

    “Obama’s poorly explained and barely announced deployment of American troops.”
    AFRICOM commander announces plan to send advisers to LRA areas
    “For starters, the advisers will be doing just that ““ advising. They will not be mandated to participate in actual combat operations against the LRA. Second, they are likely to be working in a number of different capacities. A few have already been deployed to Congo, where they’ve been training a Congolese military battalion that was recently deployed to LRA-affected areas and working with UN intelligence analysts. But the bulk of the advisers “” several dozen who are yet to be deployed “” will likely be assisting the Ugandan military, the lead force in operations attempting to apprehend Kony and senior LRA commanders.”
    If someone asked me to caricature a response to this announcement, Limbaugh’s would be it.  It epitomizes what’s wrong with communication in America.  That’s probably the most idiotic mistake a broadcaster could make.  Now think about aaaaaaaaall the other “news” that he isn’t forced to immediately retract.  Disinformation is a plague, and these guys make bank from it.  Contempt is EXACTLY what they deserve.   

  17. hunter says:

    Eric,
    If Obama had explained this deployment properly, we would not be having the conversation.
    My points are only counter factual in your view because they are inconvenient to you.
    As to ‘fasified intelligence’, since Clinton, Gore, Kerry, and many many others on record as supporting the basic tenets of that intelligence analysis and evidence that led to the invasion, I am waiting with bated breath your condemnation of those terrible war criminals.
    But do keep pulling out those old, stale chestnuts. They are good reminders of how out of touch reflexive lefties really are.

  18. Eric Adler says:

    Hunter @17,
    Please say what is inadequate about Obama’s explanation. You can refer to Nick @16 .
     
    Also, Clinton, Gore and Kerry were given a false version of secret intelligence by the administration, and supported the administration on that basis.  In In 2002, Kerry voted for the Iraq resolution  giving Bush the authority to invade if diplomatic attempts to get UN inspections failed. 
    In fact, the UN inspectors succeeded in gaining access to all sites in Iraq that they requested, and were on their way to getting aerial surveillance authority. It is clear that Bush violated the terms of the resolution that he had obtained as a result of the bogus intelligence he used to justify it.  At the time he invaded, all the evidence showed that the nuclear program did not exist, and all the intelligence about biological weapons that was checked to date was wrong.
    In fact I, and many other liberals faulted Kerry, Clinton and Gore for accepting the bogus intelligence proffered by the Bush administration when so many of us knew it was clearly false.
    But why are we now talking about the “Old Chestnut”, the Iraq War? As far as I can tell, it was no “lefty” that brought it up, it was you!
     
     
     

  19. Eric Adler says:

    Hunter @ 17
    “My points are only counter factual in your view because they are inconvenient to you.”
    You presented a counter factual argument, i.e. -what would Liberals say if it were President Bush announcing the Uganda intervention?.
    You do not understand what a counter factual argument is. Here is the definition.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterfactual_thinking

  20. hunter says:

    Eric,
    Please tell me how I overlooked the discovery of time travel?
    Since Clinton, Gore and Kerry were all on record as to the threats of saddam prior to 2000, I assume you must know something about the development of time travel I am unaware of.
    It is, however, a nice example of how you on the left do think interms of alternate, fabricated realities (that would be “counter factual, btw).
    As for your humorous attempt to pretend you are not applying a double standard irt Obama’s recent military adventures, how ever well intentioned, well, I certianly they are at least convincing to you.

  21. harrywr2 says:

    #4 Hunter
    It would be nice if this time, unlike Yemin, Libya and elsewhere, the Administration would, you know, explain the decision and put it in context.
    The US Military maintains military-military relationships with almost every country on the planet. There isn’t a lot of press about assistance to Lebanon in an effort to ‘professionalize’ it’s military…or a host of other countries for that matter either.
    Sometimes the assistance is funneled thru the state department, sometimes the CIA and sometimes the uniformed military. The focus is always the same, build the institutions of governance I.E. Nation-building.
    For some reason nation-building is a dirty word in politics. The alternative to nation-building, failed, violent states seems to me to be the ‘greater evil’, but I could be wrong.
    In any case Obama isn’t going to go on TV and give a speech that might make him sound like GWB. What is he going to say…’I am continuing with a policy set out by the ‘Evil George Bush’ 10 years ago?

