Right Wing Media: congratulations Rush Limbaugh on three full years of sobriety!

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Right Wing Media: congratulations Rush Limbaugh on three full years of sobriety!

«‹›3446 »

OAquinas: Jan 27, 2008; Biden has sat immobile on the Iron Throne of America. He is the Master of Malarkey by the will of the gods, and master of a million votes by the might of his inexhaustible calamari.

Intel&Sebastian posted:

Huh, Megyn Kelly did get up in Cheney's grill during that interview.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/megyn-kelly-dick-cheney-wrong-iraq

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WA-ebuLTlCI

They just brush it off like we're living in some alternate universe obviously, but credit where credit is due.

Yeah, it took a while before someone hit the brakes on that interview. So uh, nice work Fox?

# ? Jun 20, 2014 01:00

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 9, 2024 06:24

pentyne: Nov 7, 2012

beatlegs posted:

That would be an epic ice burn if everyone was a tea party nutbag and lacked the objectivity to recognize a nasty little shitstain when they see one.

Not really. "You, the Secretary of State, have more security then an IT guy at a US consulate on foreign soil."

What the gently caress else did he expect? Every US employee overseas have a 10 man guard team? It's just political theater by remorseless assholes who don't give a gently caress about the dead until it suits their agenda.

# ? Jun 20, 2014 01:12

moths: Aug 25, 2004; I would also still appreciate some danger.

The proper response is to make it out to literally any other person killed at Benghazi and let his confusion indict him.

# ? Jun 20, 2014 01:14

El Fappo: Dec 26, 2012

Intel&Sebastian posted:

Huh, Megyn Kelly did get up in Cheney's grill during that interview.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/megyn-kelly-dick-cheney-wrong-iraq

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WA-ebuLTlCI

They just brush it off like we're living in some alternate universe obviously, but credit where credit is due.

Did he call her Reagan there at first? That's a super weird Freudian slip.

# ? Jun 20, 2014 01:58

Dr. Arbitrary: Mar 15, 2006; Bleak Gremlin

I'm pretty sure that the compound in Benghazi had more protection than Hillary's entourage. It's just that when you get attacked by over a hundred people armed with, according to Wikipedia," Rocket Propelled Grenades, hand grenades, assault rifles, 14.5 mm anti-aircraft machine guns, truck mounted artillery and mortars” you are kind of hosed.

# ? Jun 20, 2014 02:11

AsInHowe: Jan 11, 2007; red winged angel

Big Beef City posted:

Mark Levin is currently saying that Brett Favre recorded a commercial for Thad Cochran because Thad Cochran is friends with former MS governor Haley Barbour who pardoned Favre's brother after he was sentenced for vehicular manslaughter.

Did Favre whip his dick out awkwardly in the commercial, because sexual harassment scores big points with the Republican base

# ? Jun 20, 2014 02:51

usbombshell: Oct 29, 2004; Boom!

Anyone have a clue what this is about?

# ? Jun 20, 2014 03:07

OAquinas: Jan 27, 2008; Biden has sat immobile on the Iron Throne of America. He is the Master of Malarkey by the will of the gods, and master of a million votes by the might of his inexhaustible calamari.

usbombshell posted:

Anyone have a clue what this is about?

A dumb rear end in a top hat getting fired?

Rep. Duckworth is somewhere, laughing.

# ? Jun 20, 2014 03:10

PostNouveau: Sep 3, 2011; VY till I die; Grimey Drawer

usbombshell posted:

Anyone have a clue what this is about?

Haha, how often do you have to delay dump a former congressmen for saying racial slurs before you just force him out of the building?

# ? Jun 20, 2014 03:16

Azuth0667: Sep 20, 2011; By the word of Zoroaster, no business decision is poor when it involves Ahura Mazda.

usbombshell posted:

Anyone have a clue what this is about?

It's comedy gold, literally a dude going "I'm tired of these dog whistles I want to use the actual words. Why won't management let me use the real words :qq:

." Who wants to take bets on how long it takes for him to complain about his first amendment right being trampled?

# ? Jun 20, 2014 03:16

woke wedding drone: Jun 1, 2003; by exmarx; Fun Shoe

I think I discovered a rule. If somebody knows to put a "k" on the end of "spic" you know that they have spent their whole lives plugged into the real racism. The Good Stuff. The triple bock. The kind. The quintessence. They love it.

# ? Jun 20, 2014 03:24

Pander: Oct 9, 2007; Fear is the glue that holds society together. It's what makes people suppress their worst impulses. Fear is power.

And at the end of fear, oblivion.

SedanChair posted:

I think I discovered a rule. If somebody knows to put a "k" on the end of "spic" you know that they have spent their whole lives plugged into the real racism. The Good Stuff. The triple bock. The kind. The quintessence. They love it.

Or it means their racism is so casually ingrained that they haven't even questioned its origin.

# ? Jun 20, 2014 03:25

woke wedding drone: Jun 1, 2003; by exmarx; Fun Shoe

Joe Walsh's producer:

# ? Jun 20, 2014 03:33

Berke Negri: Feb 15, 2012; Les Ricains tuent et moi je mue
Mao Mao
Les fous sont rois et moi je bois
Mao Mao
Les bombes tonnent et moi je sonne
Mao Mao
Les bebes fuient et moi je fuis
Mao Mao

"Why can't I say friend of the family if I can say redskins?"

A Good Firing.

edit: bonus points for "THE WORLD IS SO CONFUSING IM TURNING TO DRINK"

# ? Jun 20, 2014 03:40

Jerry Manderbilt: May 31, 2012; No matter how much paperwork I process, it never goes away. It only increases.

Turning to drink? That's money which could be used to pay child support :colbert:

# ? Jun 20, 2014 03:43

Good Citizen: Aug 12, 2008; trump trump trump trump trump trump trump trump trump trump

usbombshell posted:

Anyone have a clue what this is about?

