Posted by
Crescen7(Regis Matejcik) on Thursday, September 24, 2009 3:44:33 PM
On September 24, 2009 Michael Goodson writing for the Chicago Post Tribune (member of the Sun Times News Group), wrote:
“Maybe Limbaugh should be tried for sedition”
and then supported the idea with a collaboration of untruths, faulty logic, and plain old stupidity. The following is a point by point refutation of Mr. Goodsons assertions. Direct quotes of the article are in this bold a 10 pt font.
He's argued against every government program under consideration, calling them socialism. He's called our president a socialist, a liar and a racist.
While what Mr. Goodson states here is substantially true, it's difficult to believe that anyone would believe that any of the above should constitute a crime. If these things were a crime, and one were to substitute “fascist” for socialist; then most of the Democrat Party would be guilty of such a crime over the past eight years.
He has called Bill Clinton a "murderer" and Jimmy Carter a "hemorrhoid."
This is simply wrong. Rush Limbaugh has NEVER, called Bill Clinton a murderer. Mr. Limbaugh publishes his transcripts and makes downloads of his show available (for subscriber). I defy Mr. Goodson to prove his allegation via a quotation or audio clip.
Factually, I believe Rush actually called Jimmy Carter a “National Hemorrhoid”. While this was clearly a figurative statement, it's difficult to find evidence of a crime in these words.
On TV, he is ranting, raving and waving his arms. He is, seemingly, on the verge of a stroke.
Odd, Rush Limbaugh rarely appears on TV. It seems that what Mr. Goodson may be referencing is the “ditto cam” clip of Rush mimicking the exaggerated motions of Micheal J. Fox in a commercial where Mr. Fox was speaking in favor of passing a stem cell research bill.
The video described above was actually “looped” to make Rush's single act appear to be a lengthy act of making fun of Micheal J. Fox, and by extension all other sufferers of Parkinsons, and probably by further logical extension all those who suffer from debilitating illness or handicap. This “doctored” video was widely distributed and played on all major networks, most of which never acknowledged that they were playing a purposely altered video clip. To that end, one can forgive Mr. Goodson's ignorance – on this point he's not being disingenuous – simply gullible.
But Limbaugh was quiet about the activities of President Bush and Vice President D*ck Cheney during their eight years.
(can you believe that this "right wing hate site" won't allow VP Cheney's first name)
This is so wrong it is laughable. Rush pilloried the administration on excessive spending, prescription drugs, comprehensive immigration reform, and who could forget the outrage over the selection of Harriet Meyers to the Supreme Court – just to name a few. To anyone that listens to Rush with any regularity, its ridiculous to claim that Rush was “quiet” about anything.
He saw no reason to criticize the war in Iraq when everyone knew we should have been hunting Osama bin Laden in earnest.
Again, Rush offered a great deal of criticism about the handling of the war in Iraq. For example when President Bush agreed to the appointment of an “Iraq Study Group” ; Limbaugh denounced the idea. When the results of this Group were published, Limbaugh blew a gasket. At many points during the conflict Rush railed at the Bush administration for its mishandling of the war.
Yet, at no point did Rush ever intimate that we should not be hunting for Osama bin Laden. Goodsons proposed mutually exclusive dichotomy of doing either A or B is absurd on it's face. The U.S. Government is the largest Political, Military, and Economic entity to have ever existed. The assertion that the U.S. Government could not wage a war and hunt for a single human being is not reasonably supportable. Those that argue that the “hunt for bin Laden” was diminished in favor of the War in Iraq have yet to offer any evidence of the re-direction of resources to support that argument. Rather they opt for the well worn, and ineffective argument technique of “everyone knows.”
Limbaugh didn't complain about the trillion dollars we borrowed from our grandchildren to pay for this misbegotten war
Once again Mr. Goodson is wrong. Both on the “cost” and his conclusion of “misbegotten”. The incorrectness on cost can be shown empirically, the “misbegotten” only logically. But in fairness, Mr. Goodson is correct that Rush Limbaugh didn't complain about the cost of the war.
One can only assume that the reference is to the “Iraq War” which is the war that Mr. Goodson describes as “misbegotten.” The currently allocated cost components of “both” the Iraq and Afghan conflicts totals 915 billion. (Source http://www.nationalpriorities.org/cost_of_war_counter_notes; - which sources congressional spending allocations) The site also delineates the apportionment of funding between the two conflicts as follows:
“To date, the total cost of war that has been allocated by Congress is $915.1 billion, with $687 to Iraq and $228 to Afghanistan.”
The cost apportionment is further defined by the following:
“Please note that the cost of war in Iraq has decreased since our last estimate. This is because a larger proportion of spending was allocated to Afghanistan than originally estimated.”
