RSS Feed MenuI missed this when Rush said it two days ago … but it’s become no less jaw-dropping in the interim.
RUSH: You know what we have learned about the Somali pirates, the merchant marine organizers that were wiped out at the order of Barack Obama, you know what we learned about them? They were teenagers. The Somali pirates, the merchant marine organizers who took a US merchant captain hostage for five days were inexperienced youths, the defense secretary, Roberts Gates, said yesterday, adding that the hijackers were between 17 and 19 years old. Now, just imagine the hue and cry had a Republican president ordered the shooting of black teenagers on the high seas. Greetings and welcome back, Rush Limbaugh, the Excellence in Broadcasting Network and the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
They were kids. The story is out, I don’t know if it’s true or not, but apparently the hijackers, these kids, the merchant marine organizers, Muslim kids, were upset, they wanted to just give the captain back and head home because they were running out of food, they were running out of fuel, they were surrounded by all these US Navy ships, big ships, and they just wanted out of there. That’s the story, but then when one of them put a gun to the back of the captain, Mr. Phillips, then bam, bam, bam. There you have it, and three teenagers shot on the high seas at the order of President Obama.
Jerome // Apr 16, 2009 at 6:41 pm
Among his other intellectual limitations, Frum is apparently incapable of understanding mockery. Is there anything you are actually good at, David?
Chekote // Apr 16, 2009 at 6:56 pm
JeromeRush was mocking the people who were elevating him at the same level as POTUS during his CPAC speech. He kept referring to it as “his first address to the nation”. Frum completely missed the point and accused Rush of putting himself at the same level as Obama.
Cforchange // Apr 17, 2009 at 5:30 am
IntheMiddle – I’m on board with you. Even if racism isn’t the intent of the organizers, plenty of followers latching on are definately motivated by their shock of this election. Proof – how bout the Pittsburgh cop killer and his clan. They will have their day in court and it will not bode well for the GOP if we don’t disconnect the too close association between the party entertainers and the GOP itself.Sure racism is everywhere – but what works to build consensus and cooperation is that we all(both black and white) acknowledge it and agree we wish no harm to each other just because we are different. This approach works – my community work tells me so.
sinz54 // Apr 17, 2009 at 6:57 am
Chekote: Here’s the 2008 Republican platform. http://www.gop.com/2008Platform/It includes calls for *two* Constitutional Amendments. One would ban same-sex marriage and even civil unions. The other would ban abortion nationwide by giving the fetus (and probably, even the embryo) Fourteenth Amendment protections. Extending the Fourteenth Amendment to cover a newly fertilized human egg cell is about as extreme as you can get.
Chekote // Apr 17, 2009 at 7:08 am
SinzI know. I thought Frum would try to organize a majority to do away with those two ridiculous amendment. But instead, he spends his time talking about Rush and Beck. I am very disappointed in this site. I thought it would be a engine to reform the party. Time for a third party?
sinz54 // Apr 17, 2009 at 7:10 am
InTheMiddle12: If all the “Tea Party” protests were about racism, they’re concealing it very well indeed. In the age of the Internet and YouTube, for you to imagine that all those tens of thousands of protesters have a secret racist agenda, that none have never admitted in any form of modern media, sounds really paranoid to me.On conservative blogs like RedState.com, I don’t see a single post about Obama that is even remotely racist. What I do see is that culturally speaking, they despise him as a “candy-a@@, pu@@ified, gun-hating metrosexual”–the opposite of the musclebound, big-gun, big-penis, big-testicled, manly men of RedState.com.["@" substitutes for "s" to avoid provoking the offensiveness filter.]I believe that the “Tea Party” protests represented *unfocused* anger. Many were angry at the GOP for having let them down too; they said as much on numerous right-wing blog posts. What makes them angriest of all is that there is no political organization or party in America that speaks for them.In 1992, we had a similar situation–many people believing that Washington had sold them out–but Ross Perot came along as a third-party candidate to speak for folks who believed that both of the two major parties sucked. He didn’t win, but he sure made the two parties listen–and notice that both the Clinton Administration and Gingrich’s Contract with America reflected some of Perot’s concerns.The problem is, no Ross Perot type figure has come along this time. There is a major opening here for some no-nonsense non-politician, not an official of either major party, to come riding in on his white horse, as Perot did.
sinz54 // Apr 17, 2009 at 7:13 am
Chekote: You and I must be reading each other’s minds. As I just posted, there is a HUGE opportunity here for a Ross Perot type figure to come along and give voice to all this anger out there in the heartland.Except Ross Perot was a flake: First he talked like he was going to run for President, then he didn’t, then he did. A guy who is as non-partisan as Perot but who, unlike Perot, is supremely ambitious and WANTS to get into the White House could do so–and perhaps replace the GOP by a new party, just as the GOP replaced the Whigs.General Petraeus for President!