If you want to listen to it, he puts his podcasts online. Look at today's. It starts 31 min in:
http://walshfreedom.com/podcast/

They straight cut him off to commercial while he's contemplating 'what is the n-word?' but don't be fooled, they're using tape delay to cut out legit n-bombs

At some points you can hear his producer yelling in the background

e: ha ha, he seriously gets cut off like 6 times for using racial slurs

Good Citizen fucked around with this message at 04:14 on Jun 20, 2014

# ? Jun 20, 2014 04:02

kik2dagroin: Mar 23, 2007; Use the anger. Use it.

Today we get to watch spin in live action! :cheers:

quote:

RUSH: No, it's not a press conference, is it? It's just a statement. Obama at 12:30, it's not a press conference, right? (interruption) Yeah, just a statement, no questions. Okay, cool. Yeah, 'cause it's gonna determine here the order in which I do things. I got a whole bunch of stuff on this IRS business, Lois Lerner. Cheney's on Fox last night, and it's gonna be a typically loaded day. Folks, just absolutely great to be here. I can't wait every morning. It's getting to the point now that I can't wait to go to bed every night so the morning arrives even sooner so I can start getting ready for each busy broadcast day. Great to have you. The telephone number is 800-282-2882, if you want to be on the program. The e-mail address, ElRushbo@eibnet.com.

So the prepub on this statement at 12:30 today. Of course, he's never on time, but he'll wait 'til after our commercial break is over. You wait, this won't happen before 12:33. That's my guess. Pretty educated guess.

Anyway, the prepub on this is that the president may send Special Forces into Iraq. Now, I think if he's gonna do this, it ought to be a full-blown press conference. I mean, if he's the guy that they've always advertised to us, it should be a full-blown press conference. But it isn't gonna be. I think the president -- let me just give you a little prediction what I think this statement is going to attempt to accomplish.

Forget whether there's announcement about Special Forces or not, there's gonna be an objective or two that the president wants to leave with everybody here, impressions. And of course number one will be that it's Bush and Cheney's fault. And ever since Cheney's op-ed, Dick Cheney's and Liz Cheney's op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, the left has gone bat excrement out there.

In fact, in some places, sports columnists have been asked to write columns in the news section about what a rotten guy Cheney is and about what a liar Cheney is and how this is all Cheney's fault and Bush's fault. And poor Obama, all he did was inherit this, and he's saddled with an unwinnable, untenable situation, and it's those guys' fault. This is the meme, the narrative, the theme.
...
In my humble estimation, Barack Obama invited this day. And now, ladies and gentlemen, you probably have heard there is a movement on that we need to get rid of Maliki. He's gotta go. Let's see, who else had to go? The Shah had to go. How did that work out for us? A couple of guys in Vietnam we said had to go way back then. How did that work out for us?

There are any number of examples where we have been told or decided on our own that existing leadership in certain countries had to go because they were a problem. Jimmy Carter sending the Shah of Iran packing, giving the world the Ayatollah Khomeini -- or the Ayatollah Hominy, as pronounced by Pierre Salinger. This is the president who has willingly overseen the IRS targeting of political opponents.

This is the president of the United States who has willingly approved, and probably privately applauded, Lois Lerner and all the IRS people who targeted Tea Party nonprofit groups, groups consisting of nothing more than people who wanted to practice the art of dissent -- the time-honored art of dissent. This is the president who has presided over the absolute disaster that is now at the VA.

This president -- who has presided over the opening of the Southern border to tens of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands now) illegal aliens and children, not just from Mexico, but from other Central American countries -- is going to come before you today and present himself as an expert and eminently qualified to detail for us our future policy in Iraq.

And it is my humble estimation that the guiding experience and intelligence we have tells us that there is no example of competence in the past to give us any comfort that a correct foreign policy implementation will be forthcoming. (interruption) That's right. We had to get rid of Mubarak in Egypt, and how has that worked out for us? We had to get rid of Khadafy in Libya, and how has that worked out?
...
The Drive-Bys told us that it was our presence that was destabilizing the region. Madeleine Albright and any number of leftists were upset at our superpower status, particularly after the Soviet Union was dismantled, and there was no superpower left but us. They wrung their hands in despair, and they worried that the world was now forever destabilized because the United States was the only superpower remaining.

Because, you see, in their view, we can't be. We are not the good guys. No superpower is good guys. But as long as we were a superpower with a competing superpower keep us honest (i.e., the Soviet Union) then that was okay -- and I'm not exaggerating. The Soviet Union was a justified superpower. We are not. We are an unjust, immoral superpower to the left, because of the way we have acquired our power.

We've stolen it and we've conquered and all these other horrible, rotten attributes that we don't do but they attach to us. But now that we are the only superpower, that's destabilizing. I was frequently reading over the last few years how it was the US that was destabilizing that region. The US was destabilizing the Middle East with our support for Israel, with our entrance into Iraq.

Yet the Saudis are claiming that a civil war in Iraq is the destabilizing agent and needs to be dealt with. "The Saudi foreign minister's remarks coincided with an Iranian warning that Tehran would not hesitate to defend Shi'ite Muslim holy sites in Iraq against killers and terrorists, following advances by Sunni militants there." So that's where we are vis-a-vis Iraq.

We have a president, again, who has released five terrorist masterminds back to the enemy, replenished them in exchange for one of our observers being given back to us. A president who has erased his own red lines in Syria. A president who has gotten rid of Khadafy, gotten rid of Mubarak -- all of these situations resulting in the further advance of militant Islamists, which destabilizes the region.

The president has backed the Muslim Brotherhood. He has let Vladimir Putin roll over him. He had Hillary Clinton go over to the Soviet Union with this new reset button, which was a laughingstock of the world. He left his consulate in Benghazi unprotected, undefended, resulting in four American deaths.

