|
||
Why I Am Grateful that Rush Limbaugh Attacked Me Today
I don't know why, but apparently a lot of my friends start their day by listening to Rush Limbaugh. So my phone started ringing off the hook this morning with friends calling to tell me that Rush was taking me to the EIB woodshed over the speech I gave yesterday at the Take Back America conference in Washington.
The main thing he didn't like (other than my accent) was my saying that Democrats need to stop giving Republican elected officials a pass when they cynically use the very real terrorist threats this country is facing for political advantage.
The latest example of this reprehensible ploy came courtesy of John McCain. At a town hall meeting last week, he was asked if he was afraid al Qaeda might try to up the casualty rate in Iraq in an effort to tip the 2008 election against him.
"Yes, I worry about it," he responded. "And I know they pay attention because of the intercepts we have of their communications."
Are these the same intercepts that gave him the information that Iran is training al-Qaeda? McCain has a habit of being absolute and referring to specific sources (intercepts, the media, "common knowledge") when he is peddling absolute fabrications.
This habit is as loathsome as it is laughable. And Democrats need to have zero tolerance for this kind of blatant politicizing of terrorism.
As I said in my speech, it's one thing to have remarks like that delivered by the likes of Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly, Michael Savage, and Rush Limbaugh -- they are, after all, little more than toxic curiosities (I'm sure Rush's phone started ringing to alert him to that one; or maybe he secretly enjoys watching speeches at progressive conferences). But we need to have a very different standard when it comes to the United States Congress -- and Democrats should introduce censure motions (they are after all in the majority, remember?) of any member who makes these kinds of outrageous statements.
They gave them a pass in 2004, when they let Sen. Orrin Hatch get away with claiming that terrorists "are going to throw everything they can between now and the election to try and elect Kerry," and then-Speaker Denny Hastert get away with saying al Qaeda would be more successful under a Democratic administration.
And they gave them a pass in 2006, when, in the stretch run of the midterm campaign, the GOP launched a-vote-for-Democrats-is-a-vote-for-Osama ad campaign, featuring bin Laden saying that 9/11 was "nothing compared to what you will see next" -- and President Bush said of Iraq, "There's certainly a stepped-up level of violence, and we're heading into an election... My gut tells me that they have all along been trying to inflict enough damage that we'd leave."
Democrats are letting it happen again in 2008. Look what transpired -- or, more accurately, didn't transpire -- after Rep. Steve King made his vile assertion that al-Qaeda "will be dancing in the streets" if Barack Obama wins. Rep. Jan Schakowsky took to the floor of the House, denouncing King's comments as "nothing more than a smear campaign... I urge all my colleagues to join me in condemning these hateful remarks."
But Schakowsky's call to arms quickly evaporated and King has gone on his merry, unrepentant way, joined now by John McCain -- who worries that the terrorists are out to sabotage his campaign, and who thinks nothing of repeatedly conjuring up an utterly false connection between Iran and al-Qaeda. The better to scare you with, my friends.
Republicans insist on having their terrorist threats both ways. McCain fears the terrorists will launch more attacks to undermine him. And Limbaugh, in what he called "a special aside" to me, claimed: "al-Qaeda doesn't want any violence until after the election. They're trying to push the whole concept of terror on to the back burner so that Americans will think that there's no terror threat, and thus be more inclined to elect a liberal Democrat. Make no mistake about it, Arianna, our enemies would love to see either of these two Democrats, Hillary or Obama, elected."
Thanks for the tip, Rush -- and for reminding us all how important it is that Democrats finally get the zero tolerance message.
Related: Bill O'Reilly Needs to Enroll in "Understanding the Internet 101"
Follow Arianna Huffington on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ariannahuff
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Rush and those boys probably think they are the most intelligent people in the world, and even if they don't the dittoheads for sure think they are. Rush might be a little in shock to find out there are intelligent opinions that blow his away. The dittoheads would all be waiting to hear what to believe next.