Clearly, the Iraq war cost is under $700 billion. Recall, that is a cumulative total, amassed over 6 years. Not small change by any measure. Except perhaps by comparison to the 2009 single year expenditure of “American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 H.R. 1, The 2009 Economic Stimulus - of $838 billion, or an “Omnibus Appropriations bill (H.R.2764)” of over $500 billion; all of which are effectively dwarfed by the proposed annual budget deficit which is quickly approaching $2,000 billion.
That's right Mr. Goodson, the current SINGLE YEAR deficit expenditures will roughly TRIPLE the aggregate cost of SIX YEARS or the IRAQ WAR. Perhaps even one as purposefully dense as Micheal Goodson can understand that annual expenditures of $2,000 billion are significantly higher than $115 billion.
Now, as for “misbegotten” . . .
Those of Mr. Goodson's ilk will rarely think deeply enough to recognize the connection between 9/11 and Iraq. That's right I said it. (apologies to Levin) The CONNECTION BETWEEN 9/11 AND IRAQ. The connection is not “direct”, there is no evidence that Iraq played an active role in the planning or execution of the 9/11 attack. Yet there are “dots” that can clearly be connected. Strangely, those that widely ridicule the Bush administration for not “connecting the dots” that lead to 9/11 are often the same people who refuse to even admit that the following “dots” exist – let alone deserve to be “connected.” Consider:
-The 9/11 attacks were planned and executed by Osama bin Ladin and Al Queda (sorry truthers.)
-bin Ladin had previously been an ally of the United States.
-bin Laden's “break” in his alliance to the US stemmed from a fallout with the Saudi Royal Family. "During the time Iraq invaded Kuwait, Laden met with Sultan, Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, and told him not to depend on non-Muslim troops and offered to help defend Saudi Arabia. Bin Laden's offer was rebuffed and after the American offer to help was accepted he publicly denounced Saudi Arabia's dependence on the US military. Bin Laden's criticism of the Saudi monarchy led that government to attempt to silence him." (source Wikipedia -Osama bin Laden)
-The U.S., at the request of the Saudi Royal Family, established permanent military bases in Saudi Arabia to provide a defense against Iraq. Bin Ladin's denunciation of the Saudi decision to allow U.S military on Saudi soil, eventually lead to his banishment from Saudi Arabia, and to declare the U.S. The Great Satan.
In short, the military instability of the middle east, caused to a great extent by Iraqi aggression, necessitated a U.S. Military presence in Saudi Arabia, which lead to the exile of bin Ladin, who turned his aggression toward the U.S.
Yes, it's an indirect connection, but to ignore the existence of a link between an unstable middle east, a despotic and aggressive Iraqi regime, and rise of militant Islam, is to be purposefully ignorant or sand poundingly stupid.
He didn't complain when more than 4,000 American lives were sacrificed in the name of an administration more bent on revenge than finding the real perpetrator of the most horrific attack on American soil.
See the previous explanation.
That would be torture, ridiculed by every honest expert on the subject.
Again, Mr. Goodson is relying on the same “everybody knows” argument, when in fact there is quite a bit of disagreement on the definition of “torture.” A google search of the term “definition of torture” yields over 6 million results with rather wide difference between many. In this case it's widely believed that the reference is to “water boarding,” the act of simulating drowning but actually never submersing the nasal passages of the subject under water.
The current definition of “torture” according to:
U.S. Code TITLE 18, PART I, CHAPTER 113C , § 2340 – Definitions:
(1)“torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;
(2)“severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from—
(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;
(B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind- altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;
(C) the threat of imminent death; or
(D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality; and
(3)“United States” means the several States of the United States, the District of Columbia, and the commonwealths, territories, and possessions of the United States.
The debate whether “water boarding” violates any of the above provisions is continual and ongoing. In fact, when President Obama, rescinded executive order 13440 signed by President George W. Bush on July 20, 2007; he replaced it with an executive order of very similar wording, and additionally left a vague “out” allowing his administration leeway under some circumstances.
He sees conspiracies around every corner,
Mr. Goodson seems to have Limbaugh confused with someone else. The fact that Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi's husband trade in Real Estate and securities that are affected by Federal Legislation isn't a conspiracy theory. It's information that should be known to the public and the public can regard it as they wish.
A conspiracy theory is:
911 was an inside job.
We're in Afghanistan because of an oil pipeline.
Katrina was planned by George Bush to hurt black people.
Doctors routinely remove tonsils and amputate feet because it's more profitable than treating them.
Oil Companies rig the price of gas.
Limbaugh says he can defeat any liberal in a debate with half his brain tied behind his back.
He doesn't have too. There are plenty of us here with enough simple facts to do it for him.