He has apologized as often as he can for the transgressions and the presumptive moral authority this country does not have to anybody who will listen. He has applauded -- and encouraged, no doubt -- the IRS targeting of his political opponents. He has presided over the VA, an absolute disaster, a human disaster and debacle. And, of course, the open borders. So now this same president is going to guide us to the next phase of Iraq.
...
You know, it's important. Everybody's trying to glom onto this notion that we are the destabilizing agent there, starting with Cheney and Bush. We had no business going. We had no business being there in the first place. We went on false pretenses. There weren't any weapons of mass destruction and all kinds of people died, and there was all kinds of destruction. We're the ones that destabilize the region and so forth.

That simply is the opposite of the truth, and even the AP says (and they said it in passing, but I'll not forget it) that only the US presence in Iraq was keeping the peace. And as we continued to withdraw with date certain for leaving -- like is happening in Afghanistan now -- we were sending signals to the bad guys: "Just be patient.

"Sit around and wait for your time, because pretty soon you're not gonna have any serious opposition." We, the United States, were keeping the peace between the various Muslim sects, basically the Shi'ites and the Sunnis. Now Algore, you might be interested know, is blaming global warming for the civil war in Iraq. I'm not kidding. I'm not kidding.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: I'm still waiting for Obama... It was scheduled for 12:30. These poor Drive-Bys. You should see this. All of these White House correspondents have been standing in the White House pressroom in front of their cameras since about 12:15, almost for an hour, breathlessly waiting for Obama to show.

They're breathlessly waiting for their networks to go to them for their breathless reports about how Obama's on his way to the podium to issue his statement on Iraq, and they have been standing there for an hour. Now, to me, this is rude. It's arrogant, and it's rude. Nobody else is gonna look at it that way, of course, but he tells these people he's gonna be how there at 12:30. Here it is 1:12.

There's no sign of him, and the news is that he's still meeting with the national security team. And, of course, that's probably an image attempt. They're feverishly working, desperately thinking about everything, applying the best minds in the room to come up with the defensive policy and statement to announce to the American people. And, of course, the Drive-Bys are carrying that message.

Again just want to remind you: He's gonna come out and there are gonna be two basic points here. He inherited this, but he's gonna roll up his sleeves. He inherited this, but that doesn't matter. After he whines and moans and throws out a couple of straw men, it isn't gonna matter, and then it's all gonna come down to his good intentions.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2014/06/19/breathlessly_waiting_for_obama
Just look at those idiot reporters! Waiting around for Obama! He was supposed to be on at 12:15 and I am still waiting for him to come on! When is he going to come on!? I don't know!!! :bahgawd:

At last my friends! Our exalted Leader has deigned to meet with us! Let me tell you how everything that came out of his mouth was the exact opposite of what he just said!

quote:

RUSH: Here's a little preliminary. Obama made his statement. He's now asking sycophantic questions from the Drive-Bys. Essentially what Obama said is that there is no military solution inside of Iraq, certainly not one led by the United States. Okay. What is happening inside Iraq right now? Would you describe it as a military action? You got the bad guys, ISIS, and they are using weapons and terror and terrorism and intimidation and bullying and weapons and they're pulling triggers and bullets are being fired, people are killed and so forth.

It's a civil war, right? Okay. It's a war. It's a mass terrorist attack. But would you describe it as -- are they using military tactics? (interruption) Okay. Okay. They're not using words, doctors, nurses, clean water. They're not negotiating with anybody or -- (interruption) Right, killing people on the march. That's right, they're killing people and breaking things. And Obama says there's no military solution to that, and certainly not one led by the United States. What moral authority do we have to tell these people they're wrong? That's number one.

Number two. President Obama said the United States is going to send up to 300 military advisors to Iraq and set up a Joint Operations Center. Even though there is no military solution, we're gonna send 300 military advisors. What are they gonna advise? No, there is no military solution. Obama said there's no military solution. We're sending military advisors.

So it must be we're going to teach the Iraqis how to negotiate, how to appease. That's what we're good at. That must be it. We're gonna instruct them on the finest and latest in appeasement tactics. (interruption) The Iraqis are being overrun. What are you dumping on the Iraqis for? (interruption) They dumped their weapons and ran because they've got no support.

Maybe what Obama's gonna do is maybe we're gonna counsel them on how to arrange like a tie, you know, so that nobody wins, so that nobody loses. That's what it is. There's no military solution 'cause that would mean loses, and that's not applicable in the twenty-first century. John Kerry's told us this. There's no winners and losers in the twenty-first century. There's nobody's happy with that kind of circumstance. So we're gonna send our military advisors over there to teach them to appease and play for a tie so that everybody will either be happy or miserably the same.
...
You don't laugh at the powerless. You only laugh at the powerful. That, by the way, is another reason they hate me, 'cause I was one of the first to come along and laugh at them. But you just don't laugh at the left 'cause they consider themselves the minority, the put-upon, the powerless. And you're not supposed to make fun of them, and I did. I was thinking about, the real power that that kind of treatment (or the lack of it) has.

I mean, you wouldn't see whatever the popular show, Daily Show, whatever. They'd never mention it. They'll just excuse this Obama contradiction. They won't even mention it. Likewise, apparently there were some of you in the audience thinking that the media was gonna ask Obama challenging, tough questions about what's happening at the border or Benghazi or the IRS and Lois Lerner's vanishing e-mails, and then they didn't, and you're disappointed.

I guess it's just never gonna stop. I guess there's no way. People are just always going to hold out hope that the media will...what? Be fair? But they're not. The media is the Democrat Party. It is Obama. They're not ever gonna do what you hope they would do, and you're just gonna continue to be disappointed if you hold out hope that that's gonna change, 'cause it isn't. It's just one of the many things we have to overcome.

It can be done, obviously. They tried to do the same with Reagan -- bumbling fool, amiable dunce -- and they tried it with Bush, and worked with Bush and you could do it with Obama, too. I mean, here's somebody that's a glittering jewel of colossal ignorance who has no idea what he's doing, in one sense. In the other sense, he does and is succeeding at it greatly. But in terms of his experience and knowing what to do?

