Posted 4:40 PM by Scoobie Davis

Taking Up Rush Limbaugh’s Challenge

Vice-President-select Dick Cheney had planned to spend the first year anniversary of 9/11 on the Rush Limbaugh’s radio show (He didn’t appear because of security concerns). Some people such as DNC’s Terry McAuliffe vigorously objected to Cheney using this solemn occasion to appear on Limbaugh’s radio show, citing Limbaugh’s record of being “an irresponsible and divisive figure.”
.
I share McAuliffe’s view that someone occupying Cheney’s office--whether legitimately or not--should use the 9/11 anniversary to strive for unity. However, it is fitting that Cheney had planned to appear on Limbaugh’s show. The Bush regime has done what it can to exploit the 9/11 for political and financial gain. 9/11 changed things for a short time. President-select George W. Bush, at first, spoke about unifying America. When the horrific events of September 11 occurred, there were those like me who immediately stood behind Bush. We never got to the point of ever putting the word “President” in front of his name, but we supported him because, well, he was all we had. What makes the Bush regime’s --- particularly repugnant was that it was easy for his to have a tone of unity; the period after 9/11 one one in which the question of his illegitimacy became irrelevant to many Americans

That soon changed. Even though Democrats were solidly behind Bush’s anti-terrorist efforts, Karl Rove spoke of using the anti-terrorist efforts in the upcoming elections. Then there was the flap over using pictures of Bush on Air Force One in exchange for GOP cash—blood money. Let’s also not forget Bush’s tasteless trifecta joke/lie that Bush told at numerous GOP fundraisers. The Bush regime is illegitimate, not just because it came to power through a stolen election, but because of the outrageous manner in which it has attempted to capitalize on the tragic events of 9/11 for partisan advantage.

The Cheney appearance on Limbaugh show would have been just one event in a long line of efforts by the Bush regime to polarize people. I say it was perfectly fine for Cheney to go on Limbaugh’s show. Limbaugh, like Bush and Cheney, was a Vietnam Chickenhawk (I prefer the term “Chickenshit”). The meeting would have been a chance to exchange battle stories—on battling any attempts to get them to Nam.

On his 9/11 show yesterday, Limbaugh had some challenging observations about the flap. He read McAuliffe’s statement (and laughed while he read it). Limbaugh then made a challenge to McAuliffe:

I’ll tell you what, I’ll stack my so-called responsibility and unity characteristics up against Tom Daschle’s any day, Mr. McAuliffe--even yours. I’ll be glad to compare the record of my public statements and actions up against yours any day and we can decide who is divisive and who’s partisan—and there’s nothing wrong with partisan anyway, but we can decide who’s irresponsible and who’s divisive... If that A-B comparison is every made, that would be fine.

Limbaugh threw down the gauntlet. I’m picking it up. I’m taking Limbaugh up on his offer to determine who make more divisive and irresponsible statements. Let me list a few of Limbaugh’s more egregious whoppers/libels. This is by no means comprehensive. Many of these whoppers are one’s that went largely unnoticed by the mainstream media. For a more comprehensive examination of Limbaugh’s deception, I recommend posts on Spinsanity, FAIR (including the book The Way Things Aren’t) and Rush Versus Reality.


1. Limbaugh on Enron. In the midst of Limbaugh’s ridiculous attempt to portray Enron as a Clinton administration scandal, Limbaugh, to no surprise, repeated Matt Drudge journalistic hoax that Ken Lay slept over at the Clinton White House. He went on and pointed out that under George W. Bush, campaign contributors are not rewarded with overnight stays in the White House. Now that both claims are patently false, there have been, to the best of my knowledge, no retractions from Limbaugh. No surprise. Limbaugh has been able to lie with impunity—often with the willing compliance of the mainstream media. (see next example).

2. Limbaugh on Vince Foster. During Limbaugh’s heyday during the Clinton years, Limbaugh was one of the usual suspects regarding whacko theories concerning Vince Foster’s death. Limbaugh’s analysis of the matter contained more innuendo than facts. For instance, after Foster’s death, Limbaugh commented on the supposed silence of Foster’s widow; he suggested that she was staying silent because she knew what “they”—meaning the Clinton administration—had done to her husband.

Limbaugh’s most famous Foster atrocity was when he told listeners that he had a fax that said that “a Washington consulting firm that has scheduled the release of a report that will appear, it will be published, that claims that Vince Foster was murdered in an apartment owned by Hillary Clinton, and the body was then taken to Fort Marcy Park.” Limbaugh later lied and said that he never mentioned Hillary Clinton (Radio show 3/1/95). When Limbaugh lied about what he said another time, he was rewarded by the mainstream media--namely by having his butt licked by Ted Koppel and Jeff Greenfield (sorry about the vulgarity but this spectacle reminded me of words from the song “Narcissus” by Alanis Morissette). Note: be sure to check the comments regarding current FoxNews head Rogers Ailes.

3. Limbaugh is not above using the 9/11 tragedies as a bludgeon against fellow Americans he calls “the enemy.” On his radio show, Limbaugh accused Hillary of not attending a single funeral for one firefighter or rescue worker—when she did. When Tom Daschle (whom Limbaugh calls “Puff”) expressed measured concern about Bush’s phrase “axis of evil,” Limbaugh responded, "Daschle's allies in this situation include the barbarians who run North Korea, the Islamic extremists who run Iran and the mass murderer Saddam Hussein who controls Iraq.” Also, to no surprise, Limbaugh misinformed millions of his listeners when he spread the Moonie Times smear of former President Clinton’s Georgetown speech---Limbaugh compared it to something that Jane Fonda said during the Vietnam War.

4. Rush on personal attacks. See my 7/3/02 post.

5. This final Limbaugh anecdote shows how wildly Limbaugh spins when he is shown to be wrong. Back in 1999, Limbaugh was commenting on the criticism of a US Senator who had used the term “ragheads” to describe Arabs. Limbaugh mistaken thought the offending words were from Democratic Senator Kent Conrad whom he had mistaken for Republican Senator Conrad Burns. Limbaugh went in to a long diatribe pointing out an exchange that Conrad (actually Burns) had with a constituent a few years ago in which the constituent asked him about living with the “niggers” in Washington, DC. Limbaugh excoriated the media for not having had exposed this and said how the liberal media was covering for a liberal Democrat. Limbaugh had a commercial break in which he was informed that the offender was Conrad Burns, not Kent Conrad. When he came out of the break, he told listeners about his confusion and indicated that Burns being a Republican was the reason that we were hearing about his “raghead” comments now.


I’ve given my side. Anyone care to take Limbaugh’s side and find some statements by Daschle or McAuliffe that approach the irresponsibility and divisiveness of Limbaugh’s words? I’m waiting.