I don’t like this one bit:
A judge gave some of Rush Limbaugh’s medical records to prosecutors Wednesday, allowing their long-stalled investigation into whether the conservative commentator illegally purchased painkillers to move forward.
Circuit Court Judge Thomas Barkdull III returned other of Limbaugh’s records to his attorney, Roy Black, who had argued some of the records contained privileged, even embarrassing, details about medical procedures, symptoms and other issues unrelated to the criminal investigation.
None of the records’ contents were revealed.
After the hearing, Black said he believed the records given to the Palm Beach County State Attorney’s Office would not support a criminal charge.
Limbaugh has maintained his innocence throughout the investigation, which became public in November 2003 after investigators used search warrants to seize his medical records.
“The records show that Mr. Limbaugh received legitimate medical treatment for legitimate medical reasons,” Black said in a statement.
Prosecutors seized the records after learning Limbaugh received painkillers from four doctors in six months at a Palm Beach pharmacy near his oceanfront mansion. They have said the records will prove Limbaugh engaged in “doctor shopping,” or illegally deceiving multiple doctors to receive overlapping prescriptions.
I hope the privacy loving liberals who pushed this poilitically motivated prosecution are happy with themselves. Thanks a helluva lot, guys.
Jeralynn is 100% completely, totally, unequivocably right:
I am not comfortable with this at all. It’s far too slippery a slope. While many liberals would like to see Rush taken down, this is not the way to do it. The man was addicted to pain pills, he entered and completed treatment. Who is to say how many pills he needed to combat his pain? And why should the Government, rather than the patient, be the arbiter of that?
Instead of clamoring for the Government to fry Rush, liberals should be demanding that the Government keep its laws off our bodies.
But they hate Rush too much to think straight. And for those of you who want to argue this isn’t a politically motivated prosecution, we have been through this before and I am not wasting my time arguing that again. It is. Check the archives.
Tim F
You must be reading different liberals. I can’t remember any credible folks on my side of the aisle declaring that this was a very good idea at all. The schadenfreude angle is undeniable but it’s not like we’re out there cheering for medical records to be made public. The notorious commies at the ACLU filed a brief on Rush’s behalf.
p.lukasiak
In terms of “politically motivated prosecutions”, given Limbaugh’s cheerleading for the impeachment of Bill Clinton, even you must admit there is a large degree of poetic justice in Rush being pursued in this manner.
Here’s a little test for you…. if it was Michael Moore who was in Limbaugh’s position right now, what do you think Limbaugh would be saying about Moore and his prosecution?
Tim F
I stand corrected. Sort of.
Doug
When conservatives agree that medical decisions, be they decisions to perform abortions, decisions to prescribe marijuana, or whatever else are properly left between doctor and patient and are not the business of the government, then they can properly jump up and down about the injustices facing Limbaugh. Limbaugh is just another casualty of the War on Some Drugs, and not the most tragic one by a long shot.
Clever
I don’t like it because it turns Rush into a martyr for all the dittoheads [“Those liberals are after me! Waa!”] and it gives the left inflated vindication…I really hope there’s not a habit of this.
I’d like to see Rush go down in flames, but this is not the way to do it.
Nikki
Truthfully? It’s Limbaugh, so I don’t care.
KC
I don’t even know why it’s politically motivated and don’t feel like doing a long search. Will someone please explain?
Tim F
I care a lot. Think of Friedrich Ebert, first chancellor of the Weimar Republic. Well-intentioned leader of a liberal coalition. Frustrated with parliamentary process, Ebert abused the decree clause set aside for national emergencies, on a daily basis. Eventually his coalition moved on and nobody thought much of it, but a decade later another somewhat more conservative coalition found Ebert’s precedent to be extremely useful in their quest to seize power. Some have argued indispensible.
The point being, circumstances can make it very tempting to put your principles on hold, but in the end the precedent it sets will hurt more than you gained by letting it slide.
Darrell
That comment sums up very well the left. No core principles which they will not compromise if it means hurting a Republican. Remember how the left told us how they stand with the downtrodden and oppressed in the world? Well, those principles got flushed as soon as it became clear that George W. Bush’s leadership would topple Saddam and free the Iraqi people. Of course, if the left had an ounce of principle or honor, they would have supported the toppling of Saddam on a HUMAN RIGHTS BASIS ALONE. But they didn’t, did they?.. so they downplay Saddam’s atrocities and exaggerate civilian deaths caused by the US, while trumping up relatively minor US misbehaviors like Abu Ghraib. It’s who they are
The left *really is* unprincipled. Let’s not pretend otherwise, ok?
The Owner's Manual
“Well-intentioned leader of a liberal coalition. Frustrated with parliamentary process, Ebert abused the decree clause set aside for national emergencies, on a daily basis.”
Substitute conservative for liberal, Bush for Ebert and the commerce clause for the decree clause, and you have “interstate” medical marijuana and the destruction of federalism in a nutshell.
capelza
What led the prosecutor to Rushie in the first place? I can’t remember. Was he ratted out? Doctor shopping IS illegal.
Can’t stand the creep. He led tha vanguard in the nastiness that pervades our politcial culture. But that said, if this is partisan, it shouldn’t happen. Though, as I asked above, how did law enforcement even have a clue he was?
And..like Doug said above, when the social conservatives decide that medical records, ALL medical records, are private (including those of girls in KS for example) then I’ll shout to the rooftops. Can’t have it both ways.
If you want to talk about human rights, Darrell, where is your call to go to the Sudan or anywhere else where human rights are being foully abused? On a much bigger scale…
Rocky Smith
So some of you liberals are happy that Rush is taking a hit? Let’s look at your medical records next. After that we’ll give you all drug tests whenever we want. How does that sound to you? This is wrong no matter who is going down.
Darrell
Behold the ‘logic’ of the left. They tell us if you can’t free everyone everywhere, then you are not justified or credited for freeing anyone anywhere. See what I mean? It’s who they are. The left has no principles, no honor.. and as capelza demonstrates, no brains.
Tim F
I couldn’t agree more.
capelza
Darrell, you of all people shouldn’t talk about no brains too loudly. This thread isn’t about Iraq, so I’ll not go down that road. Just don’t mistake disagreements with a lack of principle.
As I said above, when the social conservatives back off from things like looking into women’s medical records looking for abortions (see Kansas) or even the idea that a doctor and patient relationship extends to ALL medical decisions, including birth control, are sacrosanct and not subject to the whims of a pharmecist to decide that he/she knows better than the doctor and patient, THEN I’ll feel some pity for Rush. I wonder what his stance on the Kansas issue was? All for it? I wonder about it now.
Not one of you has answered my question though. What led the prosecutor to Rush? Was there reason to believe there was criminal activity (doctor shopping?) to obtain an illegal amount of a very dangerous drug? Would your underwear be in such a bunch if it was, let’s say, Ward Churchill? Would your “outrage” be as strong? (I can’t stand him either,btw, or Michael Moore).