He doesn't have any idea what to do about health care, doesn't have any idea what to do about energy, doesn't have the slightest idea. He knows what his agenda is. He doesn't understand these things he's out destroying that he thinks he's helping. Anyway, that's just that. It's just a little observation that hit me during the break when I saw these e-mails. You know, sometimes I sit here and say, "Can you imagine if we got just a week late-night TV treatment of Obama the way Bush got?"

Can you imagine the difference in public opinion? There would be profoundly different public opinion I guarantee you. It might take longer than a week, but it would still be startling. Here is John Kerry. Now, remember, Obama is sending Kerry to Iraq, in addition to the 300 military advisors, even though there is not a military solution. By the way, Obama used the voice that he uses when he's just so tired of the burden of this office.

His voice in this statement today was, "Why do I have to be bothered with this? This is so beneath me! I really don't care. Why do I have to waste my time with this?" He said that he's not going to support one Muslim sect over another, meaning he's not gonna choose sides between the Sunnis and the Shi'ites. So what does that mean? He's gonna help the Sunni's ISIS forces just as much as he's gonna help Maliki and the Shi'ites?

If he's not gonna choose one over the other, why are we sending anybody in there? I'll tell you what's gonna happen. If we're not gonna choose one side over the other, I'm gonna tell you who's gonna win. ISIS is gonna win. The Sunni are gonna win this, in which case you can almost say that Obama is calling for Regime change in Iraq. Oh, I hope the Drive-Bys hear that! Oh, I hope they pick up on that.
...
I mean, Sunni ISIS is having a lot of success in taking over town after town after town, and they're targeting Baghdad. So obviously Obama is calling for Regime change without saying so. If we're gonna send in 300 military advisors and we're not gonna choose sides, does that mean 150 of those military advisors are gonna help ISIS and the other 150 are gonna help Maliki? Can you hear the Daily Show doing this? Ha-ha. Can you hear Letterman doing this? Ha-ha. Can you hear Fallon doing this? No way.

But I'm sorry, I am the mayor of Realville. I take people at their word. I really do. I take people at their literal word.
...
If there was Rush the TV Show, these are the sound bites that we'd have a little fun with tonight. And, folks, don't start saying, "Well, do it, do it," because I've been there, done that, and you know what I think about television. I'm just not big on it. Anyway, here's Obama, the first sound bite. It's a montage. This is exactly how we would prepare it if we were trying to do this on TV.

OBAMA: We're prepared to send a small number of additional American military advisors, up to 300, to assess how we can best train, advise, and support Iraqi security forces going forward. The United States will not pursue military options that support one sect inside of Iraq at the expense of another. There's no military solution inside of Iraq, certainly not one that is led by the United States.

RUSH: Now, as soon as that bite finished playing, the studio audience would be rolling in laughter, because it's outrageously hilarious. Every sentence is contradictory. "We are prepared to send a small number of additional American military advisors, up to 300, to assess how we can best train, advise, and support Iraqi security forces." Okay? Then, "The United States will not pursue military options to support one sect inside of Iraq at the expense of another."

Well, then what are we doing training the Iraqi security force? They are one side. And then, "There's no military solution inside of Iraq, certainly not one that is led by the US." This, folks, is non sequitur after non sequitur. This is absolutely ludicrous. None of this, put together, makes any sense. It sounds wonderful to a bunch of pacifists. It sounds wonderful to the changing demographics of America, the people who are tolerant and who are minority and want equality and fairness. Why are we sending anybody if we're not choosing sides?

So we're gonna send 300. What I would say is, "Three hundred advisors, but we're not choosing sides?" So 150 are gonna go to ISIS and 150 are gonna go to Iraqi security forces? But if we're not gonna support either one, then we don't care who wins, so why are we doing any of this? Here's the next bite...

OBAMA: We have had advisors in Iraq through our embassy and we're prepared to send a small number of additional American military advisors, up to 300, to assess how we can best train, advise, and support Iraqi security forces going forward. American forces will not be returning to combat in Iraq.

RUSH: Ooooookay. So we're not sending military forces back to Iraq except that we are. But we're not sending 'em in like Bush did. We're sending "advisors," a small number of advisors, "up to 300 to assess how we can best train, advise, and support... But American forces will not be returning to combat in Iraq." This is exactly, by the way, how Vietnam started. We'll just have to wait and see. And then here is the next bite, and we just keep ramming these contradictions at people.
...
RUSH: This is Mike in Carlsbad, California, a beautiful part of the country. Hello, sir.

CALLER: Hey, Rush. How are you?

RUSH: Good.

CALLER: Hey, just another chapter in monumental hypocrisy. I was listening to Obama's press conference, and I don't remember verbatim. But he was basically saying that Maliki needs to get over himself, his ego and be more inclusive. "You know, the problem is he's putting down his opposition," and Obama says this with a straight face! "You know, over there, Maliki needs to be more inclusive to people that disagree with him." But Obama? His opposition must be destroyed. I mean, they must be targeted and stopped.

RUSH: That is an excellent point. Here's Maliki, and I don't know whether he's good or bad or competent or not. But he's got an enemy trying to overthrow him with bullets and overtake towns in his country, and Obama says, "You need to be more inclusive. You need to be more tolerant! I'm gonna send some advisors over here, but we're not gonna pick sides. You're on your own, buddy." It still makes no sense.

Yet you come to the United States, and whenever there is an enemy of Obama that pops up, there is no tolerance, there is no inclusion, and there's no call for it. There are lawsuits and IRS actions and other nefarious ways of silencing that dissent and opposition in this country. But Maliki? He's gotta be open and tolerant of people trying to shoot their way into power over there.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2...onna_take_sides

Let's carry some water for the Cheneys while we're at it

quote:

RUSH: Megyn Kelly last night on her show on Fox really ripped into the Cheneys. She questioned them from a place that would be close to where the left would question the Cheneys. It was not rude or impolite, but the nature of the questions... well, I'll just tell you, I had a couple people, "What is happening to Fox? Did you see?"

