Limbaugh's school of hard knocks for other guys

Palm Beach Post ^ | Sunday, May 9, 2004 | Frank Cerabino

[new cruelty]

Rush Limbaugh is a slow learner.

That might explain why he looked at the sadistic photos from the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and likened them to some college fraternity high jinks.

Boolah, mullah! Boolah, mullah!

Most reasonable people expressed disgust by the sight of the bound, nude, hooded men in American custody being forced to degrade themselves sexually.

And Limbaugh surely would have, too, if it had been under the previous administration.

But Limbaugh's a referee without a whistle these days. So here's how he excused the inexcusable:

"This is no different than what happens at the Skull and Bones initiation, and we're going to ruin people's lives over it, and we're going to hamper our military effort, and then we are going to really hammer them because they had a good time," he said on his radio show.

Limbaugh added: "I'm talking about people having a good time. These people, you ever heard of emotional release? You heard of need to blow some steam off?"

I knew he was an apologist. But I just figured that in light of his newfound expertise in the realm of investigatory zeal run amok -- something he claims to have learned the hard way in Palm Beach County -- he might have temporarily burst through the wall of his professional limitations.

But, like I said, Limbaugh is apparently a slow learner.

And yet, there's hope.

There used to be a time when he thought that the problem with drugs was that we weren't locking up the people who got caught. This was during the days when he thought the American Civil Liberties Union was a flaky impediment to justice and criminal defense lawyers were an evil bunch of liberal simps who were out to subvert the truth by freeing the guilty on procedural maneuvers.

He has been educated through experience in that regard.

Caught in cross hairs of justice

Ever since the Palm Beach County State Attorney's Office declined to respectfully turn a blind eye to Limbaugh's years of prescription drug abuse, he has become a champion of the drug addict caught in the cross hairs of justice. He talks of the pain of addiction, the need for treatment and the unfairness of prosecutors pursuing people with a personal problem.

If you go to Limbaugh's Web site these days, it's full of tales of horrific miscarriages of justice and calls to end investigatory techniques that we, as Americans, shouldn't stand for.

There are warnings about the "threat to the rule of law." Harassment we can't condone. And a horrible "fishing expedition" for information that should chill us to the core.

No, none of that is about the sadistic abuse at the Abu Ghraib prison.

It's all about Palm Beach County State Attorney Barry Krischer's having the nerve to document Limbaugh's drug abuse through the use of his medical records.

Oh, the horror!

From Limbaugh's bellowing, you'd think Krischer was breaking chemical lights and pouring the scorching phosphoric liquid over the naked talk-show host's... oh, never mind.

Besides, that's just "people having a good time."

All those naked Iraqis must be guilty of something, right? There can't be any innocent civilians rounded up by overzealous authorities. That never happens.

And as for the guilty -- well, the rights of people behind bars is just a left-wing abstraction.

For now. The slow learner better hope this isn't the next awakening in his education.

[quidnunc]

The next time you speak with Rush ask him if this is a radio sweeps rating period, and if so whether his likening the conduct protrayed in the Iraqi prison photos to college fraternity hazing was a purposeful ratings stunt calculated to increase listenership by causing controversy.

[DonaldDuke]

Predictably, no explanation has been given

Actually, the resaon no explanation has been given is that if you didn't understand what I was saying to you, you have an IQ of about four. That's slightly below par, even for the segment of FR who's routinely outraged on behalf of the Islamic terrorists.

Go back and try again, madam.

[Henrietta]

"Actually, the resaon (sic) no explanation has been given is that if you didn't understand what I was saying to you, you have an IQ of about four. That's slightly below par, even for the segment of FR who's routinely outraged on behalf of the Islamic terrorists."

No, the reason you gave no explanation for your claim that abusing Iraqui prisoners somehow protects American lives is because you don't have one.

If you don't understand the question, and can't give an answer, then I suggest that apart from being a lawless thug, *you* probably have the subhuman IQ, not I.

Those of us human enough to be outraged at the conduct of those who are responsible for the abuse of Iraquis feel this way because we expect more of our countrymen, not because we spend our time being "routinely outraged," as you so patronizingly put it.

I'd tell you to "Go back and try again, Sir" but you don't deserve the courtesy of being addressed thusly.

We're all still waiting for your explanation of how humiliating Iraqui prisoners makes Americans safer. You'll probably continue to duck the issue by claiming that we all wouldn't understand, and continue to insult the intelligence of those who want an explanation for your earlier post. I think what you really meant to say is that the mistreatment of Iraqui prisoners makes you *feel good*, and so nothing should be done to curb it. Good people like me and others who feel sickened by these photos think people like you are no better than the thugs in Iraq whose regime we toppled.

[ConservativeMan55]

bump!