Anderson
When conservatives agree that medical decisions, be they decisions to perform abortions, decisions to prescribe marijuana, or whatever else are properly left between doctor and patient and are not the business of the government, then they can properly jump up and down about the injustices facing Limbaugh. Limbaugh is just another casualty of the War on Some Drugs, and not the most tragic one by a long shot.
What Doug said. Give us a freakin’ break.
SeesThroughIt
I totally agree with all of this. While Rush doesn’t inspire, say, Sean Hannity levels of hate, he’s certainly a fat, sweaty boil on the ass of society, he’s a total hypocrite, and I would love the schadenfreude of seeing him go down in flames. That said, I don’t like the probing into medical records, I don’t like the invasion of privacy, and I don’t like this slippery slope. We should just nail him to the wall fair and square (though I agree it’ll probably feed his martry complex and give him a couple good blubberings about “the libruls are out to get me,” even though, as pointed out, the godless pinko commie heathens at the ACLU defended him).
Doug
Capelza’s example of (I think it’s Planned Parenthood) records in Kansas is a good one. An AG in Indiana is trying to get a bunch of medical records for teen patients of Planned Parenthood.
I don’t think conservatives generally can take the moral high ground on this one (though presumably some individual conservatives could.) I haven’t seen medical privacy being championed by conservatives at all. They seem to be cherry-picking this case simply because of Limbaugh’s status as a conservative luminary.
I’m a little torn about this. If prosecutors have probable cause to believe that Limbaugh’s committed a crime and that Limbaugh’s medical records could reasonably be thought to contain evidence of this crime, I don’t think the police should be prevented from searching Limbaugh’s medical records. After all, they can draw your blood or search your rectal cavity if they have the proper warrants. Both of those are more invasive.
My reservation is that I think the War on Some Drugs has been a horrible failure that has taken a fair amount of our 4th Amendment with it.
Finally, the bit about Ebert weakening the law which was in turn used to horrible effect by Hitler later on reminds me of my favorite passage from Robert Bolt’s “A Man for All Seasons”:
More There is no law against that.
Roper There is! God’s law!
More Then God can arrest him.
Roper Sophistication upon sophistication.
More No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what’s legal not what’s right. And I’ll stick to what’s legal.
Roper Then you set man’s law above God’s!
More No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact – I’m not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can’t navigate. I’m no voyager. But in the thickets of the law, oh, there I’m a forrester. I doubt if there’s a man alive who could follow me there, thank God….
Alice While you talk, he’s gone!
More And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law!
Roper So now you’d give the Devil benefit of law!
More Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
Roper I’d cut down every law in England to do that!
More Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you – where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country’s planted thick with laws from coast to coast – man’s laws, not God’s – and if you cut them down – and you’re just the man to do it – d’you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake.
metalgrid
I think this is all consistent with HIPAA. Our politicos have been handing more and more power over individual actions to government, so why should they be surprised when it turns and bites em in the ass?
I wonder if congress will pass a law and Bush will fly to DC from Texas to sign it into law, in order to give Limbaugh a break..
pfrets
I’m not buying the slippery slope arguement one bit, especially from Rush and his ilk. For some real details of Rush and his hypocracy on this issue, see ‘Rush to Judgement’ at:
http://billmon.org/archives/001856.html
I can understand why they’re after the records. While yet to be proven (see, caveat provided!), anyone from old school medicine has some really solid background on how Rush lost his hearing. Doctors in the old days use to tell migraine sufferers to take aspirin ’till your ears start ringing’. What was happening was the doctor put the patient at a near toxic dose, and the cochlea (the seashell shaped thingys in your inner ear) were being affected by the amount of actecyllic acid in the bloodstream. Oxycodone is in the aspirin family and can have the same toxic effects, and Rush abused it to the point of destroying his hearing.
A single physician monitoring Limbaughs care would lose his shirt (and possibly his license) in a malpractice suit. But multiple physicians would not necessarily know how much medication Rush was taking. I can see why the DA says a case for doctor shopping exists. Unfortunately, the only way to effectively prosecute the case is to look at his history with the multiple physicians he’s visited.
BTW, I’m yet to see an effective arguement for why this is a more slippery slope than before. Call it flame bait, but give me some examples. Preferably, ones that make this worse than any of the nastier provisions in the Patriot Act. At least the DA had to go thru a judge to get these records.
One last thought…considering Rush’s stance on drug users:
“And so if people are violating the law by doing drugs, they ought to be accused and they ought to be convicted and they ought to be sent up.” (see the billmon link for credit)
I will not shed one tear if our dear friend earns his come-uppance.
Darrell
Whoa, hold on a minute. In response to my comment on liberals flushing their human rights principles when it came to freeing Iraq, your response was:
If you want to talk about human rights, Darrell, where is your call to go to the Sudan or anywhere else where human rights are being foully abused?
It’s damn clear what you said, and most other leftists say the same thing. You did not disagree on any logical or principled basis, you simply threw out “why not Sudan too”.. no question about what you were doing, and yes, it was unprincipled, not simply an honest disagreement. You were saying that if we can’t help everyone everwhere, then we are not justified in helping anyone anywhere. It’s who you people are.. you’re just too dishonest to admit it
Rush’s former maid’s husband was involved in drug trafficking.. I believe (don’t remember 100%) that investigation into his maid’s husbands was how they learned of Rush.
Demdude
I agree that ALL Medical records should remain confidential even with Limbaugh. (I view him with O’Reilly and a few others as the “Jerry Springer” version of rational political discussion.)
His addiction came to light after some blackmail attempts by an ex-maid. He was filling cigar boxes of money and trading it in parking lots for the prescription drugs with the maid.
He came to recovery only after this was revealed. (Sadly, that’s what it takes for most folks.)
I do believe this is a bogus argument however:
Who is to say how many pills he needed to combat his pain?
A reputable Doctor would have treated his pain. And he disagreed with his doctor, he could have gotten another one. Having multiple doctors prescribe medication is what got him into his problems (as well as the illegal purchase of these drugs).
Too bad Elvis’ Doctor wasn’t available, he could have had all the drugs he wanted.
cj
I believe Rush’s problems started when his former housekeeper ratted him out. Apparently she had been procuring drugs for him or acting as some sort of go-between.
I believe that the prosecutors saw that, in addition to simply possession, there were other avenues of prosecuting Rush along the lines of doctor shopping, as it is illegal to visit multiple doctors for the purpose of obtaining multiple drug prescriptions.
I’m not feeling all that bad for Rush himself, as he brought this on his own head. However, there is an interesting conundrum in the idea that doctor shopping is illegal, but an absolute ban on the use of medical records by prosecutors would make it practically impossible to prove.
The question of where to draw the line is an interesting one and should be considered seriously outside the context of Rush’s case. Even the most dispassionate observers will likely succumb to violent thoughts, pro or con, after to listening to all the hyperbole surrounding this case.