I said, "No, I didn't. I didn't have the TV on." But I have the sound bites here and I've got the transcripts. I'll give you an example. Grab sound bite number two. That's where we'll start. Megyn Kelly with Dick Cheney and his daughter, Liz, and her first question -- well, I don't know if it was the first question. The first one we have. "The suggestion is, Mr. Vice President, that you caused this mess in Iraq. What say you?"

CHENEY: Obviously I disagree. I think we went into Iraq for very good reasons. I think when we left office we had a situation in Iraq that was very positive. We made major progress as a result of the decision President Bush made to go with the surge in '07, '08. There had been a dramatic reduction in violence in the country. They were prepared for negotiations that would lead to a stay-behind force of American trainers, technical people, intelligence, logistics capability, so that the Iraqi armed forces would be able to defend their own territory. What happened was that Barack Obama came to office and instead of negotiating a stay-behind agreement, he basically walked away from it.

RUSH: Okay. So that's question and answer number one. The second one we have, we'll just let you hear. This is the next question Megyn Kelly asked of Vice President Cheney.

KELLY: Time and time again history has proven that you got it wrong as well in Iraq, sir. You said there was no doubt Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. You said we would be greeted as liberators. You said the Iraq insurgency was in the last throes back in 2005. And you said that after our intervention extremists would have to, quote, "rethink their strategy of jihad." Now with almost a trillion dollars spent there, with 4,500 American lives lost there, what do you say to those who say you were so wrong about so much at the expense of so many?

RUSH: And here's Cheney's answer.

CHENEY: I just fundamentally disagree, Megyn. You've gotta go back and look at the track record. There was no doubt in anybody's mind about the extent of Saddam's involvement in weapons of mass destruction. After 9/11 we were concerned about a follow-on attack that would involve not just airline tickets and box cutters as the weapons, but rather something far deadlier, perhaps even a nuclear weapon. We had an overwhelming vote of approval from the Congress of more votes for the action than we've had in Desert Storm some 10 years before. Bill Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, numerous others spoke to the difficulties of the intelligence that all of us saw with respect to the threat that Saddam Hussein represented. It would have been irresponsible for us not to act. We did do the right thing.

RUSH: So then Megyn Kelly said, "Do you think that President Obama is dangerous?"

LIZ: Yes, I'll answer that one, Megyn. I think there's no question. I think he is unique in terms of a president who is sitting in the Oval Office who has made very clear that his desire is to weaken the nation. And you�ve got 58% more Al Qaeda, more Salafist jihadist groups now across the globe than we had in 2010.

KELLY: Yep.

LIZ: There's no question that he's a dangerous president, and that we've got to fight back and we've got to ensure that people understand the importance of American power ...

KELLY: I got it.

LIZ: ... in securing our freedom and security.

RUSH: There is no question that Obama's a dangerous president. Now, it's been reported just now that Obama is still meeting with the national security team, still putting together their statement or making up their minds. Whether that's true or not -- and remember, everything is PR, buzz, image, and it could well be he's always late and they're just trying to paint this, "He's so into it, he's so focused on it, that he and his team are still meeting trying to come to the exact right thing to do," blah, blah, blah, when in fact lunch may be running late. Who knows. It does seem that everything is just seat of the pants, last minute with this Regime.

Now, get this also from the Wall Street Journal today: "Sunni Extremists in Iraq Occupy Hussein's Chemical Weapons Facility." Or try this one from the UK Telegraph: "Iraq Crisis: Isis Jihadists 'Seize Saddam Hussein's Chemical Weapons Stockpile.'" I must be dreaming here. I thought Saddam Hussein didn't have any chemical weapons, or any other weapons of mass destruction.

So we've got two reports, Wall Street Journal and the UK Telegraph both saying that the ISIS jihadists have seized Saddam Hussein's chemical weapons facility. Chemical weapons facility? I thought there weren't any chemical weapons. I thought we didn't find any, or other weapons of mass destruction.

Which takes me back to Dick Cheney's answer. The second sound bite that we played. After Megyn Kelly asked him this question: "Time and again history's proven you got it wrong as well, sir. You said there's no doubt Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. You said we'd be greeted as liberators, said the Iraq insurgency was in its last throes. You said that after our intervention extremists would have to rethink their strategy of jihad. What do you say to those who say you were so wrong?" And Cheney said he fundamentally disagrees. He said, "You gotta go back --" and, by the way, everything he says here is right on the money, dead-on true.

"You gotta go back and look at the track record. There was no doubt in anybody's mind about the extent of Saddam's involvement in weapons of mass destruction." If I have to ask Cookie to do this in order to prove this, I will, because we have them. We have sound bites of Bill Clinton in 1998 warning of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, that it's eerie. It's almost -- not quite; it's almost word-for-word for what George W. Bush was saying in 2003 and 2004.

And also from 1998 -- now, this is the Lewinsky period, so Clinton's doing a lot of things to distract people -- and also from 1998 we have sound bites of every Democrat in Washington agreeing with Clinton that Saddam Hussein posed a terrific threat and precisely because of his weapons of mass destruction.

Now, I don't expect even the Drive-By Media today to remember that. When we went back and dragged those sound bites out of the archives, everybody had forgotten them. The Drive-Bys didn't remember them. It was eerie. Clinton warning about Saddam Hussein almost exactly like Bush 43 did, and then every Democrat signing on. And the Democrats getting mad at the Republicans for not signing on. It was only a few short years later that the tables are reversed and it's Bush doing the warning, except, can I take you back again to 2002?

The Democrats were salivating -- remember, we're still in the Florida aftermath -- and the Democrats are still discombobulated over the fact they think the Supreme Court stole the presidency from them. So they're just filled with outrage and hatred. And Bush is making a move after 9/11 for a use of force piece of legislation, use of force agreement, and he wants to go into Afghanistan, of course, and then Iraq. And the Democrats initially, not all of them voted for the use of force. They had the Wellstone memorial to attend to and opposing Bush. And then public opinion polls came out after the first round of votes and the American people were overwhelmingly -- folks, I can go back and look all this up. The American people were overwhelmingly, in 2002 and 2003, in favor of going into Iraq.

