Comments on: Limbaugh’s Strange Compassion For Somali Pirates

By: sinz54

sinz54 — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 16:24:30 +0000

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.

By: sinz54

sinz54 — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 16:10:01 +0000

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/akr1

Certainly 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

By: sinz54

sinz54 — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 15:50:31 +0000

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.

By: Chekote

Chekote — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 14:54:26 +0000

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.

By: R.E. Munn

R.E. Munn — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 11:54:37 +0000

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.

By: R.E. Munn

R.E. Munn — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 11:29:52 +0000

We expect out of context citations (that miss the point entirely) from lefties. But from David Frum we expect something better.

By: danbmil99

danbmil99 — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 03:18:40 +0000

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.

By: krove

krove — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 17:48:08 +0000

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?

By: Bulldoglover100

Bulldoglover100 — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 17:32:52 +0000

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.

By: krove

krove — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 17:15:43 +0000

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.