CJ
Darrell
Ironically, the ‘conservative wing’ of the Supreme court whom you lefties whine so much about, were the ones dissenting on that medical marijuana ruling. But I don’t expect you to acknowledge that.. sticking to your principles and all
Kimmitt
I don’t want to make that argument, but I do wish to contend that if Mr. Limbaugh were not such a wealthy — or white — a fellow, he would be in similar straits.
Tim F
Thanks for sharing Darrell. It’s probably true that if I had the same jaundiced, vituperative view of the world as you then you’d be right.
albedo
I wonder if there would be a similar clamor for medical records privacy on this and other conservative blogs if the celebrity in question was, say, Courtney Love.
Demdude
Before I forget, there were also banking charges against Mr. Limbaugh. In order to evade the mandatory reporting of money greater than $10,000 in cash removed from accounts, he made many (at least double digit) withdrawals of $9,000 from these accounts. I don’t know where that stands, but I believe remain part of the investigation.
It doesn’t really change any part of the discussion, but I don’t think that Rush is a pure as the driven snow on this one.
The Owner's Manual
Darrell, I’m not a liberal. Neither is Justice Thomas who, in Lopez vs US (?) several years ago warned that placing everything within on degree of the Commerce Clause would allow the federal government to rule unchecked.
Darrell
Actually, the Indiana case which you lefty kooks are so appalled by, was a search into records of UNDER-14 year old girls. That is, 11, 12 and 13 year old girls, in an effort to protect them against child predators, as typically young teenage and pre-teenage girls are almost always impregnated by a guy much older than they. *That* is what you kooks are so damn upset about? Get a f*cking grip… moral high ground indeed.. you are defending the rights of child abusers here
In Kansas, they were looking for evidence to confirm reports of illegal late term abortions. *These* are the examples you use to compare with Rush? How honest
The Owner's Manual
“typically young teenage and pre-teenage girls are almost always impregnated by a guy much older than they.”
Do you have a cite for that?
Jorge
I’m quite glad that this is happening to Rush because I believe A) The war on certain drugs is stupid B) the government has no business looking at our medical records and C) I like to see hypocrites, especially hypocrites with 20 million listeners a month, get taken down a notch or two. Limbaugh has spent years railing against drug users and calling for the heaviest drug laws. He’s spent years slamming the left of “moral relativity.” Its been interesting to watch the Ditto-heads engage in the most extreme kinds of moral relativity, defending those that are addicted to legal drugs and calling them “victims” and still trying to sound tough on the war on drugs. The same with exposing the BS that justifies Ashcroft going after women’s medial records while defending Rush’s right to privacy even when it is obvious he has committed a crime.
I’m glad this happens because it weakens Rush, it weakens intrusive laws and it exposes a hypocrite. The same way I was glad to see O’Reiley get caught buying off a woman to ensure her silence in a sexual harassment case. I was glad because I’ve seen Bill O use his pulpit to slam people who did not go on his show and “set the story straight” one too many times. Maybe they should have offered to cut Bill a check to shut up.
IMO, there is a huge disconnect between the rhetoric and belief of too many public figures in this country and their actual lives. To bring up another famous case, don’t condemn me for my morals when you can’t stay away from the high rollers table in Vegas yourself. To clarify, this isn’t about whether people are entitled to have an opinion or not. This is about people being called-out for being sanctimonious hypocrites.
Demdude
That is, 11, 12 and 13 year old girls, in an effort to protect them against child predators, as typically young teenage and pre-teenage girls are almost always impregnated by a guy much older than they. *That* is what you kooks are so damn upset about? Get a f*cking grip… moral high ground indeed.. you are defending the rights of child abusers here
In Kansas, they were looking for evidence to confirm reports of illegal late term abortions. *These* are the examples you use to compare with Rush? How honest
Well, in order to find out if there are any illegal goings on, let us look at all of your computers files. There might be some prescriptions illegally dispensed, let’s look at the hospitals accross the US to see what we can find. Your house might have an illegal cable hookup, let’s have the govt go into your house and check and see what you have going on there.
In your frenzy to win an argument, how about looking at the big picture?
Darrell
Do you really need one to know it’s true? Seriously. Here is a California study showing that fathers who impregnated junior high age girls were, on average, 6.7 years older. Again, did you need a study to confirm that?
Darrell
Yes, because in the “big picture”, investigating abortion records of 12 year old girls, who have a strong likelihood of being sexually abused, that is the same as a random check on my computer files.. that is your “point”, is it not?
Sojourner
An investigation of Rush’s illegal activities is currently under way. The Kansas investigation was not based on similar investigation of a known person’s illegal behavior. They were simply snooping around looking.
You’re right. They aren’t similar. The KS investigation is so much worse – the government can snoop in private medical files because there *might* be illegal behavior.
Darrell
The Kansas investigation is backed by a judicial finding of probable cause that a crime had been committed, not simply ‘snooping’ to find possible illegal behavior. In the Indiana case, we are talking about Planned parenthood records of 11, 12, and 13 year old girls
Mike T
Truthfully? It’s Limbaugh, so I don’t care
That comment sums up very well the left. No core principles which they will not compromise if it means hurting a Republican. Remember how the left told us how they stand with the downtrodden and oppressed in the world? Well, those principles got flushed as soon as it became clear that George W. Bush’s leadership would topple Saddam and free the Iraqi people. Of course, if the left had an ounce of principle or honor, they would have supported the toppling of Saddam on a HUMAN RIGHTS BASIS ALONE. But they didn’t, did they?.. so they downplay Saddam’s atrocities and exaggerate civilian deaths caused by the US, while trumping up relatively minor US misbehaviors like Abu Ghraib. It’s who they are
The left *really is* unprincipled. Let’s not pretend otherwise, ok?
That entire sentiment sums up very well certain idiots on the right. Ignore what all the other commenters said, just generalize what one person said and project it to roughly 50% of the US population. (Ward Churchill anyone?)
Hey Darrell, I can play the ‘no principles a conservative won’t compromise’ game too. Fish in a barrel, really. Smaller government anyone? Bush has had a Republican congress almost his entire term, yet government spending has gone thru the roof, and not just because of Iraq and Medicare. Non-defense discretionary spending has gone up way faster than under Clinton. How about cleaning up Washington? It was one of the central themes Rethugs used in 1994 to take Congress, yet nowadays DeLay and Cunningham make Torricelli look like a two-bit thief.
How about your newfound passion for the plight of Iraqi human rights? Your team sold that out decades ago, when Rumsfeld and Cheney and many of the same GOP bigwigs running the show now were ignoring, say, when Saddam gassed Halabja. Back when, you know, Saddam actually did have WMDs.
I know, I know, I’m cherrypicking examples that fit into the preconceived narrative I want to push. I felt responding in kind was the way to go.
Demdude
Yes, because in the “big picture”, investigating abortion records of 12 year old girls, who have a strong likelihood of being sexually abused, that is the same as a random check on my computer files.. that is your “point”, is it not?
