Posted on 07/04/2004 9:53:23 AM PDT by buzzyboop
What we did to the prisoners doesn't even rate on the same scale what was done to us. Sorry you didn't pick up on that.
My son has (Navy SEALS). I went through the one for pilots -- nothing like what the guys who will be on the ground get.
"Sorry", but if that's what you believe --- it proves that you have chosen to swallow, then parrot, the spin of the left. It proves that you don't have first-hand knowledge of the facts, nor have you made an effort to obtain them.
Way, way back, in pre-history AFRTS (hell, we din't even have TV), we listed to 'canned' shows but they WERE part of the daily agenda. One of my favorites was an oldies show hosted by Charlie Tuna. Charlie now hosts a big band show on satellite. A real treat for us was to listen to the super bowl at 3:00 a.m.
No, I don't think Rush should be kicked off of AFRTS. In fact, they should carry his entire program, because that would balance out several other liberal NPR programs they carry. After all, didn't the Repubs and Dems BOTH want fair and balanced coverage on AFRTS? I only wish they'd apply the same standard to NPR.
As for other replies to my earlier statement, I was listening to Rush when he discussed Abu Ghraib. None of us knew at that time how far the soldiers had went, and I still think Rush's comments were improper (I usually agree with him). Those soldiers literally detonated a nuclear bomb on US public relations, far beyond any college hazing. I remember thinking at the time that those soldiers had handed the terrorists their first win of the war, because we'd won everything (militarily and politically) before then.
To me, Rush shouldn't have excused the abuse in any way. I'm sure I'm not the only person who felt that equating the abuse to college hazing (in an attempt to put it into perspective) came across as though Rush was saying Abu Ghraib was no big deal.
Matchett-PI wrote: "you don't have first-hand knowledge of the facts, nor have you made an effort to obtain them."
I was listening to Rush when he discussed Abu Ghraib, so I don't know what other facts you are referring to. Abu Ghraib, including President Bush's subsequent apology to Jordan, was a terrible PR loss for the US. If someone hits your new car in an accident, you don't want to hear someone say he's seen far worse wrecks. Even if it's an attempt to put your accident in perspective, it doesn't make you feel better.
Thanks for the welcome! I think you left one type of Democrat off your list--zombies! These are the people who vote Democrat simply because their parents and grandparents voted that way. No critical thought is actually involved--they vote by reflex alone!
As a side note -
this is more proof that these online polls and petitions don't mean jack -
Want spam ?
"sign" one of these things and give them your email address
"If someone hits your new car in an accident, you don't want to hear someone say he's seen far worse wrecks."
So I suppose some kids radio controlled plane going through your window is akin to 911 ?
Next to 911, Abu Graib wasn't as insignificant as a kid's radio controlled plane flying through a window. Even though the actual abuse appears to be relatively minor, it was a PR disaster. If nothing else, it gave the left ammo to use against the war. That's why I think Abu Ghraib is significant--not because of the abuse itself (although I wouldn't brag about that either).
" Even though the actual abuse appears to be relatively minor, it was a PR disaster."
ANYTHING can ( and will be ) be a PR disaster when you have Rather on the other side ...
This was, as Rush said, akin to a fraternity stunt, and that should have been the continuing attitude of the Bush administration.
We will find those who put panties on the heads of Iraqies, along with those who cut the heads off our people and deal with them according to the magnitude of their crimes.
Is this that sickening Michael Farrel, seen on Mash as Dr B.J. Honeycutt? If so, this rant is not suprising.
Powell was right in his proclamation of disappointment at the actions of some troops involved in that so called torture at the prison in Iraq. Most of us are disappointed by the actions of those few, but we refuse to grovel in shame, clad in sack cloth and ashes forever and ever, while treating those troops as though no other people on earth would stoop to such evil as they have done. We know better. Worse happened before, right there in that prison and all over Iraq, as well as at one time or another in every country that is pretending shock and disgust at us as a country.
Our troops have every right to hear a full three hours of Rush Limbaugh daily, if they wish. They are in Iraq and elsewhere at the service of our Government, which is funded by taxpayers. It is our duty to provide our troops with access to every source of news that is available to the rest of us. Otherwise they would be stuck with the nonsence of the nattering, negative and nutty, nitwits of the liberal left, media outlets.
Since when is Freaky Farrel in charge of what our troops get to listen to??
No matter. Mike Farrell can still kiss my butt.
.. a write-in candidate.. WOW! :) (Actually, not surprising-- Rush is educational as well as flat-out hysterically funny!!) And as the Maha says himself: Rush inspires and uplifts.
I *LOVE* that graphic!
He didn't excuse the abuse in any way -- but like any circumspect / prudent mentality would do in the face of knee-jerkers all around him hysterically jumping to reckless conclusions, he calmly, and accurately put things into perspective.
Pioneer Limbaugh Takes the Abu Ghraib Arrows May 14, 2004
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Moving on to other items in our Stack of Stuff and those of you on hold. Are you getting those kinds of calls? [talking to call screener] You getting people that want to ask me about that? All right. Because I can't imagine anybody to have any questions about that other than mainstream media. He asked me, "Will you take calls about your Skull and Bones comment?" Of course.
