new york times review of clinton's book

[ocelot]

From rushlimbaughonline.com:

Rush Limbaugh sells himself as the "great truth detector". Rush Limbaugh claims to be a great patriot and claims a high degree of moral behavior. Thing of it is, Rush Limbaugh evaded serving his country and has been stoned on prescription drugs for the past 5 years. Rush Limbaugh also routinely makes innacurate statements. Rush Limbaugh has nothing to do with truth and moralism, nor is he an example of patriotic behavior. Rush Limbaugh is self-serving demagogue who will say anything to enrich himself. If Rush's fans applied even a modicum of objective reason, they would realize Limbaugh is duping them for great personal gain. MEGADITTOS!!

 

[ocelot]

And more from same source:

The rhetoric coming from conservatives such as Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, et. al. holds that it is liberals who engage in name calling and using childish, innapropriate language. Yet time and again we here very low level language coming from them. On his 12/10/2003, Rush seemed to have been shooting for a mountain of hypocrisy when making his assertions regarding Hillary Clinton and testicles.

"Yet it appears that Mrs. Clinton puts the testicles of all her interviewers into a lockbox before the Q&A, and only returns them if she receives favorable treatment - and said favorable treatment is what turned her bad mood into a good mood!"
Rush Limbaugh

Rush was using his rather graphic testicle euphemism to assert interviewers give Hillary favorable treatment due to her gender. Such language is hardly appropriate, nor is his assertion correct. Just ask Tim Russert about that.

In the very same show, Rush also refered to a government spokesman for Germany as "that fat little pig". Rush called DeVillipan of France, "the geek" and Wesley Clark, "the tall gangly guy".

Not all of the viewers were pleased with Rush's graphic assertion and called to tell him so. Rush not only did not apologize, he went on to self-righteously chastize those who disagreed, calling them "Hillarys". The following day, a caller told Rush the "talk at the coffee shop about his comments was not positive". Rush spun this as something he was happy about, insisting that he was not worried but would have been were they not talking about him".

It does seem Rush may have been letting his slip show a bit. Rush doesn't much care what he says as long as listeners are dutifully tuning in, the ad space is bought and the checks are signed. But is this what dialog in this country should be? It is beyond unfortunate that many who listen think what they are hearing is political analysis.

Rush's comment about Hillary allegedly emasculating interviewers by putting their testicles in a lockbox is yet another "gutter language" comment that undermines the convenient myth voiced by conservatives which holds that "only liberals use childish language and namecalling". It is clear conservatives will use such language where it suits their interests.

 

[ocelot]

And more from rushlimbaughonline.com:


The 1998 Missile Strike at Al-Queda....
(a dose of accuracy)

In his charcteristic demagoging manner, Rush once again verbally attacked Bill Clinton for the firing of missiles at Ussama Bin Laden in 1998. Rush insists it was total political theatre. This accusation is irresponsible, baseless and FAILS on its face.

Through the 90s, the unprecedented wave of terrorism brought by Ussama began to ramp up and take shape. The CIA, FBI, military intelligence worked to track his whereabouts. Diplomatic arrangements intended to bring about his capture were sought. When Al-Queda bombed the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzinia in 98, a far more urgent response was necessary.

A president usually does little on his own, this is particularly true when it comes to national security and military action. The National Security Council is the president's body of expertise on national security issues. President Clinton's NSC included Gen. Shelton and Willian Cohen, both republican and neither interested in political theatre. The same can be said of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Their goals and objectives are not about political theatre, particularly in respect to a known and growing terrorist threat.

In the face of increasing destruction and loss of life owed to Ussama Bin Laden... two bombed embassies, bombings at two military bases and making good on the promise to include civilians in his attacks, moving militarily against him was a logical and necesary thing to do. The NSC, Joint Chiefs and President Clinton understood this.

Based on military targeting data, CIA intelligence and the experience, research and goal of both the NSC and the JCS, President Clinton authorized a missile strike on an Afghanistan location where Ussama was thought to be and a manufacturing plant in Khartoum.

The response from many prominent republicans (the media too) was shameful. They characterized the effort as a "wag the dog" manuever. The rational one would've been support and statements to the effect of, "okay that missed, lets hit him harder". Instead the GOP used the fact the missile strikes did not kill Bin Laden for their political goals. National Securty should not be used as a political football. It is PROFOUNDLY unfortunate that the GOP didn't see it that way. Ussama went on to attack the USS Cole and execute the 9/11 attacks.

And here we have Rush Limbaugh blathering on making the same mindless and irresponsible charge, suggesting the missiles fired at Ussama in 1998 was just a Clintonian political diversion. Ussama was becoming more than just a threat, as manifested by the bombing of the two embassies and promise to involve more citizens. President Clinton, the NSC, FBI, CIA, JCS among many others understood this. The decision to attack Ussama with missiles was made by a large team of people and was not about "political theatre" as Limbaugh so erroneously insists. Rush ignores this every time he opens his mouth to speak about the missile firings in 98.

In view of 9/11 and the attack on the Cole, it is particularly galling that Rush should be spewing his factless gibes. It is similarly unfortunate there is a company willing to profit from airing Rush's absurd, factless contortions. It is also unfortunate that there are people willing to engage his tripe.

To learn about the corporate entity that owns Rush Limbaugh's show, visit Premiere Radio Networks Online. Premiere Radio Networks and its parent profit mightily from selling GOP dogma.

 

[ocelot]

From fair.org:

Oh and there is so much more...