Unfortuntely, yes. For the same reason that when we have great evidence that someone has killed someone, it doesn’t allow law enforcement to string them up from the nearest tree.
In order to updhold values, laws and principles, it costs you something. Sometimes alot.
Do you wish to put into the hands of law enforcement the right to do whatever they please?
Darrell
Mike T, do you dispute that, generally speaking, the left had in the past, generally trumpeted how much they cared about human rights for the downtrodden and oppressed worldwide? I believe it is entirely fair to state that was their position. Not picking up on any ‘Ward Churchill’ type specifics as you say, then painting with a broad brush, but an honest assessment of the left’s position. But since George W. Bush’s leadership was who toppled Saddam, now we see what hypocritical scum the left truly are..how they really feel about human rights… generally speaking of course, but nonetheless true
Regarding government spending under Bush, you would be hard pressed to find a conservative person, blog or publication which has not been extremely critical of Bush on his spending. So your analogy is nothing but bullsh*t
Darrell
Demlude, if the govt was using the abortion records of 12 year old girls for anything other than an attempt to jail child abusers, I would agree with you. For example, if they found that a 12 year old girl was impregnated by a 12 year old boy, and decided to make that information public to shame them both, I would have a problem with that. But from what I’ve seen, this is 100% an investigation to nail child abusers.
Retief
Of course we should be clamoring for that. But Rush has so virulently clamored for the oposite for so long that I can’t summon much energy to prevent his being hoist on his own petard.
—
Darrell, can you really fail to understand that when your interlocutors ask you what about Zimbabwe, Sudan, Congo, etc. in response to your assertion that the invasion of Iraq was all about the Human Rights, they are not saying that’s not a good reason, they are saying that it is not Bush’s reason, or your reason? If Human Rights really were your concern, the money and lives that Iraq has cost could have been better spent elsewhere. In retreating into your not everywhere doesn’t equal nowhere formulation you dodge the question of why Iraq.
Tim F
What’s this fixation with 12-year-old girls? It’s stupid to pretend that those are the only records that teh Kansas AG is after.
SherAn
The column itself is bizarre, but the comments are for the most part completely over the top. It was Jeb Bush and the Republican majorities in the Florida state House and Senate that that originally introduced and pushed the bill that resulted in the LAW that Rush is being prosecuted under. Florida does have a major problem with doctor shopping and prescription fraud and prescription drug abuse. We have many, many instances of fatal overdoses on Oxycontin and other opiates. But because Rush is a celebrity and some kind of leader in the radical rightwing jihad, he should be above the law? Puleeze! Listen to yourselves. It’s pathetic that you’re serious as a heart attack about this.
Now tell me how precisely this is a politically motivated prosecution/persecution of Rush Limbaugh? The man is a Republican. Jeb’s daughter Nicole was also a poster child for prescription drug abuse, and one coming from diehard Republican parents in a Republican state, obviously. A Red State. The judge in Rush’s case is a Republican. He has ruled on the motions in the case from day one. The search warrant process was appealed all the way to the state Supreme Court. Both the state Court of Appeals and the state Supreme Court are heavily Republican. I repeat: heavily Republican. Tell me again how this is a politically motivated prosecution?
Instead of whining about how “libruls” are unethical, how poor old pill-popping druggie Limbaugh is a victim, think about what you’re saying. Think about how you sound. Have you been totally brainwashed and coopted that you can’t see the truth for the truth that it is? Your position is clearly spelled O-U-T-T-O-L-U-N-C-H-A-N-D-T-O-T-A-L-L-Y-D-E-L-U-S-I-O-N-A-L! Sickos, the lot of you. Ignore Tom Cruise, consult with a competent psychiatrist at your earliest opportunity.
Darrell
Yeah, except nobody on my side ever said the invasion of Iraq was “all about” human rights. It was one among a dozen justifications given. My point is/was that leftists, who claimed to care sooo very much about human rights, if they really gave a sh*t about human rights, they would have supported the toppling of Saddam on the HUMAN RIGHTS BASIS ALONE. But they didn’t. And the reason why is because they really, truly are hypocritical scum who don’t give a sh*t about human rights at all. I know it sounds harsh, but it’s true. Can you provide any alternate reason which makes sense?
TimF, buy a clue.. The Indiana investigation which was brought up in the commments earlier, not Kansas, was limited to abortion records of girls under the age of 14
albedo
A truly disinterested observer of party-line reactions to the Iraq War per human rights would, I think, find a lot of hypocrisy on either side. The far Right’s sudden concern for human rights is an interesting development, as is the far Left’s inability to be even momentarily sanguine about the prospect of free elections.
Darrell
Yes, the far Right’s “sudden” concern for human rights. Please. Can we drop the BS ‘uncaring uncompassionate conservatives’ who want to starve the elderly stereotyping and deal with actual facts and actions?
albedo
“And the reason why is because they really, truly are hypocritical scum who don’t give a sh*t about human rights at all.”
You’re right. Stereotyping like that is totally ridiculous. My apologies, oh clear-headed one.
gratefulcub
Darrell,
I am a liberal.
I care deeply about human rights.
I disagreed with the War in Iraq.
Those statements are not contradictory. I don’t believe that attacking Iraq was the best way to raise the level of human rights in the world.
We can disagree, and yet both have principles. there is no reason to say that ‘the left’ is without principles because we disagree on HOW to raise the level of human rights.
That goes for all of you on my side of of the aisle as well. Darrell can be principled, while we disagree on the best way to achieve what happens to be many of the same goals.
Darrell
Ok, touche. But tell me, if leftists who has previously told us how much they really cared about human rights of the downtrodden and oppressed.. What other explanation, other than “hypocritical scum who don’t give a sh*t about human rights” can there be? I mean, we’re talking the toppling of the bloodiest living dictator on earth responsible for the cold blooded murder of 300,000+ of his own countrymen + those he killed in his invasions of Kuwait and Iran.
Keep in mind, these same leftists who told us how much they cared are also inflating civilian casualty numbers and downplaying Saddam’s atrocities. Despicable in my opinion. So again, if the explanation is something other than ‘hypocritical scum’, what else would that explanation be for those who told us how they cared sooo very much about human rights? I’m all ears
Nikki
Ah Darrell, every day it’s a new chuckle, eh?
gratefulcub
Well then thanks for listening. But i can only tell you why I feel this way, I don’t really know who ‘the left’ is, and I haven’t met her.
In my opinion (and my opinion is all I have, after listening and reading to all the sources I could find on the history of the region, the current political climate, etc.) there was no good outcome to an invasion. I am not getting into reasons, we have all been through that before, and we disagree. But, that is what I believed. I believed that an invasion would lead to sectarian violence that was much worse than some thought. I believed that civil strife would lead to horrible living conditions.
Living under Saddam was horrible, I accept that. Living in a war zone is worse. Living in a failed state is worse, and that is what Iraq is. Furthermore, there is a real chance that over the next generation, a new strongman will emerge, and life in Iraq will be very similar to life under Saddam.