It took Bush a year. He went around the country speech after speech building the case. He put together a coalition of nations at the United Nations who also went along. We had intelligence agencies from nation after nation which agreed with everything our CIA said about the weapons of mass destruction. There was a huge worldwide coalition, and so the Democrats asked for another vote on the use of force authorization, because they, after their initial vote, were on the wrong side of the American people.

So Bush magnanimously said, "Okay, we'll do the vote again," and every Democrat -- including John Kerry and including Hillary Clinton -- voted for the use of force in Iraq. And then only a few short years later, they acted like it never happened. Some of them even went so far as to try to deny it. Other Democrats said, "Well, I voted for the use of force, but I never authorized troops. I didn't vote for starting a war."

I mean, they always wanted it both ways on this. They wanted to be able to say they had done both, opposed the war or supported it, so that they could follow public opinion. My point here is that Cheney is exactly right when he says there's no doubt in anybody's mind about the extent of Saddam's involvement in weapons of mass destruction. Everybody around the world, including Colin Powell, believed that Saddam had 'em.

There are two newspaper stories today saying that ISIS, the Al-Qaeda group that's taking over Iraq now, has already commandeered Saddam's chemical weapons facility. So he obviously had them. Then Cheney said after 9/11, we were concerned about a follow-up attack that would not involve just airline tickets and box cutters. This was another important thing. We had serious people running the country back then.

We had serious people running the country. 9/11 was huge! I think it's already been forgotten except for the family members. Back then if you're president of the United States or vice president, and there is any indication that anybody who had anything to do with it or was planning another one, "Well, we're gonna take 'em out." Revenge, retribution was on everybody's mind. Saddam was out bragging about the weapons of mass destruction that he had. We had data intelligence that backed it up.

There was conflicting evidence whether or not he'd had anything to do with 9/11 or offered parts of Iraq as training grounds for the hijackers. It's any number of things. People have forgotten all this, but everything that we did was justified and public opinion was built for it. They were not renegades who went in in violation of public opinion or anything. These are things that people forget and things the left never really wanted ever admit, but they're all true.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Everybody wants to sit here and second-guess going into Iraq. What everybody ought to be second-guessing is the election of Barack Obama, if you want to know the truth. That's what we ought to be second-guessing. Now, look, I'm not gonna sit here and just blindly ignore some things. Cheney was wrong; we were not gonna be greeted as liberators in there. It's a Shi'a country. It's an Islamic country.

That's why it's screwed up, from our perspective. But everything else about this? Bush put together this coalition; everybody was in favor of it. Every Democrat in Washington demanded another vote on the use-of-force authorization -- demanded it so that they could be on record as supporting it -- and then they cut and ran shortly after. They... They're... I don't know. It's just amazing what they get away with.

They voted against it. Public opinion excoriated them and they demanded a revote so that they could all be on the same side as the American people. Two years later they started to disrupt and tear down public opinion on this. Then Cheney said, "Look, after 9/11 we were concerned about a follow-on attack that would not just be airline tickets and box cutters, but maybe nuclear weapons." They had to be concerned about everything.

9/11 was huge. It was the first attack on our soil since Pearl Harbor, and the threats were all over the place that more were coming. It couldn't be treated as a one off. Any responsible adult in leadership in this country had to take things seriously. Going into Iraq, there were two things in mind: Prevention and then the democratization, hoping to establish a beacon of freedom. This was always a long shot.

But preventative action, this is always a debate. Wouldn't you rather the cops stop a crime against you than have to wait 'til afterwards to punish somebody? That's what we were talking about here after 9/11. If we had evidence that one was coming, another, we were gonna prevent it from happening. That's what this was all about. Cheney is exactly right, and he said to Megyn Kelly:

"We had an overwhelming vote of approval from Congress twice, more votes for the action than we'd had in Desert Storm 10 years ago." True. "Bill Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, numerous others spoke to the difficulties the intelligence that all of us saw with respect to the threat, but in '98 they were all in favor of just this exact thing" that Bush and Cheney did. He said, "It would have been irresponsible for us not to act. We did do the right thing."

In their view, they left circumstances where there was a possibility for American an presence on the ground to stabilize, to keep the place stabilized and keep it relatively peaceful, to prevent an outbreak of what's happening. It was Obama couldn't wait to get us out of there to placate his pacifist, childish, immature, selfish base, which is why we are where we are.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2014/06/19/the_truth_about_cheney_the_democrats_and_saddam_s_wmd

He also said a bunch of stupid poo poo about the IRS e-mails but God my brain hurts so much right now :psyduck:

# ? Jun 20, 2014 04:03

usbombshell: Oct 29, 2004; Boom!

Good Citizen posted:

If you want to listen to it, he puts his podcasts online. Look at today's. It starts 31 min in:
http://walshfreedom.com/podcast/

They straight cut him off to commercial while he's contemplating 'what is the n-word?' but don't be fooled, they're using tape delay to cut out legit n-bombs

At some points you can hear his producer yelling in the background

e: ha ha, he seriously gets cut off like 6 times for using racial slurs

Yeah, I was actually curious as to what was said on the show, but it looks like it has been removed.

# ? Jun 20, 2014 04:42

Good Citizen: Aug 12, 2008; trump trump trump trump trump trump trump trump trump trump

usbombshell posted:

Yeah, I was actually curious as to what was said on the show, but it looks like it has been removed.

Yep, they took it off the site after I posted but it's still up for download if you search for his podcast on an iphone.

Basically he starts wondering aloud what the n-word could mean. Then gets cut off when he drops an n-bomb. He gets back on air and starts ranting about how we need to have an 'honest discussion' about these words and gets cut off a few more times for saying either spick or friend of the family. It's hard to tell which in each individual case because the tape delay allows them to cut to commercial before it goes over the air. The final 2-3 times he gets cut off is obviously for saying kike. Throughout the show he's giving a play by play discussing how the general manager has been walking into his studio telling him to knock it off. At a couple points you can actually hear someone off mic yelling at him in the background.

