But listen to Limbaugh. His argument is internally consistent: He opposes sending more troops to the region in what may escalate to an open-ended commitment. Rush compares Obama's authorization of force in Libya. The administration promised the mission would be measured in "days, not weeks." That was 7 months ago. No president in the post-Vietnam era has been this reckless on war powers. See, "Obama's Illegal War." And Rush Limbaugh's reference to Christians is an attack on the administration's hypocrisy. We've done nothing to help Christians in Egypt, so Limbaugh snorts:
Lord's Resistance Army are Christians. It means God. I was only kidding. Lord's Resistance Army are Christians. They are fighting the Muslims in Sudan. And Obama has sent troops, United States troops to remove them from the battlefield, which means kill them. That's what the lingo means, "to help regional forces remove from the battlefield," meaning capture or kill.That's the context.
So that's a new war, a hundred troops to wipe out Christians in Sudan, Uganda, and -- (interruption) no, I'm not kidding. Jacob Tapper just reported it. Now, are we gonna help the Egyptians wipe out the Christians? Wouldn't you say that we are? I mean the Coptic Christians are being wiped out, but it wasn't just Obama that supported that. The conservative intelligentsia thought it was an outbreak of democracy. Now they've done a 180 on that, but they forgot that they supported it in the first place. Now they're criticizing it.
But idiot progressives are spinning this as backing terrorists. See Matthew Yglesias, "Rush Limbaugh Endorses the Lord’s Resistance Army." Well, no he does not. He's not endorsing any action in Africa, actually. He's arguing a realist position that our interests aren't threatened. He's attacking this administration's ad hoc foreign policy, which is classical wag-the-dog interventionism. And he's attacking the euphoria over the "Arab Spring" in Egypt early this year, which has now deteriorated into ethnic cleansing. But radical progressives hate Limbaugh so much they refuse to place his commentary in the proper context. Typical.
Added: From Blake Hounshell, at Foreign Policy, "Rush Limbaugh on Lord's Resistance Army: "Obama Invades Uganda, Targets Christians."
12 comments:
Toward the end of the show (I think it was, may have been toward the end of one of the hour blocks), Limbaugh is informed off-mic that the LRA are accused of some pretty heinous things. He then acknowledges that. Might want to dig up that audio if you can to provide even more context. The left will crop and leave out all that they can to spin this phony story, so you may as well have all your ammunition ready.
Student x: I'm glad Limbaugh walked back his claim that the LRA is some kind of Chrisitan liberation front. But "the left" won't need to crop anything: the fact is that Limbaugh didn't have a bloody clue what he was talking about. Instead of taking that as a reason to WAIT before he attacked the Obama Administration, or merely attacking them for an "open-ended commitment" (irony alert), he instead tried to turn the announcement into evidence of Obama's putative anti-Christian/pro-Muslim agenda. Given the nature of the LRA, and the fact that prominent Republicans have been pushing for US action against them, this episode is a pretty powerful indictment of Limbaugh. I hope at least he repudiates the misinformation he spewed to his many listeners.
And the post that "idiot progressives" are getting this from explicitly acknowledges the "my producer just informed me that I migh have stepped in it" moment:
http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/10/15/rush_limbaugh_on_lords_resistance_army_obama_invades_uganda_targets_christians
Student x, adding that part would actually destroy this carefully crafted spin of Limbaugh's comments.
Dan, progressives aren't attacking Limbaugh because "didn't have a bloody clue..." They're saying he's backing the L.R.A., which he's clearly not.
Limbaugh approvingly read the group's goals on the air. That's pretty damning evidence of his albeit ignorant support.
He then accused the president of sending in troops to kill Christians.
It's all indefensible, no matter how hard you or Limbaugh try.
'It's all indefensible, no matter how hard you or Limbaugh try.'
I see you've made up your mind. Actually, no, it's not "indefensible." The context is there, as I point out at the essay here. You and the progs refuse to even consider it. And I've added the update to the link. Limbaugh indicates he's going to research it more. Clearly he's willing to consider it, but frankly it won't change the basic position of another open ended commitment
What is the point of more research on Limbaugh's part? To discover that his initial approval of LRA's goal was misplaced?
Why does he need to do more research?
Why do you need to defend the indefensible?
'Why do you need to defend the indefensible?'
Don't be an idiot. My post speaks for itself. Progressives stupidly attacked Limbaugh when the internal logic of his position is crystal clear. It's the mission he opposes, open ended. You think you're right? Go through the steps friend. Progressives are attacking Limbaugh because they hate him. Not because he said something "indefensible."
You're touting Limbaugh's "internal logic" when the man himself admits her didn't do his research and just approvingly read the LRA's goals on the air?
Seriously?
Yeah, this is a pretty big WTF. There's no issue of consistent "internal logic" here. Limbaugh said some pretty amazingly stupid stuff about the LRA in order to criticize the Obama Administration for targeting Christians. He also expressed concern about escalation. The two have zero logical relation to one another; they are completely independent propositions.
So where Donald's post leaves us is this: he thinks progressives are "idiots" for pointing out that Limbaugh presented the LRA as some kind of pro-Christian group fighting (rather than receiving support from) North Sudan and other entities with a history of anti-Christian violence. That's a pretty novel use of the term "idiot."
The fact that Limbaugh and his staff had never heard of the LRA indicates that they are ignorant about current affairs. The LRA have been murdering thousands for over twenty five years. Their viciousness, brutality and use of child soldiers and and child sex slaves has made them infamous. Anyone paying attention to world affairs has heard of them.
Limbaugh praised them as Christians, praised their stated goals, and stated that Obama was siding with Muslims and trying to wipe out Christians.
In reality, the LRA has been killing Christians both in South Sudan and Uganda, while taking money and support from the Muslim government of northern Sudan.
The president of Uganda is a born-again Christian. He invited the Special Forces troops into his country. Uganda is a predominantly Christian nation, less than 16% Muslim. South Sudan is predominantly Christian and animist.
In addition, Congress did authorize this intervention in 'The Lord's Resistance Army Disarmament and Northern Uganda Recovery Act of 2009' signed into law on May 24th, 2010. (BTW, it passed the Senate unanimously.)
So Limbaugh's fact-free, thoroughly ignorant tirade is somehow "internally consistent." In addition, he makes the ludicrous and despicable charge that Obama "wants to wipe out Christians in Sudan, Uganda, and..."
Remember when criticizing the Commander in Chief in a time of war was treason? Oh, right, that's only when the CIC is Republican. This is more than criticism, this is an incitement to violence - the Muslim-sympathizing President wants to wipe out Christians in Africa. You're next!
You are as repugnant as Limbaugh to try to defend this wholly fabricated, delusional spew.
Post a Comment