Friends don't let friends buy Rush.
Some of the political action groups in America (on either side of the fence) have a difficult time staying on message and timing their "attacks" so that they have the largest mass-media impact. I would be impressed if such timing could actually be pulled off overseas let-alone from a country with an almost non-existent infrastructure (and from an out-group). This ridiculous notion that these terrorist groups are that coordinated or powerful is a terrible lie to foist on the American people in a regular year and is outright criminal during an election year. The warmongering group of Americans currently in power is actually secretly enamored with these terrorists because they are truly brothers in their lust for violence and I consider them one and the same in many important respects.
Let's face it. The Democratic leadership hasn't learned ANYTHING in the last 10 years. They aren't going to start now. They got their mid-term majority primarily because of Republican sex scandals around election time. They didn't win the election so much as the Republicans lost. The Congressional Democrats done next to nothing after they reached a majority, except to huff, puff, and back down from real action. As soon as a Democratic Presidential nominee emerges from the bickering gruesome twosome that is Hillary and Barack, he/she will fall into the same loosing trail blazed by Gore and Kerry.
Right on Ariana. Pay attention democratic leaders!!
Osama bin Laden stated that he wanted Bush to win the election. His objective was to draw the U.S. into a protracted war in Afghanistan and bankrupt the nation, just like he did the Soviet Union. He knew Bush was stupid enough to do it; but how could he have imagined that he would be so stupid that he would invade the wrong country?!
I've never heard that but it sounds much more plausible than the other way around. If nothing else Bush has been their #1 recruiter 5 years running. I wonder if he got a plaque?
It was the neutering of the FCC and the abolition of the Fairness Doctrine that allowed the PLAGUE of Limbaugh, O'Reiley, Hannity, (et al) to emerge. Their reinstatement should be accomplished first in our return to democratic government.
The info-tainment news phenomenon is responsible for most of the destruction of our liberties, our economy and our moral standing at home and throughout the world. No less a writer than Walter Pincus remarks about it, here at Huffpo, in an interview with Thomas B. Edsall:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/22/interview-with-walter-pin_n_92887.html
Limbaugh, Coulter, and Savage are empty animals that need to feed. Their nourishment sadly comes from people who work a lot harder than they do, but need a break. Rather than helping out these depressed areas of the country financially, these demagogues keep the sick cycle revolving with hate...... a symbiotic social disaster. Oprah does so much better than that these jackals with her message of hope along with a good amount of charity. Limbaugh and Savage failed on TV thanks to their insatiable appetite for unrelenting unfairness. Even with todays standards, their filth doesn't fly. Sorry, just had to point that out.
"Thanks for the tip, Rush -- and for reminding us all how important it is that Democrats finally get the zero tolerance message."
So does this mean Obama will stop talking about compromise with Republicans?
I think it's high time to escalate the criticism of Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity - not for their politics - but for their propaganda techniques. They refuse to broadcast in balance, refuse to include glaring and essential counterpoints to their arguments, even to defend themselves. They intentionally miseducate listeners, and blatantly support the right to intentionally distort history and current events. Is there anything we can do about it? If so, what?
Read Hannity & Limbaugh: The Worst of America? at http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_gustav_w_080315_hannity_and_limbaugh.htm
and weigh in today - if they are not challenged, their rating and influence will only grow by November.
But, even though they have a history of relative fairness, it's worth discussing the questionable programming motives at places like MSNBC, and CNN, as well. Robert Greenwald has even started picking up on the effect of FOX tactics and how they're spreading to the other cable shows:
http://bravenewfilms.org/
Watch the one called "FOX attacks Obama 2" as well as "FOX lied about Rev. Write."
Again, though, even in this instance, the news corporation is the source of the ugliness. Stab the head and the rest dies.
This article by Arianna ends thanking Limbaugh, "for reminding us all how important it is that Democrats finally get the zero tolerance message."
