June 19, 2008

Rush Limbaugh is a bit like Barack Obama, "wandering aimlessly for syllabic combinations that will equal a cogent, salient thought."

Please note the update to my 6:56 AM post.

27 comments:

rhhardin said...

Rush's point is that judges don't run wars no matter what judges say.

He wants Obama to say otherwise.

Sloanasaurus said...

They are not the same in a sense that Obama is running for President, who will execute policy, and Rush is just a talking head. Obama needs to be clear, Rush does not.

Although, they may be the same in that Obama desperately tries to take positions that distinguish him from president Bush, just as Rush may always want to oppose democrats. To acknowledge that Bush may be right would be disasterous. Thus, you get Obama type hypocricy such as claiming you are against private accounts for social security and then offering your own private account plan.

The sad thing is that Bush has successfully prevented attacks on our soil since 9-11. Obama is going to change all of Bush's policies causing us to be attacked again and it will be Obama's fault. Thus, we all hope that Bush wins the war before the election just in case Obama wins.

Moose said...

Sorry, Sloan - you're wrong.

Its just been a puzzling coincidence that there have been no attacks. It's been proven by scientific analysis that nothing Bush did prevented attacks on the US.

They have consensus too!

Ann Althouse said...

I said he's "a bit" like Obama, not exactly the same. They both manipulate the audience's thinking with cagey rhetoric.

Blue Moon said...

Come on Sloan -- like I said the other day, we don't know why there have not been any attacks. Also, the charge that Obama would change all of Bush's policies is simply untrue. Changing the legal status of detainees at Guantanamo has very little to do with what we are doing abroad to dispose of terrorists. And frankly neither Obama nor McCain is going to say a whole lot about intelligence gathering, covert operations and the like. And that is a good thing.

Sloanasaurus said...

Come on Sloan -- like I said the other day, we don't know why there have not been any attacks.

Wow, Moose totally predicted your response. Very funny stuff. We do know why. It is because we have crushed Al Qaeda's ability to make such attacks. We know specifically in some cases where they have actually tried and have been prevented.

Also, the charge that Obama would change all of Bush's policies is simply untrue.

Obama announced the other day that he prefers the Clinton strategy of dealing with Terrorism - that being to treat it ias law enforcement rather than war. To accomplish this he would effectively scrap the strategy of being on offense because law enforcement is not offense. nearly all of Bush's policies are about being on offense including the war in Iraq.

Bob said...

Moose, could you point out exactly which Bush policies Obama will embrace in fighting terrorism? I must have missed that part of his stump speech.

Jake said...

Moose and Blue Moon:

Here is why we have had no attacks since Bush went on the offensive:

The first two years of the Patriot Act we indicted 370 terrorists in the US and deported 700. Almost all those indicted were convicted.

The information we obtain at Guantanamo has enabled governments around the world to arrest over a thousand terrorists. Those terrorists were prevented from coming to the US.

The liberation of Afghanistan and Iraq has decimated the leadership of Al Quada. As soon as new leaders are appointed, they are killed or captured. Most Al Quada members have been killed.

Bush has obtained cooperation from most Muslim countries to go after Al Quada. During the Clinton era, the same Muslim countries were paying bribes to Al Quada to be left alone. This is how Al Quada raised a war chest of hundreds of millions of dollars. Today Al Quada is broke.

None of the above would have occurred if Al Gore would have been President and none will occur in the future if Obama is President.

Moose said...

Obama can neither afford to change nor will be able to find the support to change any of Bush's current GWOT and Iraq policies.

He will continue to blame anything he has to do with respect to fighting the war on "cleaning up the mess Bush left us."

He will do all this under to cover of making the world love us again. However it will be business as usual, just like it was between Bush I and Bush II.

Obama just has plausible deniablity due to his cult of personality.

rhhardin said...

The damage an organization can do depends on how big it is. The more spectacular events take finance, organization, division of labor, and lots of people.

The more people something takes, the easier it is to detect, through defection and general footprint size, financial and otherwise.