He broke every rule in the business, including dumping all the blame on the people above you. Dude is toast.

How will he make his child support payments now?
:ohdear:

# ? Jun 20, 2014 04:53

HackensackBackpack: Aug 20, 2007; Who needs a house out in Hackensack? Is that all you get for your money?

What kind of "honest discussion" did he want to have, exactly? A discussion on how he's not allowed to say certain words, or on why they're offensive, or what?

# ? Jun 20, 2014 04:55

Good Citizen: Aug 12, 2008; trump trump trump trump trump trump trump trump trump trump

Leofish posted:

What kind of "honest discussion" did he want to have, exactly? A discussion on how he's not allowed to say certain words, or on why they're offensive, or what?

He kept talking about bringing every type of person together so we could have an honest discussion about why words are offensive and who's allowed to say them.

Of course anyone with a brain could have told him the answers were 'because of the way people like you have used them in the past' and 'not you', respectively.

It was a pretty serious 'why can't I say friend of the family' white dude meltdown

e: still wasn't nearly as over the top as Laura Schlessinger's friend of the family friend of the family friend of the family rant though, but only because the producers here shut that poo poo down fast

Good Citizen fucked around with this message at 05:00 on Jun 20, 2014

# ? Jun 20, 2014 04:57

ErIog: Jul 11, 2001

Show RSS: http://feeds.feedburner.com/JoeWalshSHow
MP3:http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/JoeWalshShow/~5/rb4zYRdZeak/155159764-am560theanswer-the-joe-walsh-show-june-19-2014.mp3

His tech staff are morons, and forgot to take down the links to iTunes and Feedburner.

He kept saying that people were being hypocritical allowing him to say "redskins", but dumping him to commercial whenever he says words like "friend of the family" "spic" or "kike". He went like 4 rounds taunting his station, calling them liberals, saying they were chicken, and then trying to test them by saying stuff like "white, cracker... hmm, still on the air. I am extremely pro Israel and I am married to a Jewish woman, but if I s-<cuts to commercial>."

It's pretty magical and only takes about 20 minutes to get through if you skip all the commercials. For some reason the majority of his broadcast was commercials today!

It starts after he comes back from break around the 31 minute mark.

# ? Jun 20, 2014 05:01

Phone: Jul 30, 2005; 親子丼をほしい。

I found Joe Walsh's show from today:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFJQ0MoeCZE&t=7s

# ? Jun 20, 2014 05:05

Hazo: Dec 30, 2004; SCIENCE

I don't think I'll ever understand why racist white conservatives are so convinced that not being able to say the word "friend of the family" is somehow reducing their quality of life.

# ? Jun 20, 2014 05:12

Good Citizen: Aug 12, 2008; trump trump trump trump trump trump trump trump trump trump

And since I mentioned it during my last post, here's the biggest white person n-word radio meltdown in history courtesy of Dr Laura Schlessinger

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8jqFLpTbvQ

"Don't NAACP me!"

# ? Jun 20, 2014 05:12

HackensackBackpack: Aug 20, 2007; Who needs a house out in Hackensack? Is that all you get for your money?

Hazo posted:

I don't think I'll ever understand why racist white conservatives are so convinced that not being able to say the word "friend of the family" is somehow reducing their quality of life.

My favourite argument is always going to be, "but the rap music!"

I don't know why they want to say it so badly, either. Why? What use could it possibly have? Are they mad they can't say things like "gently caress" or "poo poo" in polite society, too? You wouldn't say those words to your grandma or in front of your kids, but you have to be able to use denigrating language steeped in oppression to refer to people with a different skin tone, for some reason!

And, really, outside of maybe public airwaves, could they not still legally say these things anyway? The only thing that's stopping them is social pressure, right? Are they just mad that, gasp, words have consequences and carry meaning beyond the literal?

# ? Jun 20, 2014 05:21

dreffen: Dec 3, 2005; MEDIOCRE, MORSOV!

Good Citizen posted:

And since I mentioned it during my last post, here's the biggest white person n-word radio meltdown in history courtesy of Dr Laura Schlessinger

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8jqFLpTbvQ

"Don't NAACP me!"

Anytime I listen to this I can't help but shake my head in shock.

"Don't marry out of your race" - Noted Fourteen Words Proponent, Laura Schlessinger

dreffen fucked around with this message at 05:50 on Jun 20, 2014

# ? Jun 20, 2014 05:47

Kellsterik: Mar 30, 2012

Leofish posted:

I don't know why they want to say it so badly, either. Why?

It's forbidden, therefore enticing. It's a transgressive act that the libs can't stand!!

# ? Jun 20, 2014 06:09

ErIog: Jul 11, 2001

He's all :bloobloo: about his station on Twitter when he should be kissing their loving feet right now. He's never running for anything again after admitting he uses racist terms in private situations, but at least now there's no tape of him saying those terms on public airwaves.

If I were his producer I might have let him hang himself more directly ala that Dr. Laura clip, but that probably would lose me that producer job. That must be a hilarious gig. His producer and everyone in that studio with him probably have 10x more experience in radio than he does, but he acts like a spoiled idiot. Meanwhile, they were in radio long before he got there and probably will be long after he's gone.

I hope that producer/board op get a raise. Host actively tries to gently caress with the show on air and they manage to not let it slip through despite repeated attempts over the course of an hour.

ErIog fucked around with this message at 06:16 on Jun 20, 2014

# ? Jun 20, 2014 06:12

Axetrain: Sep 14, 2007

Hazo posted:

I don't think I'll ever understand why racist white conservatives are so convinced that not being able to say the word "friend of the family" is somehow reducing their quality of life.

They can say friend of the family all they want, they just don't like that most people are going to think they are a huge piece of poo poo if they do.

# ? Jun 20, 2014 06:21

UFOTacoMan: Sep 22, 2005; Thanks easter bunny!
bok bok!