I do support taking an active role in changing the political climate of the region. If I thought we could do it effectively militarily, I could support that initiative. i don’t. I still believe that changing the attitude of the region is the only way to win. I think that the Israeli occupation of Palestine is the first step to anything positive happening. We have no legitimacy as long as we are not a fair facilitator in that situation. And because we are seen as joined at the hip with Israel, we will never be accepted in the region when our military occupies a nation. it is seen as many as an extension of the palestinian occupation.
There is so much more, and I could talk about it all day, but I will spare everyone.
My point is, THAT is why I say that I believe in human rights but disagree with the war in iraq. I know we disagree on almost everything I wrote, but my question is, do those thoughts and opinions make me hypocritical scum?
Mike T
No, I don’t dispute that the left has historically been more concerned with human rights than the population at large. I would argue that we still are to this day. That doesn’t mean I agree with your conclusions, though, because you promote a logical fallacy. Here’s the essence of your argument:
1. The left has historically been concerned with human rights.
2. The left is against the war in Iraq, even though it may help alleviate human rights violations in Iraq.
3. Therefore, the left has abandoned its support for human rights.
1. and 2. can both be true and 3. can be false at the same time. There are plenty of reasons to oppose the war, reasons that many feel outweigh the potential human rights benefit. Note that I say potential, because the way things seem to be progressing we might just end up with a civil war or another strongman or some other unforeseen conclusion that could be just as bad as Saddam.
Here’s one reason why I opposed the war, and still do to this day. I don’t want to see friends and family put in harm’s way unless it’s absolutely necessary. My cousin should be home with his pregnant wife and 4 year old son instead of doing his 2nd stint in Afghanistan, sandwiched around a tour in Baghdad. Maybe if the military wasn’t stretched so thin he could.
Or maybe you’re right. Maybe I only oppose the Iraq war because of my irrational Bush-hatred, and my concern for the well-being of a family member — as well as other people’s family members — is just a ruse I’m using so I can finally get out from under all that lame human rights stuff I used to stand for. And to think, I would’ve got away with it all if it weren’t for that meddling Darrell.
Regarding government spending under Bush, you would be hard pressed to find a conservative person, blog or publication which has not been extremely critical of Bush on his spending. So your analogy is nothing but bullsh*t
Conservative blogs and publications are all fine and I’m grateful for their heartfelt but useless denunciations of the budget boondoggle, but doesn’t Bush himself qualify as a conservative? How about DeLay, Hastert, Frist, Santorum or any other GOP member of Congress that’s been voting in lockstep agreement for these budget busters for five years now? How about all the people that voted for Bush and/or a Republican in Congress. Do they qualify as conservatives? Apparently these voters aren’t so extremely critical of Bush that they’d withhold their vote. No, I think the only bullsh*t here is your rationalization, which bears a strong resemblance to the “No true Scotsman” fallacy.
The Owner's Manual
” fathers who impregnated junior high age girls were, on average, 6.7 years older.”
Heh. Hey, Darrell,fathers are very likely to be older than teenage girls, but that’s not the question. You said
“typically young teenage and pre-teenage girls are almost always impregnated by a guy much older than they.”
A guy. Not a father. A guy. Guys are teenagers, too. Not all of them are fathers.
I don’t believe almost all young girls who get pregnant did so from adult men, which is what I’m hearing here.
Demdude
Okay, he was scum and deserves to be brought to justice. But, everything mentioned is in the past. I’ll skip our involvement and “blind eye” when these were occuring and ask what was the current threat?
If we want to go after right’s abuser’s and murderers, the list is fairly endless on this planet. He was contained and not even all of Irag was under his control (Kurds?).
When war is waged, innocent people are slaughtered. It goes with the territory. The point is: there is more than one way to go after this. By not agreeing with your solution, it does not lessen our resolve.
And Darrell, I enjoy having a discussion with people of opposing viewpoints. That is why most of come here. So when you start off with a “when did you stop beating your wife” comments, this doesn’t really help expand the discussion. Perhaps we could tone a bit? I’m sure we will come to a point where just say we agree to disagree?
albedo
“But tell me, if leftists who has previously told us how much they really cared about human rights of the downtrodden and oppressed.. What other explanation, other than “hypocritical scum who don’t give a sh*t about human rights” can there be? I mean, we’re talking the toppling of the bloodiest living dictator on earth responsible for the cold blooded murder of 300,000+ of his own countrymen + those he killed in his invasions of Kuwait and Iran.”
It’s worth pointing out that Hussein was supported militarily throughout the eighties by many people in the current administration. The US provided most of the chemical and biological weapons the Baathists used against the Kurds in the Anfal campaigns (to the tune of 150,00+ casualties). So it’s more than a little disingenuous to make it sound like Rumsfeld, et al, are glorious liberators.
As far as why many lefties can’t work up the proper enthusiasm for Saddam being overthrown, I would cite the above example along with many similar ones and say that people are suspicious of the Bush administration to the point of throwing the baby out with the bathwater, as it were.
gratefulcub
The line of thought about
Mike T
Darrell — You can’t think of one single reason why people would oppose the war, other than hypocrisy? Really? Wow, that’s a stunning statement. Let me ask, is it your rigid ideological blinders that cause you to think this way, or are you just being willfully ignorant? Or are you a Bush admin shill, having jumped on the Armstrong Williams gravy train? Inquiring minds want to know….
Rocky Smith
Didn’t this string start out as a discussion of Limbaugh’s medical records?
gratefulcub
Who wants to talk about rush all day?
albedo
“The line of thought about
gratefulcub
albedo
Agreed
And, I in no way support all of our relationships, nor do I support our former relationship with hussein. And, you are 100% correct that the current administration has no business talking themselves up as human rights supporters. These men have long histories, and most of them are not pretty. They haven
Darrell
Actually albedo, the military support we gave Saddam in the 80’s was miniscule.. Especially considering that he was fighting our enemies in Iran who had taken Americans hostages.
Another myth, and a hateful one at that. You should do your research, then take that one back because it’s a leftist lie. For example, during the 80’s we (as well as France) gave Iraqi agricultural researchers strains of anthrax, as we did to many other countries at that time with pastoral economies.. anthrax and other substances were not at that time known to be a biological weapon. Same with a number of other nasty substances given to their medical research institutes for researching how to treat and deal with different diseases. Chemicals used for WMD’s? Same thing, every singe case I’ve seen, chemicals were to be used for crop dusting or other legit applications. What really undermines this argument is that most every chem weapon can be produced with items easily procured..
You’re dead wrong about knowingly providing Saddam with significant military support or with WMD’s. But let’s suppose for the sake of argument that you were right. We supported Saddam to whatever extent. What I want explained to me then is how then, is it wrong, to correct what mistakes we made in the past. That’s what I find so despicable about the left’s position.