The monitoring and spying and eavesdropping that the NYT so loves to hate is what has prevented any attacks big enough to be worth trying, through preventing detectable-sized organization.

I don't see how this can be fit into the court system. You really do have to fish for activity.

Also eliminated : nonstate havens.

Moose said...

rhardin - sorry, you're wrong too.

Nonstate havens will officially be renamed indigenous peoples homelands. And they will be allowed to have nuclear reactors.

Just because they train terrorists will be chalked up to our successes in Iraq.

Man, don't you get how this works?

Fen said...

Be fair with Blue Moon. I disagree with him on many things, but find that he argues in good faith.

OldGrouchy said...

Class, class, pay attention. Our teacher clearly said that RL is a bit like BO, so clearly she's now a tad dotty. Perhaps we need to quietly leave and allow her time to reflect on the error of her ways!

Oops, did I say that out loud? Shucks!

Time for my RL fix again!

John Stodder said...

Two things Obama and other Democratic leaders say that strike me as Orwellian:

"We are less safe today."

"We can't drill our way out of our energy problems."

People should laugh at these statements, but instead they cheer and, seemingly, agree.

The first statement seems like something the media ought to immediately flag as purely partisan. It is the opposite of a "statement against interest." Of course Obama doesn't want the GOP to get any credit for the absence of terrorist attacks. But neutral observers ought to point that out and at least force him to explain what he means, if he can. Are there terrorist groups massing out there, planning bigger attacks in the future? Show us what you know, Obama.

The "you can't drill" comment is part of a long, childish protest against the laws of supply and demand and the inconvenience of this law in preventing bad Democratic policies from succeeding. The idea that a windfall profits tax would be a better route out of the energy crisis than fostering an increase in supply is like saying "people should be able to fly by waving their arms." Yes, it would be a much fairer world if we could all fly. But it's irresponsible to feed such yearnings with promises that you can make them happen.

UWS guy said...

Because Al Gore, B. Obama, Nancy Peloisi and the rest of the Democrats don't know anyone who lives in New York (let alone the financial district), Never travel to Washington D.C. (or know anyone who does, family or otherwise).

I think it's perfectly reasonable just on self interest alone that none of them would care if there were another terrorist attack within the united states.

Who is it that's not arguing in good faith again?
--------

The best thing in the world for Rush Limbaugh aside from Hillary Clinton becoming POTUS would be for Barry Obama. His listeners may believe McCain is best for the country but Rush has other priorities you must understand...

Rush Limbaugh = Steven Colbert

class-factotum said...

Rush did ask Obama to explain how we can be trying to kill Osama if we are also supposed to assume he's innocent for purposes of a trial. (Or something like that -- it's been a long 24 hours.)

Blue Moon said...

Sloan:

True or False: There are currently no terrorists with the means and motive to attack U.S. interests.

I'm not trying to deny Bush any credit... what I am simply saying is that there is no way for regular ole citizens like us who lack top secret clearances to know why there have not been any attacks. I have no doubt that there are several groups out there that are in some stage of planning an attack.

You keep talking about treating terrorism as a law enforcement issue as if Obama believes that this is the whole solution. Again, huge difference between how you treat terrorist suspects after the fact and how you combat it in the first place. There is nothing inherently contradictory about giving guys at Gitmo hearing to determine their status and still having the CIA and the military scouring the earth to disrupt terror networks.

Back to my orignial question, it is almost the definition of a rhetorical question. As long as there is a Saudi royal family that both R's and D's do nothing about, we'll always have terrorism.

John Stodder said...

Because Al Gore, B. Obama, Nancy Peloisi and the rest of the Democrats don't know anyone who lives in New York (let alone the financial district), Never travel to Washington D.C. (or know anyone who does, family or otherwise).
I think it's perfectly reasonable just on self interest alone that none of them would care if there were another terrorist attack within the united states.


So, the point of your jibe is that if Pelosi, Reid and Obama sincerely believed Bush's approach to fighting terrorism was effective, they'd stop criticizing him? We should believe everything they say because, surely, they don't want Americans to die?