Am I the only person who sees a serious disconnect between that statement and the bullshit we here from all the Obama supporters about "reaching across the aisle"? I mean, really, what DO Obama supporters think Republicans do when Dems "reach across the aisle"? They so exactly what Arianna has outlined in this article -- they take advantage, they abuse, they lie, cheat, steal, mislead, misrepresent... And somehow, Obama-maniacs think Obama can "reach across the aisle" and work WITH these people?
Anyone who could not get solidly behind IMPEACHMENT hearings when the time came, and who so adamantly supports a candidate who advocates reaching across the aisle as somehow being remotely possible, should not be writing articles like this -- it appears deluded and completely disconnected from past positions Arianna has held, and because of that, this rings completely hollow.
Does anybody else see this contradiction?
Honestly, really, honestly, the Bush administration has done a good job of protecting the US from the perspective of not having a single terrorist incident on US soil since 9/11. Would Gore/Kerry have had that same record. Maybe, but I doubt it.
Remember, if the 9/11 terrorists could have killed 30,000 or 300,000 on 9/11 do you really think they would not have done so?
There's fault in this logic you use. After all, 9/11 occurred during President Bush's watch. Remember the failure to read the intelligence report in August before the attack?? This is a fact. Both Bush and Security Advisor (at the time) Rice failed to understand the significance of the intelligence report warning of impending Al-Qeada attack. The Republicans conveniently like to forget this point. Another point, Al-Qeada attacks world wide increased something like 700% since 9/11. You consider that a good record? Get the wax outta your ears.
So how does that explain why we killed over half-a-million Iraqi civillians? They had nothing to do with 9/11.
OK, I'll bite. Let's just say I wanted to elect a Democrat for president in Nov.
#1. What plans does that Party/Candidate have to make this country safe. They talk about it. Yet, no plan is given.
#2.What will the results be of just bringing our troops home? No matter what your position is about the quagmire in Iraq, it is a real problem for either Party. Just as this administration could have averted much of it's troubles by calculating what a country would look like without law and order, we must calculate what the results would be by a pull out.
#3. What are the plans of the candidates to re-establish (if there is such a thing) our economy? And raises taxes in the midst of a recession is suicidal. Most people only hear that the richest one percent are going to get dinged when the truth of the matter is that everyone making over 30K will get dinged.
#4. We have only heard bits and pieces of this health care issues. How could anyone blindly pick a candidate for office not really knowing the outcome? How much is it going to cost tax payers? In the greatest country on the face of this planet, we should have the availability to supply health care for everyone, but I don't want the government making decisions on whether my condition is worth treating or not.
#5. What are we going to do with our borders? Immigrants? Illegals? This one really gets me too because we can't allow lawlessness then politicize it for a voting block. For either Party to do that it is reprehensible.
George W. Bush had absolutely no plans that you describe before he was elected, but you voted for him anyway. Way to go double standard!!!! Bush's domestic policies are horrid. Failed on Katrina. Has done nothing in regard to immigrants except spreading hate. Has done nothing with health care. The situation in Iraq in Bush's fault, he failed to plan for an end strategy. From what I understand, The State Department has issued more "no travel" warnings to Americans during W. Bush's administration than during any other period in our history. Aside from all that, your facts regarding tax cuts etc. are flawed and wrong.
LBJ & Jermiah Wright:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDZVSXWhZ5Y&eurl=http://thinkonthesethings.wordpress.com/2008/03/21/video-the-clinton-campaign-involvement-in-pushing-rev-jeremiah-wright-story
Why aren't any of the MSM outlets reporting on this?
"our enemies would love to see either of these two Democrats, Hillary or Obama, elected."
If Limbaugh knows WHO our "enemies" are, perhaps he could give BOMB BOMB BOMB, BOMB BOMB McCain a 3 a.m. call and let him know...just in case he's our next president.
Stay safe, healthy and happy,
Love, Loretta
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