krove // Apr 17, 2009 at 10:39 am
Lets get this in perspective.Even with FOX promoting the heck out of these tea parties and RW radio doing the same only a very generous number of 300,000 turned up. This on a day traditionally one for a tax protest over the years any way.Compare that with 30 MILLION who marched worldwide and many millions here in the USA who marched to protest the Iraq war. And what difference did the 30 million make? Not much. Bush just plowed on with his war of choice.So what difference will 300,000 people with nearly as many reasons for being there make? Not a a lot.
barker13 // Apr 17, 2009 at 11:04 am
Re: InTheMiddle12; 6:03 PM –”Barker: Here’s what I stand for.”THANK YOU!!! “Free elections, democracy, living in a Republic, where the electorate elect people to represent them and make decisions on their behalf.”Fair enough. Where we probably disagree is on whether the U.S. is actually for all intents and purposes a democratic Republic anymore or more of a mobocracy with dueling oligarchs struggling for control of the high grounds of political power – federal and state.An ignorant… mostly ignorant… largely ignorant (you decide just HOW ignorant Americans are as a civic group) electorate is not the sort of electorate which can be counted upon to vote rationally in such a way as to protect MY rights and that’s my problem with current “democracy.”Beyond that, there are all sorts of fascinating questions one can ask about the nature of democracy. For example, when aside from presidential elections (and often not even then) fewer than half the electorate bothers to vote… is this true democracy… is there a difference between “will of the People” and will of the voters? (And this is a question separate from how informed or ignorant the voters themselves are.)Aside from general elections let’s go down to the Party caucus level. This is where candidates are actually chosen. What’s the relationship between the Party insiders (committee members) and the “registered” Party members, let alone pure outsiders – independents if you will? Beyond theory, in actual practice how “democratic” are we as a society…??? And if we’re “democratic” in theory but not in practice… what does this mean…???Oh… and then for good measure we can throw in the judiciary which has come to have the effective power of overruling “democracy” as exercised in various forms – from ballot initiatives to legislative/executive actions.(*SHRUG*)”I also stand for supporting a strong military, the law, and yes, paying my taxes.”Well… pretty broad and undefined sentiments, Mid. I doubt any national democrats are going to claim to be for a WEAK military… are going to come out and say they’re AGAINST the law… or argue with you that YOU should pay your taxes.(*SMILE*) (Notice the wisecrack in that last one…?)”On top of this all I stand for freedom of speech, which allows you and me to do something many countries in this world do not know how to do – argue out our differences rather than resorting to violence.”Hear, hear! I’ll drink to that! And make my T.E.A. a Long Island! (*WINK*)”…a belief in the freedom to practice one’s religion and to life guided by life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”(*SMILE*)BILL
Chekote // Apr 17, 2009 at 11:55 am
“Compare that with 30 MILLION who marched worldwide and many millions here in the USA who marched to protest the Iraq war.”How sad is that!. 30 million supported a murderous, oppressive tyrant like Hussein. Yet, these same 30 millions see themselves as champions of human rights. Does anyone see the irony?
krove // Apr 17, 2009 at 12:44 pm
30 MILLION were supporting the rule of law and proper practice. 30 MILLION were supporting a process that was working. 30 MILLION were supporting life not the death of 100,000 innocent civilians. 30 MILLION were protesting being driven to war by lies and deceit for oil. 30 MILLION were RIGHT.
Chekote // Apr 17, 2009 at 1:02 pm
Krove,As a former European thank God FDR didn’t take your advice. Rule of law when it comes to tyrants? That is beyond laughable. How many millions died and were tortured by Hussein? And by torture I don’t mean putting bugs in their room. I mean cutting off tongues. Rapes. You should be ashamed of yourself. Standing on the size of oppression. And as far as oil is concern, unless you take a bike where ever you go, I don’t want to hear your drivel. People like you give us who truly believe in human rights a bad name. Again, you should be ashamed of yourself.
krove // Apr 17, 2009 at 1:15 pm
30 MILLION who believed in the rule of law in the USA. 30 MILLION who did not support Saddam Hussein but thought the rule of law in the USA was important and that there was a better way than to kill 100,000 innocents. 30 MILLION who cared about the human rights of the 100,000 DEAD.You should be ashamed of yourself if you believed all that BUSH did was right. Not many agree with you . What was it 22% You are a leftover.
Bulldoglover100 // Apr 17, 2009 at 1:32 pm
Limbaugh is nuts. The sooner our party accpets this fact, the sooner we can get back on the road to recovery. He damages the citizens of this country with his ugly ugly mouth. The harm he has done to man kind? Should never be supported. He would be happy to see blood shed during this particular Presidency. He Should NEVER be condoned.