Darrell
gratefulcub, tell me, how do you square your “deep concern” for human rights, with leaving in power, the bloodiest living dictator on planet earth.. which would have been the result if you had your way and the invasion of Iraq never took place. This is a contradictory, hypocritical position
Darrell
gratefulcub
Unbelievable. I explain how I thought that removing him militarily today did NOT help the cause of human rights. We can disagree with that, but that isn
gratefulcub
Darrell, I stand corrected, Cheney et al does care deeply about human rights, as long as it can be accomplished through war.
Aid to Africa: Promises, not kept, followed by excuses and reasons not to send aid.
Sudan, I know you hate that example, but there it is.
Rwanda: I still hate clinton for it
South America: I still Hate bush 1 for it. Spare me the Commies invading through texas diatribe, it is laughable.
The American Poor: Your boys are going to help….oh yeah, a rising tide raises all boats. Well, life on a high boat isn’t very nice without healthcare is it?
Maybe bush and company, along with Saint Reagan really believe that the best way to help the poor in this country and others is through tax breaks for the rich, and non regulations of big business, but sorry, I ain’t buyin’.
Yes I hate bush. I hate them all due to what i feel are failed policies, bad policies, and policies that hurt this country as well as others around the world. And I didn’t hate bush first, and then build around that hate. That hate came second.
Please fire back. Call me some names. Hypocritical scum. Traitor. Sissie. What’s the flavor of the day to ridicule ‘liberals.’ Can we just cut to the chase, will you please start calling us communists? Can we get the trials started? can I just take my turn naming names? If I name enough liberals, will you let me go?
We are in a sad state.
Darrell
Ok, gratefulcub, I’ll reel in the overheated rhetoric if you’ll reel in yours such as
They haven
Darrell
Ah, so simplistic.. if it was only true. Bush is spending far more than any administration in history on aid to Africa. But Bush administration efforts to ensure aid gets to those in need rather than the Swiss bank accounts of their rulers = “promises not kept”. This is what flies as “logic” to those on the left.
In Sudan, we tried to work through the UN just like you lefties told us we must, and *surprise*, France blocks resolutions against the Sudanes govt..Either you want us to go through the UN or you don’t. You can’t have it both ways. You see, we’re a bit tied up in Afghanistan and Iraq keeping the world safe from islamofascist terror, so you would think that while we are busy, some of the rest of the world like France and Germany, might be able to help do something in Sudan
gratefulcub
I said I wasn’t going to spell it out. that wasn’t the point. The point was that that is what I believed. Given that is what I believed, it is not hypocritical to oppose a war that i do not believe will improve human rights. I think i said, it would take all day to explain why i didn’t think it would help.
There is a difference between me attacking cheney, and you attacking ‘the left’ which includes me. Cheney is one man, they are one small group of men. I don’t try to put their thoughts, ideas, plans, ideology etc onto you, or the right. I realize that there are many ‘on the right’ that support the war in iraq because they believe abortion is wrong and bush is their man hell or high water. I will NEVER attack the right, or the left. Micheal Moore, Michell Malkin, Cheney…..yeah.
gratefulcub
Again, don’t confuse me with ‘the left’ whoever she is.
Darrell
So just to be clear, you “care deeply” about human rights, but you opposed the removal of a mass murdering sociopathic dictator responsible for the murder of hundreds of thousands of his own people.. You won’t explain that inconsistency, because it’s just what you believe, and that’s all there is to it.
gratefulcub
More aid than any other president? so what. Don’t confuse clinton with the left, or me. No president has come close to providing enough aid to africa to make a difference.
Not letting it end up in the wrong hands….fair enough, but his way of doing this is withholding the money. And, the trade not aid routine. The left has been called racist for calling for aid, as in “what, are the africans too stupid and lazy to trade their way to prosperity?”
Getting the money to the right people instead of bMW’s for the corrupt rulers is of course very important. But, we should work on a way to do that, I don’t see it happening.
As far as promises not kept: He pledged X, then asked congress for Y, they (a republican congress, and bush talks about spending his capital) gave Z. Clear cut, we will just have to disagree.
F france. They can’t stop us from helping the Sudan. If we go to the security council and say we are leading a coalition to stop the bloodshed in the Sudan, they would be forced to get on board. If no one wants to go with us, well we went to Iraq alone, and we can go do some good alone. Sure, the left, and even I, would love to get the UN to lead a coalition to help the Sudan, but that doesn’t mean that is the only way it can be done.
Just because John Kerry, or Micheal Moore, or Woody Harrelson says something, it doesn’t mean i picked up the talking points and took it as fact. If there is one thing I can say for sure, the left’s biggest problem politically is: We don’t agree on anything, so we have no message discipline. We can’t chant 9/11 in lockstep, so we lose.
gratefulcub
OK, one more time, the reasons why I believe it aren
gratefulcub
OK, one more time, the reasons why I believe it aren
Darrell
Also, in addition to monetary assistence, the US gives more food aid to Africa than the rest of the world combined. Africa’s problem is corrupt governments, and all the money in the world won’t fix that. In the short term, feed them and provide medical supplies as best we can.. But your concern for African would resonate a lot further if you and your side were equally vocal about their internal corruption, and more vocal about colonial interferers like France who, with 10,000+ troops stationed in “former” colonies, support and maintain corrupt bloody dictators who keep their jackboot on the people
I don’t hear you and your side clamoring over the source of the problems in Africa, corrupt leadership. All I hear from you is “we need to spend more”.
Darrell
My point was that those who profess to care soo deeply about human rights, should face the fact that their advice would have resulted in the continuation of a murderous oppressive dictatorial regime in Iraq. I don’t see anyway to get around that fact.
But I am willing to modify my previously stated position and now say that those who claim to care so much about human rights, but opposed the removal of Saddam, are either extreme dishonest hypocrites, or they haven’t thought through their position very well. Because any position which would have left Saddam in power, is entirely inconsistent with sincere concern of human rights.
p.lukasiak
My point was that those who profess to care soo deeply about human rights, should face the fact that their advice would have resulted in the continuation of a murderous oppressive dictatorial regime in Iraq. I don’t see anyway to get around that fact.
By 2002, Iraq was probably one of the least “murderous” dictatorships around — killing and torture for political reasons was quantified with “scores” in the human rights reports issued during Saddam’s last years. Now, of course that should still be unacceptable, but when one considers that the US is responsible for anywhere between 20,000 and 100,000 civilian deaths in the last two years in Iraq (and when one adds to that the killings done by the insurgency that would not exist but for the US invasion) “scores” of innocents being tortured and killed pales in comparison.
Bottom line is that there was no “humanitarian” case to be made for the invasion of Iraq in 2002-2003, because there was no ongoing humanitarian crisis of such proportion that demanded military intervention when one considers the humanitarian disaster that the military intervention engendered. Maybe we should have intervened when Saddam was slaughtering Kurds and Shia with abandon 10 years previous (or maybe the Bush I administration shouldn’t have encouraged them to rebel if it was not prepared to support the rebellion), but that was more than 10 years before we invaded.