Limbaugh vs. Reality
Bogus Economics
LIMBAUGH: On California contractor C.C. Myers completing repairs 74 days early on the earthquake-damaged Santa Monica Freeway: "There was one key element that made this happen. One key thing: The governor of California declared the [freeway] a disaster area and by so doing eliminated the need for competitive bids.... Government got the hell out of the way." (TV show, 4/13/94) "They gave this guy [Myers] the job without having to go through the rigmarole...of giving 25 percent of the job to a minority-owned business and 25 percent to a woman." (TV show, 4/15/94)
REALITY: There was competitive bidding: Myers beat four other contractors for the job. Affirmative action rules applied: At least 40 percent of the subcontracts went to minority or women-owned firms. Far from getting out of the way, dozens of state employees were on the job 24 hours a day. Furthermore, the federal government picked up the tab for the whole job (L.A. Times, 5/1/94).

LIMBAUGH: "Banks take the risks in issuing student loans and they are entitled to the profits." (Radio show, quoted in FRQ, Summer/93)

REALITY: Banks take no risks in issuing student loans, which are federally insured.

LIMBAUGH: "Don't let the liberals deceive you into believing that a decade of sustained growth without inflation in America [in the '80s] resulted in a bigger gap between the haves and the have-nots. Figures compiled by the Congressional Budget Office dispel that myth." (Ought to Be, p. 70)

REALITY: CBO figures do nothing of the sort. Its numbers for after-tax incomes show that in 1980, the richest fifth of our country had eight times the income of the poorest fifth. By 1989, the ratio was more than 20 to one.

LIMBAUGH: Comparing the 1950s with the present: "And I might point out that poverty and economic disparities between the lower and upper classes were greater during the former period." (Told You So, p. 84)

REALITY: Income inequality, as measured by the U.S. Census Bureau, fell from the 1940s to the late 1960s, and then began rising. Inequality surpassed the 1950 level in 1982 and rose steadily to all-time highs in 1992. (Census Bureau's "Money Income of Households, Families and Persons in the United States")

LIMBAUGH: "Oh, how they relished blaming Reagan administration policies, including the mythical reductions in HUD's budget for public housing, for creating all of the homeless! Budget cuts? There were no budget cuts! The budget figures show that actual construction of public housing increased during the Reagan years." (Ought to Be, p. 242-243)

REALITY: In 1980, 20,900 low-income public housing units were under construction; in 1988, 9,700, a decline of 54 percent ;Statistical Abstracts of the U.S).In terms of 1993 dollars, the HUD budget for the construction of new public housing was slashed from $6.3 billion in 1980 to $683 million in 1988. "We're getting out of the housing business. Period," a Reagan HUD official declared in 1985.

LIMBAUGH: "The poorest people in America are better off than the mainstream families of Europe." (Radio show, quoted in FRQ, Spring/93)

REALITY: Huh? The average cash income of the poorest 20 percent of Americans is $5,226; the average cash income of four major European nations--Germany, France, United Kingdom and Italy--is $19,708.

LIMBAUGH: "There's no such thing as an implied contract." (Radio show, quoted in FRQ, Spring/93)

REALITY: Every first year law student knows there is.

LIMBAUGH: "Ladies and gentlemen, we now know why there is this institutional opposition to low tax rates in the liberal wing of the Democratic Party. It's because [low tax rates] are biblical in nature and in root. When you can trace the lowering of tax rates on grain from 90 percent to 20 percent giving seven fat years during the days of Pharaoh in Egypt, why then you are tracing the roots of lower taxes and rising prosperity to religion.... You can trace individual prosperity, economic growth back to the Bible, the Old Testament. Isn't it amazing?" (Radio show, 6/28/93)

REALITY: Amazingly wrong. Genesis 41 is about the wisdom of instituting taxes, not cutting them. After Pharaoh had a dream that prophesied seven fat years to be followed by seven lean years, Joseph advised him to "appoint officers over the land, and take up the fifth part of the land of Egypt in the seven plenteous years...and lay up corn under the hands of Pharaoh." In other words, a 20 percent tax on the grain harvest would put aside food for use during the famine. Pharaoh took Joseph's advice, and Egypt avoided hunger during the famine.

 

[SixFive]

I can't stand listening to Rush. I think he had a much better presence during the Clinton administration, but now, I really tire of his stuff. It's a tireless monologue with almost no caller interaction and rarely does he even have a guest. O'Reilly, G.G. Liddy, and Hannity have much better radio shows and have a diverse caller base that leads to more interaction. I could see one of these guys replacing Rush, but I can't think of any liberal shows to put on there. I'm sure it wouldn't go over well to have a host berating the administration and the soldiers' presence either.

 

[auspice]

djv

You're right, there is no 'vote' among servicemen re listening to Lush everyday. I called my cousin who got out of a twenty year hitch as a pilot in the air force last year. He said he never voted and had never heard of anyone that ever did. He did say listening to AFR isn't that easy as just turning on a radio as a decoder is needed to receive the transmission. I never asked if it's built into the radio. He also said Lush has been on for 10 years or so on AFR so the servicemen have been hearing his 'democrats hate america' blather for a decade. Nothing like uniting America huh? But the conservative mentality has never been about doing what is best for America. It's always been about dividing and conquering and doing what's best for their financial interests regardless of how it impacts America or it's people.

 

[Chanman]

http://billclintonbookmylife.blogspot.com/

 

[Chain Saw]

Damn Chanman, I feel dirty after viewing that site. What a bunch of tripe.