Re: Advertisement for the Franky and Izzy Show on the Answer 560 AM, I feel like I'm listening to a Grand Theft Auto radio parody.

edit: what Axetrain said.

UFOTacoMan fucked around with this message at 06:28 on Jun 20, 2014

# ? Jun 20, 2014 06:24

Hazo: Dec 30, 2004; SCIENCE

Kellsterik posted:

It's forbidden, therefore enticing. It's a transgressive act that the libs can't stand!!

It's not forbidden, they just don't like that it reveals them as rear end in a top hat racists.

:qq:

"Why do people think I'm a racist just because I use this hugely racist slur?"

# ? Jun 20, 2014 06:29

Rhesus Pieces: Jun 27, 2005

Hazo posted:

I don't think I'll ever understand why racist white conservatives are so convinced that not being able to say the word "friend of the family" is somehow reducing their quality of life.

White conservative men can't loving stand being told what they can't say or do by the rest of society. They think they're at the top of the social food chain by birthright and are entitled to say whatever they want to anybody beneath them with absolutely no social consequences.

Apparently Joe Walsh took it a step further and thought his bosses at his radio gig had no power over him either, which goes beyond ignorant racism and crosses into being a brain-dead rear end in a top hat with severe anger and conduct issues.

# ? Jun 20, 2014 06:30

Sharkie: Feb 4, 2013; by Fluffdaddy

Kellsterik posted:

It's forbidden, therefore enticing. It's a transgressive act that the libs can't stand!!

It's "forbidden" to say "gently caress," or "americans should be exterminated," yet they never seem to have meltdowns about why they can't say that on the air or in polite conversation. It's almost like there's some other reason than the allure of being transgressive. the reason is they're racists.

# ? Jun 20, 2014 06:31

Good Citizen: Aug 12, 2008; trump trump trump trump trump trump trump trump trump trump

Sharkie posted:

It's "forbidden" to say "gently caress," or "americans should be exterminated," yet they never seem to have meltdowns about why they can't say that on the air or in polite conversation. It's almost like there's some other reason than the allure of being transgressive. the reason is they're racists.

Well everyone says gently caress sometimes. Sometimes you say it at inappropriate times because it's just one of those words you use when you're pissed off and it can get you in a little trouble when you do. Now if you're someone who uses the n word sometimes in private or like minded company, then there's the chance you may let it slip at the wrong moment and now you're in serious trouble.

A lot of these people are terrified of that moment

# ? Jun 20, 2014 06:38

Pander: Oct 9, 2007; Fear is the glue that holds society together. It's what makes people suppress their worst impulses. Fear is power.

And at the end of fear, oblivion.

Joe Walsh will share with the world the wisdom he attained from freep.

# ? Jun 20, 2014 08:11

Swan Oat: Oct 9, 2012; I was selected for my skill.

Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:

Why a squirrel when you can be disrespectful to the highest degree

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/what-difference-does-it-make-activist-ambushes-hillary-asks-her-to-sign-book-to-chris-stevens/

I am lmaoing that in this idiot's mind, a security guard asking someone to leave a book signing is somehow greater than what existed in Benghazi. Maybe Ambassador Stevens should have just directed his security detail to politely ask everyone to stop attacking. WHERE ARE THE ANSWERS OBAMA.

Also, the reason white people get mad that they can't say friend of the family is because they are really racist and badly want to say it. It's not difficult.

# ? Jun 20, 2014 08:13

LaughMyselfTo: Nov 15, 2012; by XyloJW

I've got to admit that it peeves me as a writer that racial slurs are somehow becoming unacceptable for the purpose of marking characters as racist in settings where that makes sense, such as the Deep South. That combined with the "censoring classics for schoolchildren" issue suggests to me a broader cultural front of purging nastiness so thoroughly that even artistic depiction of nastiness is verboten (for example, some more radical voices seem to be under the impression that acknowledging the existence of rape in fiction is inherently a promotion of it), but given their history on artistic expression I seriously doubt that that's what conservatives are going on about.

# ? Jun 20, 2014 08:13

beatlegs: Mar 11, 2001

ErIog posted:

Show RSS: http://feeds.feedburner.com/JoeWalshSHow
MP3:http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/JoeWalshShow/~5/rb4zYRdZeak/155159764-am560theanswer-the-joe-walsh-show-june-19-2014.mp3

His tech staff are morons, and forgot to take down the links to iTunes and Feedburner.

He kept saying that people were being hypocritical allowing him to say "redskins", but dumping him to commercial whenever he says words like "friend of the family" "spic" or "kike". He went like 4 rounds taunting his station, calling them liberals, saying they were chicken, and then trying to test them by saying stuff like "white, cracker... hmm, still on the air. I am extremely pro Israel and I am married to a Jewish woman, but if I s-<cuts to commercial>."

It's pretty magical and only takes about 20 minutes to get through if you skip all the commercials. For some reason the majority of his broadcast was commercials today!

It starts after he comes back from break around the 31 minute mark.

Jesus, he's unlistenable. He keeps yammering on and on and on about it, incessantly repeating himself when his point was clear in the first few minutes of the rant. I couldn't experience any schadenfreude, he was so annoying.

# ? Jun 20, 2014 08:40

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 9, 2024 06:24

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

Good Citizen posted:

And since I mentioned it during my last post, here's the biggest white person n-word radio meltdown in history courtesy of Dr Laura Schlessinger

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8jqFLpTbvQ

"Don't NAACP me!"

Wow. I had...never heard that before.

I remember my parents complaining about it when she lost her show, and I knew from listening to her growing up that she had some pretty awful opinions so I was just kind of like "yeah, good, about time".

But holy poo poo, I had no idea it was that bad. Who does that? 30 years in radio and somehow she forgot that you can't just let that flag fly?

# ? Jun 20, 2014 08:43

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Right Wing Media: congratulations Rush Limbaugh on three full years of sobriety!

«‹›3446 »