SeesThroughIt
Darrell, seriously, where do you come up with this shit? Do you practice your right-wing outrage in the mirror or what?
gratefulcub
Darrell,
It’s long and boring, but you wanted to know why I didn’t think the removal of SH would improve Human Rights, and here it is.
First, let me just say that we agree on the rule of SH. Horrible. And, I do support helping the region change. The point that I made, and I now need to expand upon is that I don
albedo
Darrell,
Link
One of the choice quotes:
“By the end of 1983, US$402 million in agriculture department loan guarantees for Iraq were approved. In 1984, this increased to $503 million and reached $1.1 billion in 1988. Between 1983 and 1990, CCC loan guarantees freed up more than $5 billion. Some $2 billion in bad loans, plus interest, ended up having to be covered by US taxpayers.
A similar taxpayer-funded, though smaller scale, scam operated under the auspices of the federal Export-Import Bank. In 1984, vice-president George Bush senior personally intervened to ensure that the bank guaranteed loans to Iraq of $500 million to build an oil pipeline. Export-Import Bank loan guarantees grew from $35 million in 1985 to $267 million by 1990.
According to William Blum, writing in the August 1998 issue of the Progressive, Sam Gejdenson, chairperson of a Congressional subcommittee investigating US exports to Iraq, disclosed that from 1985 until 1990 “the US government approved 771 licenses [only 39 were rejected] for the export to Iraq of $1.5 billion worth of biological agents and high-tech equipment with military application …
“The US spent virtually an entire decade making sure that Saddam Hussein had almost whatever he wanted… US export control policy was directed by US foreign policy as formulated by the State Department, and it was US foreign policy to assist the regime of Saddam Hussein.”
I checked your link out. All I could really glean from it was that the USSR and France contributed more arms to Iraq than the US. If so, boo hiss, but I’m not sure what the point is, or if it’s one you should be making.
Also, “For example, during the 80’s we (as well as France) gave Iraqi agricultural researchers strains of anthrax, as we did to many other countries at that time with pastoral economies.. anthrax and other substances were not at that time known to be a biological weapon. Same with a number of other nasty substances given to their medical research institutes for researching how to treat and deal with different diseases.”
Well, you’re either extremely gullible or extremely dishonest, one. (Nice being called dishonest, huh?)
Also dishonest, IMO, is your elevation of human-rights successes in Iraq achieved as a byproduct of about fifty other more central goals the administration had there to the status of casus belli, and then calling the anti-war left hypocrites because they didn’t do backflips when Saddam was ousted. It’s like being the lawyer for a drunk driver who plowed his car through a crowd of fifty people, one of whom is an escaped murderer, and accusing the prosecution at the trial of being pro-escaped-murderers. It’s a ridiculous argument, on its face.
Darrell
Perhaps Saddam had been less murderous in the 2002 – 2003 years, but he was only one rebellion away from slaughtering more tens of thousands as he had done before. Kurds were relatively safe only because of our enforced no-fly zones, otherwise Saddam would have happily gassed more of them who dared to cross him
Again, those who claim to care so deeply about human rights but who also oppose the removal of Saddam, are dishonestly avoiding the consequences of their position.. which would have left in power a mass murdering oppressive dictator(and his sons), who had in fact, already killed hundreds of thousands of his own people, and, given the chance again, would no doubt be happy to kill hundred of thousands more. That is the reality of the position held by so many on the left who claim to care so deeply about human rights
gratefulcub
Still a hypocrite? is it impossible for you to just think I am an idiot that though long and hard about the results of an invasion, and came to all the wrong conclusions?
Darrell
alfredo, you are seriously bringing up an agriculture loan, credits given to feed the Iraqi people, as ‘proof’ of US wrongdoing?
Now your showing us your dishonestly. That list, with detailed backup on the links, demonstrated that US support of Saddam in the 1973 – 1990 timeframe was miniscule, supplying less than 1% of Saddam’s military needs.
You have no response to my anthrax explanation because you truly are ignorant. At that time, the US supplied anthrax to many countries with pastoral economies. It simply wasn’t thought of as a bio weapon. Get your facts straight or STFU
gratefulcub
are dishonestly avoiding the consequences of their position.. which would have left in power a mass murdering oppressive dictator(and his sons), who had in fact, already killed hundreds of thousands of his own people, and, given the chance again, would no doubt be happy to kill hundred of thousands more.
Wrong! I do accept those consequences. I also accept the consequences of leaving karimov in power in Uzhbekistan. I accept the consequences of leaving many people in power.
you on the other hand, seem not to accept that there is the possibility of negative consequences of invading. You don’t have to think they are likely, but you have to accept the possibility of the whole situation dissolving into something worse, and spreading instability and war through the region.
If you can only see one side of the coin, you are blinded by ideology. you have to see both sides, no one KNOWS how it will turn out. There are extreme possibilities on both sides that are feasible, and a host of outcomes in between. They are all possible, if you don’t weigh them all, you are blinded by the ideology that you know how it will end. you don’t. I don’t. W doesn’t. Cheney Doesn’t. You have to look at all possibilities, you have to accept that there are worse outcomes that SH staying in power.
So many variables, so many possibilities, yet you can describe the various views of what is now 59% of america with one talking point.
Disagree with the war, you are a liberal, and you are a hypocrite because you say you believe in human rights.
Consider all the possibilities, and stop acting like there is only one possible outcome.
Darrell
Although he had used chem weapons in the past, it is a fact that Saddam’s bio weapons program was not discovered until 1995. Again, we provided anthrax and cultures of various diseases, not just to Iraq at that time, but to probably half the medical and agricultural research institutes in the whole world. But don’t let those facts stop you about how we “gave Saddam WMD’s”.. blather on
I never elevated it, in fact I explicitly stated on this thread that is was but one of a dozen justifications given. I brought it up because the left, who claims to be so ‘deeply concerned’ about human rights, is showing what hypocrites they truly are, or in gratefulcub’s case, that they didn’t think through their opposition to the removal of Saddam very well. Because no matter how you slice it, any position that would have left Saddam in power, is entirely inconsistent with any sincere concern of human rights
albedo
The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. But anyway, here’s a link
and a choice quote:
“USAMRIID has long been familiar with anthrax, as far back as the days when it was the Army Medical Unit and was associated with the Biological Warfare Laboratories at Fort Detrick. The mighty lethality of anthrax has been appreciated by mankind since classical times, and its potential as a weapon has been intuited by warriors since 1876, when the bacteriologist Robert Koch discovered that the disease had a bacterial cause. During the First World War, German agents were injecting anthrax into American livestock. In the nineteen-thirties, Japan tested anthrax as a weapon in Manchuria. In the forties, the United States, Britain, and the Soviet Union also took up the challenge of weaponizing anthrax.”
So, you’re only off by about 110 years.
Anyway, why don’t you kindly STFU? As far as I can see you’re just a rude doctrinaire gadfly, and the only one on this site. Go to Freeperville where you belong.