Here's what I did. Those comments were made on the 4th of May, when the first two or three pictures came out.
[Got that???? "Those comments were made on the 4th of May, when the first two or three pictures came out.]
I went and got the transcript of that show yesterday and I sent it to all these people who -- oh, not that many. I sent it to enough people who have been raising hell about it. Tim Russert even asked for a transcript.
I sent him one, because Larry King, a bunch of people have been trying to get Russert to dump on me about that Skull and Bones comment. He wouldn't do it because he didn't believe it, but he hadn't heard it, so he just finessed it.
So I sent it to him. It's all trumped up.
But if anybody wants to ask about it, I'll be glad to. I proudly happily stand by the comments as they were made at the time. And I'm stunned that the media did not pick up on the nuance since they're all their big nuance people. I mean that's where they support Kerry, he's a man of nuance, right? He's too smart for the room.
Anyway, several senators said yesterday that the war on terror needs to replace news about the Iraqi prison abuse scandal and calls for Rumsfeld's resignation, especially now that intelligence agencies have confirmed that it was Al-Qaeda operative Abu Musab Zarqawi who was involved with the decapitation of Nicholas Berg.
Zell Miller said, "Those who are wringing their hands and shouting so loudly for heads to roll over the abuse seem to have conveniently overlooked the fact that somebody's head has rolled. Why is it that there's more indignation over a photo of a prisoner with underwear on his head than over the video with a young American with no head at all?" Amen.
You know, and this is the kind of comment that inspires hatred aimed at me from mainstream journalists, but once again, we're on the cutting edge here. We are the first to put this in perspective.
Even on May 4th when this whole thing hit, the first to put it in perspective, because we didn't wring our hands and want to defeat the U.S. military over this.
There are people -- we talked about this late yesterday -- there are people in this country who actually, well, let's just put it this way. As I said yesterday, they may not be on the side of the terrorists in Iraq, but their actions wouldn't be any different if they were, and those are Democrats and liberals in this country who are anti-U.S. military and anti-victory.
They may not be pro-Al-Qaeda. They may not be wanting Al-Qaeda or terrorists to win, but if they did, their actions wouldn't be any different than they are now. And you can interpret that to mean either they're smart or they're naïve, and I want to give them the benefit of the doubt and I'm going to say -- even though I'm not sure this is totally accurate -- I'll say they're naïve. They may actually believe that if we lay down our arms that the side opposing us will do the same and we could live happily ever after. There are some liberals who believe that. There are some liberals who believe that we provoke all this just by being who we are, just by having our military might, and just by being willing to project our power. And so they think that if we just cease and desist, that the other side will not consider us a threat or an enemy anymore and they'll cease and desist.
Now, those who have a brain and a contextual understanding of history know that that's dangerous, risky, and absurd.
So, no, I don't think I'm going out of the way. John Podhoretz wrote a column in the New York Post today saying the same thing, and I've said this long before anybody else did. That's why pioneers take the arrows, you know, I'll go out and say it. I'll take the arrows and those who agree with me will come in a couple or three days later and get on the bandwagon and not take any arrows. That's what happens here.
You know, have you noticed all the people who are talking about this looks like a fraternity prank? Well, I took the arrows for that and now everybody who wanted to say it at first but didn't is getting in on the action. That's fine. I'm not complaining. I'm honored. Honored to be a pioneer, honored to be taking the arrows.
Senator Arlen Specter said, "As bad as the Iraq prison abuse cases have been, Berg's execution should be a reminder the war on terror continues and must be given full attention." He said we need to lose the intensity. "We tend to lose the intensity the feel for 9/11 as time passes. ... I think the beheading of Nick Berg is a very stark reminder."
Same thing in the Senate, James Inhofe led the way, or Inhofe took the arrows. Inhofe spelled out the truth of what was happening at this abuse committee hearing; and now he gave cover to all those who agreed with him to come later and jump on his bandwagon.
And this is not to disparage Zell Miller. I like all these guys saying this, but Inhofe was the first and Inhofe took the heat for it and then after that since he took the heat and was already out there, others who agree come along. Even Arlen Specter getting on this bandwagon.
There are a number of senators now getting on the bandwagon and I'll tell you why. Because it has become apparent that the New York Times and the leading institutions in the mainstream press were doing everything they could to keep the Nick Berg execution and murder second and third-tier news while these prison photos remained top-tier news because the prison photos are a way to damage our war effort and damage Bush, and perhaps lead the way to his defeat at the polls in November, which is what this whole prison abuse thing is all about for these people wringing their hands and acting like it's the worst thing they've ever seen.
The worst thing that happened to them was when Nick Berg was assassinated, the way he was.
There's no way you can see that video or hear it described or hear the audio from that video and at all keep the perspective of the prison photo crowd, and that perspective they would wish.
Because the prison photo abuses, bad as it is, and offensive as it is, pales in comparison to what happened to Nick Berg.