Hey, it's just like Obama. He sincerely doesn't think NAFTA is good for American workers. It's made some of them so bitter, they're clinging to their guns and religious beliefs, and he hopes he'll be able to change it if he's elected. Oh wait...

You've obviously never met a politician. The only thing they sincerely believe in is themselves. It's up to us, the voters, to discount their narcissitic fantasies, and judge who has the best policies by the results when such policies have been tried in the past.

Reid and Pelosi most assuredly do not think Bill Clinton's legalistic approach to terrorism had anything whatsoever to do with 9/11. And they most assuredly do not think Bush's more militant approach is responsible for the "puzzling" absence of terror attacks since then. Because, if they did think those things, the congitive dissonance would make their brains explode. Number one, they want power. Their intellectual assessment of all issues flows entirely from that. It's fine if they want to fool themselves, but we ought not allow them to fool us.

John Stodder said...

er, cognitive dissonance, that is.

Ken Begg said...

They may be a bit alike, as you say, but there is one major difference: Limbaugh would love to stand before a national audience for three or four hours, talking and debating with Obama. I can't imagine Obama would be as enthusiastic. If he did, Limbaugh would make mincemeat of him.

Ken Begg said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Der Hahn said...

We are less safe today.

It struck me while reading the earlier post that when Obama and other Dems say this they may not be refering to a greater risk of terrorism. Seven years of no significant attacks is pretty powerful evidence that something is working right. They are leaving an implication that what we are less safe from is *our own government* because of Bush administration policies.

Moose said...

It's always easier to make the people fear a threat that's here, rather than a threat that's far away.

The Democrats know this, as do the paleocons. No one questions the fact that the government is more evil than AQ. Its just a fact of live that Chimpy McHitler wants their children and eyes.

OldGrouchy said...

RL's power is in his ability to command "Obscene Profit Margins" for his "Profit center" commercials. In other words, he's behaving as would any good capitalist.

BO is behaving as would any Democrat Party figure. His one abiding goal is to accrue power for himself and his associates. BO is acting just like the early days of either Mugabe or Chavez. But it's his possible later days I fear.

Paul Wellstone was a true believer in what he stood for. Yet when push came to shove he renounced his pledge to only serve two senatorial terms. Wellstone had became a true Democrat Party hack, more power for himself. In the end Wellstone became the epitome of a Democrat Party Pol; more power to himself.

BTW: Republicans are not all perfect but then my short criticism is about those terrible Democrat pols.

Sloanasaurus said...

Back to my orignial question, it is almost the definition of a rhetorical question. As long as there is a Saudi royal family that both R's and D's do nothing about, we'll always have terrorism.

Interesting. There was a saudi royal family in the 1950s, but there wasn't much terrorism.

Fen said...

As long as there is a Saudi royal family that both R's and D's do nothing about, we'll always have terrorism.

Its interesting you bring this up. See, its not that both R's and D's did nothing about the House of Saud, its quite the opposite.

American policy in the region, stretching back across several R and D administrations, played heavily on "peace at any price" - we enable the tyrants to keep the global oil market stable, they tyrannize their populace, the Arab street becomes inflamed, and the Sauds teach their people its all Great Satan's fault.

Hector Owen said...

Sloan: There was a saudi royal family in the 1950s, but there wasn't much terrorism.

At that time, they did not own the oil. The Saudi royal family/government (same thing) nationalized the oil between 1973 and 1980. After that, they had the money to do whatever they wanted, and that's just what they have done. Palaces and jihad. If the people who developed those oil fields (predecessor companies of Chevron, Texaco, Exxon, Mobil) had held on to their property, with backing from the the US government, there would be a lot less loose money floating around the Middle East today, loose money financing jihad. That's our oil. If Americans had not developed those oil fields, they would not have been developed until much later, if at all.

Of course, this is all past history, and we must go on from the way things are now, never mind the way things might have been.