krove // Apr 17, 2009 at 1:48 pm
Congressman Todd Tiahrt, Republican of Kansas, might have stepped in it this week. In a meeting with the editorial board of the Kansas City Star, Tiahrt was asked if conservative talk radio king Rush Limbaugh is the de facto leader of the Republican party.Tiahrt took the bait: “No, no, he’s just an entertainer,” the congressman said, according to Star columnist Yael T. Abouhalkah.Similar remarks by Republican politicos have led to abject groveling at the throne of Rush. Congressman Phil Gingrey called Limbaugh’s show to say “I regret those stupid comments” after he’d told Limbaugh to “back off.”Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele insisted that Limbaugh was not the de facto leader of the Republican party, calling Limbaugh’s show “ugly” and “incendiary.” On his show two days later, Rush took Steele to the woodshed, and Steele apologized before the day was out. OK how long till the apology 24 hours?
danbmil99 // Apr 17, 2009 at 11:18 pm
The point about Limbaugh is this: a healthy party can not be beholden to its fringe. Limbaugh (and Malkin, Coulter, Beck) want to be taken seriously, but they shouldn’t be. They should be put in their place, and not groveled to. No one on the left has comparable power, and that leaves them freer to maneuver. Obama can do things like punt gun control, oppose gay marriage, refuse to prosecute Bush era CIA lawyers, up troops in Afghan — the left complains, but they don’t have the power of a Limbaugh to force him to his knees.I guess it’s really just a reflection of the power vacuum on the right.
R.E. Munn // Apr 18, 2009 at 7:29 am
We expect out of context citations (that miss the point entirely) from lefties. But from David Frum we expect something better.
R.E. Munn // Apr 18, 2009 at 7:54 am
PS:It is noteworthy that the lone advertiser on NM (at least today) is Republicans for Environmental Protection, which is itself an organization that is misguided, in name if nothing else. Most Republicans I know favor protection of the environment, but would balk at describing themselves as supporting Environmental Protection owing to the fact that they almost nothing in common with ismists connected to that phrase.
Chekote // Apr 18, 2009 at 10:54 am
kroveYou cannot say that you did not support the removal of Hussein and claim that you were not on the side of keeping Hussein in place. Did you honestly think that Hussein was going to step down on his own volition? Laughable. As far as the rule of law, I am glad that the FDR pursued the removal of Hitler. Germany did not attack us. Japan did. I can just see people like you screaming about the Rule of Law while millions were being incenerated in the Nazi ovens. Stop claiming that you are concerned about the lives of innocent Iraqis. You hatred of Bush colors everything. I am happy that millions – not thousands – millions of Iraqis now have a chance to live in freedom. Too bad that your hatred for Bush and the Republican Party does not allow you to celebrate their freedom. And as far as polls, who gives a rip? Either you believe in freedom and human rights or you don’t. It is not a popularity contest. It is a matter of principle.
sinz54 // Apr 18, 2009 at 11:50 am
Chekote: “I am glad that the FDR pursued the removal of Hitler. Germany did not attack us. Japan did.”You’re incorrect. After Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, and FDR asked for a declaration of war against Japan, Hitler had to decide what to do about the non-aggression pact he had signed with Japan. That pact obligated Germany to come to Japan’s aid if Japan were attacked. But in this instance, Japan had clearly struck the first blow against America.Hitler had no treaty obligation to declare war on the U.S. But being a nut, and outraged by U.S. support of Britain, he did anyway. The U.S. then declared war on Germany, only after Germany declared war on the U.S. So Germany and Japan were the legal aggressors.
sinz54 // Apr 18, 2009 at 12:10 pm
Chekote: I’m sure that most Americans are glad that Saddam is no longer in power. But I also don’t think they would have supported a war of this magnitude, just to free the Iraqi Shiites and Kurds from his rule. (A lot of Sunnis supported Saddam.)That’s why Bush 43 administration propaganda against Saddam emphasized the terrors of his alleged WMD arsenal (“mushroom clouds”), and his alleged sponsorship of terrorism, plus invocations of the horrors of 9-11. So did the congressional authorization of military action against Iraq.http://tinyurl.com/akr1Certainly that’s why I was generally supportive. I was sure that the U.S. government had sophisticated intel on Saddam’s WMD, which proved that he had fooled the inspectors and secreted vast quantities of it. If I had known they did not, I would never have supported this war. The cost has been too high, given that Saddam had no WMD after all.http://beezone.homestead.com/womenvets2005_2006.html
sinz54 // Apr 18, 2009 at 12:24 pm
Chekote: In 1994, there was a genocidal war in Rwanda–over a million Tutsis were massacred at the hands of the Hutus. The brutality was shocking: Systematic massacres, mass rapes, etc.The Hutus had relatively primitive weapons. The U.S. could have bombed them from the air until they called off their ethnic cleansing, much as we did with Serbia. But we didn’t.President Clinton knew it was a genocide in Rwanda–documents released later on prove that he knew it–and yet chose to do absolutely nothing about it.There was no clamor from the American people for action either. Why? Because no national interest of America was involved there.I’m saddened at how conservatives like you have embraced the Wilsonian “Make the world safe for democracy” argument. Bomb Serbia! Invade Rwanda! Invade Darfur! Topple Saddam!That wasn’t how we conservatives used to think. We used to avoid foreign entanglements UNLESS the U.S. national interests were directly threatened.