And guess what else? As long as, look it folks, I'm worn out, when I'm worn out, I'm less, what's the word here, guarded. And I'm just going to say, who was the first? This is one of these days, if I don't say it, nobody else will. So forgive me if you think this is bragging. I don't think it's bragging, because it isn't bragging if you can do it.
Who was the first to nationally, publicly, loudly proclaim after viewing these pictures, ooh wee, looks like a whole lot of sex going on here. Who was the first to say this is stuff you would see on American computer screens at porn sites? This is the kind of stuff that you would see, I mean, homoeroticism going on. Now have you noticed how many stories there are about just how much about sex this was?
I mean, we've now got stories of Americans having mattresses on the floor encircled by candles, little romantic gang bangs going on out there in front of the Iraqi prisoners. You hear about this, Dawn? And as news leaks out, and who was one of the first to use the word, looks like some perversion going on here? I would love to be able to claim the line that George Neumayr used, I can't claim it because George Neumayr used it first in the American Spectator.
Neumayr said, "If these prison photos had been taken by Robert Mapplethorpe, the very senators condemning them would have funded the exhibit at the National Endowment for the Arts."
And while all of this is taking place, the very people, the very people who have defended the sexual revolution and have championed the so-called sexual revolution, who defended any kind of sexual perversion in the Oval Office when it was going on there when Bill Clinton was -- those same people are now the ones who are raising holy hell themselves about how sick this is and how disgusting this is and how perverted this is.
And that is why I've said when the rooster comes home and when the whole truth comes out about this comes out on what was going on over there, the people on the left who condemned all of this, shall we say, enlightened, as they've called it, perverted sexual activity they're going to have to explain to many of their constituents why they've changed their mind on these particular kinds of acts and these particular types of lifestyles.
So while all this is going on, the Democrats are claiming this is a chain-of-command thing, and they're trying to get this linked all the way to Bush, this is happening because of Bush's example, this is happening because Bush doesn't care, this is happening because Bush doesn't use any discipline, this is because it comes from the top. I would believe that if Bill Clinton were still in office. If Bill Clinton were still in office, I could accept the notion this might come from the top and, in fact, depending on the age of these soldiers over there they may in fact be.
How many stories have we had lately, oral sex is a great way to stop teen pregnancy? That oral sex is a great way to have safe sex, just had one this week. Who popularized oral sex for the nation? And who was defended day in and day out royally for doing so? Bill Clinton.
And who defended him? The Democrats who now find all kinds of atrocities in these photos coming out of Abu Ghraib prison. I don't know, Mr. Snerdley. Mr. Snerdley is wondering what if all these videos are being taken because a, you know, third-rate production porn movie was being made over there?
Well, that's how they are. I mean, I'm not a veteran of porn by any stretch, I'm not, but let's face it, average pornography does not look like Gone With the Wind, right? So you never know. If pornographers get in the military, get over there as MPs and start making movies and stuff for the hell of it, or profit or what have you. I mean, anything is possible at this point, anything is possible.
Don't know if we're going to find the truth of it to that extent, but I just find it interesting nevertheless that the people who are acting so outraged, so offended, are the very people who championed this stuff or at least defend it in this country.
And as I said yesterday, folks, let's not forget something.
While all of this hand-wringing is going on, while all of this outrage is taking place, the porn industry in California is happily announcing they're back in business after dealing with the latest HIV scare. And the state of California is happy about it because of tax revenues.
Okay, I'll go back even years and years further to when I was a pioneer in another era back in the early days of women in combat, and women in the same positions as men in the military.
I said you can't keep sex out of it, folks. Once you've put them together in these circumstances, be it a battleship or wherever, sex is going to be a factor, it's going to be.
And all the femi-Nazis began calling me, "You think women are just a bunch of sluts? You think that women, when they get together with men, that's all they want to do? You don't think they'll have any discipline?" No, I'm not saying that women are sluts and I'm not saying that men are sluts, and I'm not saying they don't have any discipline. I'm saying these are 18 to 21-year-old people with raging hormones and nobody is watching, and you're throwing them together. Voila! We have the Abu Ghraib prison photos.
END TRANSCRIPT
Read the Articles...
(Washington Times: Beheading returns focus to terror war)
(NYPost: Sick Romps At Porny Prison)
(Boston Globe: A series of errors on lewd images)
(NY Post: John Podhoretz: Rooting For The Enemy)
(American Spectator: The Abu Ghraib Collection - George Neumayr)
Listen to Rush…
(…bare the battered armor of what resulted from his warning back in the 90’s)
HERE
Also see: HERE
If you had actually heard what he said you wouldn't let your moral outrage work overtime. Fact is that the humiliations depicted ARE much like fraternity pranks. You probably have forgotten the incident not too long ago where girls covered candidates in feces and beat them up. Every year someone dies
during a fraternity initiation. All that is required is for there not to be an authority figure around to keep the natural sadism from getting out of hand. In this case, we have poorly trained guardsmen under incompetent commanders and juvenile imaginations unfettered by supervision. DO compare that with the footage of torture in the same prison while it was under Saddam's rule.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.