Darrell
Don’t put words in my mouth. I am the first to admit that things could go wrong there. I see hopeful signs, but there are no guarantees. I never suggested differently. Your position would have been to leave the mass murderer in power in Iraq. I think, for a number of different reasons, that taking out Saddam was the right thing to do. Those who claim to care about human rights seem incapable of facing the reality that their position would have kept Saddam in power.
We are already seeing a ripple down effect in the region which I would like you to acknowledge: Withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon, Khaddafi abandoning his WMD program, half ass elections in Saudi arabia and promised elections in Egypt.. EEEEVilll Bushies
Sojourner
What I’ve learned from Darrell today:
1. Saddam Hussein was by far the biggest cause of human misery in the world at the time he was removed from office. Worse even than the genocide in Africa that has cost hundreds of thousands of lives.
2. 11-, 12-, and 13-year-old girls have no rights to privacy.
3. Rush is being persecuted by allowing prosecutors to review his medical records.
3. There is no conflict between #2 and #3.
4. Liberals don’t care about human rights.
5. Liberals have no core principles.
6. The Bush administration can do no wrong.
Welcome to the wacky world of Darrell.
Darrell
alfredo, read your own link. Anthrax was being used in agricultural and veterinary research:
Ok, maybe someone 110 years ago *someone* may have thought of it to be used as a weapon, but it was generally considered to be a problem for cows, not bio-warfare against people, and anyway, Saddam’s bioweapons program was not discovered until the mid-1990’s. You dismiss such explanations as being “naive”, yet you are incapable of demonstrating the US distributed anthrax to Iraq, and dozens of other nations at that time, for anything other than research into how to keep their cows alive. Anthrax was considered, and still is, a big problem affecting cattle and goats. Nothing ‘naive’ about that fact, unless you want to believe the lies that the US “sold Saddam WMDs”
Darrell
Sojourner, you forgot #7:
7. Leftists who claim to care so deeply about human rights have been exposed for the hypocritical phonies they truly are for opposing the removal of a mass murdering dictator.
Uh Soj, can you name another living dictator in power at that time, responsible for more deaths than Saddam? No?
Any leftist demonstrations in the runup to the war at any Iraqi embassy in the world demanding Iraq reform it’s human rights behavior? No again?
Darrell
Yeah Soj, I hope you and the kooks on your side take this one and run with it. Opposing the review of abortion records of children who were likely the victim of sexual abuse at the hands of an older male adult in an effort to prosecute child abusers. Helping to block prosecution of child abusers.. you’re really on the side of angels in that one.
Please tell everyone how you feel on this important issue.. and don’t be shy to make a loud stink over your position here. I want people to get a good up-close look at how you kooks really think… how whacked you truly are
Sojourner
Darrell, do you get sexually aroused when you type in words like “mass murdering dictator”? I mean, you seriously seem to have a thing for Hussein.
I think gratefulclub said it quite nicely. I will also add that by bailing out of Afghanistan, the U.S. left the country in a shambles. The loss of the Navy Seals is a clear indication of that, as well as the opium market, the war lords returning to power, and the Taliban appearing once again on the scene. What about the human rights of the Afghani people? Don’t they count?
As someone earlier pointed out, the results of elections since our invasion have been for fundamentalists and hard liners. Not exactly what we had in mind as a way to improve the lives of those in the Middle East.
Thousands of Iraqis have died in the war and the daily lives of many, in particular, women, is far worse than before. What about their human rights?
Our ability to do something useful in the Sudan has been severely impacted by our lack of money. What about their human rights?
Similarly, our ability fight the war on terror has been similarly impacted. The cause of this lack of money: Iraq and tax cuts for the wealthy. What about the human rights of American, Spanish, and English people?
So, no, I don’t share your hard on for Hussein. And it’s not because of “hypocrisy” on human rights. Rather, it’s because the world is a whole lot more complicated than your black or white view can handle.
Call the liberals hypocrites all you want. We’re rapidly getting to the point where we don’t take you seriously anymore. You’re familiar with those windup dolls: they’re fun for a while but all they do is keep saying the same thing. After a while, you just want to take the batteries out.
Jeff
Guys, let’s face facts. It appears that Rush tried to purchase pain pills illegally. Whether or not he was addicted, or just needed it to deal with his pain isn’t the issue. It’s whether or not he tried to purchase them illegally.
There is a rule of law, you know. Remember how Newt and Tom used to talk about it back in 1994?
Darrell
That point was never in dispute.. at least not on this thread. The point is how leftists cheer a politically motivated witchunt on Rush, including the turning over of private medical records. I should say not all leftists, but many. But you’re right, Rush did illegally purchase pain pills
I can’t think of any case in which a first time offender caught purchasing pain pills, who was not himself dealing, was so forced to turn over private medical records to the court in such a case… Certainly not the case with Robert Downey Jr.
Darrell
Owner’s manual wrote:
According to the study I linked you to (at your request), those males who had impregnated junior high age girls, were themselves an average of 6.7 years older than the girls they knocked up. That means, on average, the age of guys impregnating 12 year olds, is 19 y/o, those impregnating 13 year olds are an average of 20 themselves.
You say you “don’t believe” it, but commonsense says different. And in this case, common sense is backed up by a pretty extensive California study on the matter.
Sojourner
Hey Darrell:
We’re responding to Rush’s predicament exactly the way he would want us to respond to a drug addict’s predicament.
I guess that makes us temporary ditto heads.
Kimmitt
For the record, the reason I am happy about this is precisely the backlash reason outlined above — that the fishing expedition and high-profile prosecution may well combine to highlight the batshit insanity of our current approach to controlled substances.
The schadenfreude is tremendously sweet, but it’s not why I care.
Lee
I hate to bring it up at this late date in the comments but this has been standard procedure for many years by the DEA.
You should read some of Radley Balko’s stuff on the DEA’s war against Doctors and Patients
/sarcasm on
Remember this is a war for a very way of life, we should use every tool in our arsenal to insure the American Way of Life ™. While you might think this is a bit overboard we must not shirk our duty so that we might protect the children. Remember it is always for the children that we take your rights and liberties.
/sarcasm off
Veeshir
100!!!!
I have no desire to get involved in this except to ask Darrell, are you a lion-tamer in the real world?
Oh, and to laugh at owner’s manual for this little bit of witty repartee:
” fathers who impregnated junior high age girls were, on average, 6.7 years older.” quoting Darrell and then came back with this:
Heh. Hey, Darrell,fathers are very likely to be older than teenage girls, but that’s not the question
Not very bright. Yes father’s are older than daughters, but I have never heard of a father who’s 6.7 years older than his daughter, much less there being enough of these children with children to be statistically significant.
Thanks owner’s manual, that really made me laugh.
Jess
“I warned you about this ever-broadening interpretation of the so-called right to privacy. It’s not a ‘right’ specifically enumerated in the Constitution or Bill of Rights.”
Rush Limbaugh
Rush Limbaugh.com
August 22nd, 2003
(quote courtesy of billmon, borrowed from comment at digby’s blog.)