[Henrietta]

"Kill them on the battlefield by the millions, I'm OK with it. Use prisoners to star in one's own personal sado-sexual porn films? No way."

You hit it on the head! I completely agree!

[DonaldDuke]

No, the reason you gave no explanation for your claim that abusing Iraqui prisoners somehow protects American lives is because you don't have one.

Ah. You don't read so well? Thought so.

[Henrietta]

"Ah. You don't read so well? Thought so."

Still no explanation, just another insult. I take it that you agree with what I posted, then, DavidDuke?

[Zeroisanumber]

All those naked Iraqis must be guilty of something, right? There can't be any innocent civilians rounded up by overzealous authorities. That never happens.

Ahhhhhh.....the author finally reveals his true anti-American colors.

What's anti-American about that? It's quite possible that there are some innocent men mixed in with the idiots.

[altura]

Rush is a very good communicator and is very entertaining, but he's no intellectual, that's for sure....

don't worry, we have algore and kerry for the intellectual tasks.

[altura]

Okay, we get it. Leave now.

[altura]

Rush usually credits his Stout quotes, but sometimes he doesn't.

Still, he doesn't lift his entire program from Savage or somebody ala hairplug boy.

[DonaldDuke]

Still no explanation, just another insult.

Sigh. The explanation is in my original post to you, as you probably know, if you're not a vegetable. But I don't have any interest in "debating" someone who looks like a member of the chemtrail crowd ;). Now go away.

[Henrietta]

"Sigh. The explanation is in my original post to you, as you probably know, if you're not a vegetable. But I don't have any interest in "debating" someone who looks like a member of the chemtrail crowd ;). Now go away."

This is a public forum, and if you don't want a debate, then you can simply stop replying to my posts, but I will not "go away."

You still have not explained to us why stripping prisoners naked and taking trophy photos of them in humiliating positions protects American lives. Other ways exist of "breaking" prisoners without making us look like the savages that we just dethroned in Iraq. Again, no explanations, just another insult from you.

[quidnunc]

altura wrote: Rush usually credits his Stout quotes, but sometimes he doesn't.

In this case he was passing off Stout's writing as his own thinking.

Did he really think that there would be nobody listening who would recognize his plagarism?

After all, the opening chapter in 'Gambit' is one of the most memorable passages in the whole Nero Wolfe canon.

[luigi]

Rush made a big thing about trying to discredit somebody because they wrote that Iraqis were Arabs. Rush said that Iraqis weren't Arabs. Rush is dead-wrong, the majority of Iraqis are Arabs.

He also came back, I believe after a Profit-Center-Time-Out, and apologized, saying that it was Iranians that were not Arabs.

[quidnunc]

luigi wrote: (Rush made a big thing about trying to discredit somebody because they wrote that Iraqis were Arabs. Rush said that Iraqis weren't Arabs. Rush is dead-wrong, the majority of Iraqis are Arabs.) He also came back, I believe after a Profit-Center-Time-Out, and apologized, saying that it was Iranians that were not Arabs.

I didn't hear any on-air correction.

I was listening in my car at the time and I may have turned him off, as I often do when he starts blathering nonsense which is too insufferable to be endured.

[quidnunc]

The point is, he didn't know that Iraquis were Arabs and if he did correct himself it was undoubtedly because his staff told him he was wrong.

[DonaldDuke]

You still have not explained to us

Easy-peasy solution: let everyone see where your reading comprehension drops off a cliff.

Now, go away :)).

The post Henrietta can't comprehend

[jps098]

Maybe you went to the bathroom? I listened to all 3 hours (I usually do while I work) and I know what I heard and when I heard it.

It was the about 3 minutes later. You are probably so much against what he says you do like most liberals I know and quit listening as you formulated your response in your mind.

Why the heck, should I go find some transcript just to prove that I know what I heard? You would not be persuaded to do anything but find something else to complain about.

I actually remember what life was like before there was any opposing thought to the liberal media. I don't expect perfection, too bad you do.

[quidnunc]

jps098 wrote: Maybe you went to the bathroom? I listened to all 3 hours (I usually do while I work) and I know what I heard and when I heard it. It was the about 3 minutes later. You are probably so much against what he says you do like most liberals I know and quit listening as you formulated your response in your mind. Why the heck, should I go find some transcript just to prove that I know what I heard? You would not be persuaded to do anything but find something else to complain about. I actually remember what life was like before there was any opposing thought to the liberal media. I don't expect perfection, too bad you do.

I listen to Limbaugh quite a bit, it's just that I don't worship him as a demi-god like many here on FR seerm to.

When he begins to try my patience I turn him off and find something else.

I've already heard enough about SUVs and the other monomanias which Rush has latched on to in lieu of tackling some of the more serious issues which confront us.