  22. Eric Adler says:

    Hunter,
    @20
    It is so boring to have to counter the same ignorant right wing talking points repeatedly. Why are you harping on this “Old Chestnut” that you brought up?
    In fact Clinton and Gore were concerned about Iraq before 2000, and supported getting rid of Saddam Hussein, but ruled out using US ground soldiers to do it. So they did not support the invasion of Iraq by US soldiers before 2000, if that is what you want to claim. Read the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998.
    http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Iraq_Liberation_Act
    “…4A…(2) MILITARY ASSISTANCE””(A) The President is authorized to direct the drawdown of defense articles from the stocks of the Department of Defense, defense services of the Department of Defense, and military education and training for such organizations.(B) The aggregate value (as defined in section 644(m) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961) of assistance provided under this paragraph may not exceed $97,000,000…….
    Sec. 8. Rule of Construction.
    Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to the use of United States Armed Forces (except as provided in section 4(a)(2)) in carrying out this Act.”
    Stop changing the subject to Iraq,  with your lame counter factual argument. 
    Stopping the LRA in Uganda is a good idea, even if Sen Inhofe supports it.
    Please explain what was inadequate about Obama’s explanation of his action quoted in Nick’s post @16.
     
     

  23. hunter says:

    Eric,
    I would change the subject from the intelligence that you falsely claimed was fabricated to the limitations of the Iraq Liberation Act if I was put in the position you are as well, and also had a weak character.
    We happen to agree that stopping the LRA is a good thing, and I happen to think it is a worthy goal of American troops. I am pretty certain I know one of the officers leading the effort, but he correctly does not discuss his missions. But that would be a nuance you are likely to overlook.

  24. hunter,  for you to get your panties in a bunch over my lack of respect for the malignant pig who popularized the word ‘feminazis’, is just funny. 
    I’m happy to call him, and his fans, worse than that.

  25. “It is so boring to have to counter the same ignorant right wing talking points repeatedly. Why are you [hunter] harping on this “Old Chestnut” that you brought up?”
     
    Obviously it’s because it distracts from the thread subject, which is what a cynical, ignorant, hateful, and destructive influence Rush Limbaugh is.   Again, Limbaugh is a man “who for over 20 years has carried the largest radio audience in history” asserting the the lesson of ‘Climategate’ is that  AGW is  *hoax*.  Talk about counterfactual reality!
     

  26. According to best reports, at the behest of Cheney et al.,  intelligence began to be ‘fixed around’ there being WMDs in Iraq almost as soon as the fires were out at Ground Zero. 
    Hmm, ‘fixed around’  — that’s *at least* as provocative a phrase as ‘hide the decline’, wouldn’t you say?
     

  27. Eric Adler says:

    Hunter,
    “Eric,
    I would change the subject from the intelligence that you falsely claimed was fabricated to the limitations of the Iraq Liberation Act if I was put in the position you are as well, and also had a weak character.”
    There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein was a bad guy, and kicked out the weapons inspectors, but there was no valid intelligence that he was an immediate threat to the US  and was developing nuclear weapons as Bush claimed.  We know that the experts in the US Energy Department knew that the aluminum tubes were for artillery shells, andnot suitable for centrifuges; and the CIA told Bush not to claim that Saddam was seeking nuclear material Niger, because the evidence was bogus.
    http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Magazines/Bulletin/Bull461/timeline_iraq_5.html
    “On 7 March 2003, Director General Mohamed ElBaradei told the Security Council that the IAEA had found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons programme in Iraq.”
     
    Since the justification of the Iraq invasion is an issue, and I pointed out the Iraq Liberation Act signed by Clinton in 1998 forbids the use of American Soldiers to invade Iraq, how does my citation of this provision prove I have a “weak character”?
    But getting back to the issue that you raised regarding the subject of this thread, please explain what was inadequate about Obama’s announcement of the effort to help find the LRA leader? 
     
     
     

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.