Revisiting Rush, the Lord's Resistance Army, and Obama's Decision to Engage In Uganda
by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny
Rush Limbaugh, the the man with self proclaimed talent from God, and with half his brain tied behind his back just to make things fair {or something along those lines} probably isn't gaining any converts lately. Especially given his comments last week with respect to Obama's decision to send American troops to Uganda to hunt down the leader of Lord's Resistance Army, Joseph Kony, and other members of the LRA.
With just a bit of research it is relatively easy to find information about the Lord's Resistance Army. Most of the information ain't pretty. It exposes the atrocities the organization has committed, from abducting thousands of people, the largest share being children, to torture, murder, and looting and the destruction of property. What is most disturbing is Limbaugh apparently failed to do any significant research into the LRA and its record before his comments.
When Limbaugh's remarks first aired October 14th I was immediately going to jump on the story in a most critical fashion. However, realizing in so doing the post would be driven by emotionalism, rather than thoughtful considerations the idea was shelved for another day. Looks like today is that other day.
Limbaugh, had he just made the argument the internal affairs of a African country should not become the affairs of the United States he was on solid ground, and his argument would have been defensible. Many will argue that the U.S. military should be used only when the security of the nation and its people are threatened by an act of aggression. Like Iraq, and Libya Uganda was not a threat to our security and therefore the U.S.A need not have become engaged.
Consistency in the application of philosophical principles is important. When one fails to consistently apply the principles they espouse their motives become suspect. In the case of Mr. Limbaugh, who largely supported President Bush and his incursion into Iraq it seems to many reasonable people his only motive is to use the incident to damage Obama further as he enters the 2012 campaign for re-election. Unseating Obama may be a very desirable and erstwhile pursuit, but national figures should use the force of reason to do so, not emotionalism and what largely amounts to hyperbole.
Mr. Limbaugh, rather than taking the high ground chose to resort to hyperbole and without the facts on the LRA set out to appeal the emotionalism of his audience.
Limbaugh put out information that at best was only partially factual and therefore misleading. So again I say, if you are a national media figure like Rush, present the facts and then let the people decide for themselves.
A few more bits of information on the LRA. The Lord's Resistance Army (LRA), FACTBOX-Key facts about Uganda's Lord's Resistance Army, Lord's Resistance Army - Wikipedia, Lord's Resistance Army
Hopefully the information links are helpful and useful. Perhaps the additional information makes it easier to decide where you side. If Limbaugh had only presented the information and then made his case firmly based on conservative principles that he consistently advocates he would be more credible and likely would have an even larger following.
But as with most talk show hosts, both liberal and conservative, I won't be holding my breathe for a change anytime soon.
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny
Rush Limbaugh, the the man with self proclaimed talent from God, and with half his brain tied behind his back just to make things fair {or something along those lines} probably isn't gaining any converts lately. Especially given his comments last week with respect to Obama's decision to send American troops to Uganda to hunt down the leader of Lord's Resistance Army, Joseph Kony, and other members of the LRA.
With just a bit of research it is relatively easy to find information about the Lord's Resistance Army. Most of the information ain't pretty. It exposes the atrocities the organization has committed, from abducting thousands of people, the largest share being children, to torture, murder, and looting and the destruction of property. What is most disturbing is Limbaugh apparently failed to do any significant research into the LRA and its record before his comments.
When Limbaugh's remarks first aired October 14th I was immediately going to jump on the story in a most critical fashion. However, realizing in so doing the post would be driven by emotionalism, rather than thoughtful considerations the idea was shelved for another day. Looks like today is that other day.
Limbaugh, had he just made the argument the internal affairs of a African country should not become the affairs of the United States he was on solid ground, and his argument would have been defensible. Many will argue that the U.S. military should be used only when the security of the nation and its people are threatened by an act of aggression. Like Iraq, and Libya Uganda was not a threat to our security and therefore the U.S.A need not have become engaged.
Consistency in the application of philosophical principles is important. When one fails to consistently apply the principles they espouse their motives become suspect. In the case of Mr. Limbaugh, who largely supported President Bush and his incursion into Iraq it seems to many reasonable people his only motive is to use the incident to damage Obama further as he enters the 2012 campaign for re-election. Unseating Obama may be a very desirable and erstwhile pursuit, but national figures should use the force of reason to do so, not emotionalism and what largely amounts to hyperbole.
Mr. Limbaugh, rather than taking the high ground chose to resort to hyperbole and without the facts on the LRA set out to appeal the emotionalism of his audience.
RUSH - So nothing to worry about here, folks, only gonna be for a few months. Now, up until today, most Americans have never heard of the combat Lord's Resistance Army. And here we are at war with them. Have you ever heard of Lord's Resistance Army, Dawn? How about you, Brian? Snerdley, have you? You never heard of Lord's Resistance Army? Well, proves my contention, most Americans have never heard of it, and here we are at war with them. Lord's Resistance Army are Christians. It means God. I was only kidding. Lord's Resistance Army are Christians. They are fighting the Muslims in Sudan. And Obama has sent troops, United States troops to remove them from the battlefield, which means kill them. That's what the lingo means, "to help regional forces remove from the battlefield," meaning capture or kill.
Lord's Resistance Army objectives. I have them here. "To remove dictatorship and stop the oppression of our people." Now, again Lord's Resistance Army is who Obama sent troops to help nations wipe out. The objectives of the Lord's Resistance Army, what they're trying to accomplish with their military action in these countries is the following: "To remove dictatorship and stop the oppression of our people; to fight for the immediate restoration of the competitive multiparty democracy in Uganda; to see an end to gross violation of human rights and dignity of Ugandans; to ensure the restoration of peace and security in Uganda, to ensure unity, sovereignty, and economic prosperity beneficial to all Ugandans, and to bring to an end the repressive policy of deliberate marginalization of groups of people who may not agree with the LRA ideology." Those are the objectives of the group that we are fighting, or who are being fought and we are joining in the effort to remove them from the battlefield. {Read It All}
Limbaugh put out information that at best was only partially factual and therefore misleading. So again I say, if you are a national media figure like Rush, present the facts and then let the people decide for themselves.
A few more bits of information on the LRA. The Lord's Resistance Army (LRA), FACTBOX-Key facts about Uganda's Lord's Resistance Army, Lord's Resistance Army - Wikipedia, Lord's Resistance Army
Hopefully the information links are helpful and useful. Perhaps the additional information makes it easier to decide where you side. If Limbaugh had only presented the information and then made his case firmly based on conservative principles that he consistently advocates he would be more credible and likely would have an even larger following.
But as with most talk show hosts, both liberal and conservative, I won't be holding my breathe for a change anytime soon.
If this is truly training and assistance and not combat, I am not against it. We've done thousands of operations like this, big and small. They build goodwill for the US and help those countries who want to help themselves.
ReplyDeleteRush is going to be against anything Obama does. His audience eats this nonsense up.
ReplyDeleteThere's a lady in my hometown named Susan M. who writes letters to the editor almost verbatim what she hears from Rush. She wrote that John Kerry was a coward for chasing a Viet Cong through the jungle and shooting him.
Sad deal for you and Rational Nation Les. Extreme right wing partisanship sells. Rationality doesn't. Hope you continue with rationality though. But if you need the money one day, I'll understand.
Good for you, Les, for keeping an open mind here. Let's just hope Obama's foreign policy winning streak continues there.
ReplyDeleteJMJ
I heard Rush retract the statements the very next day. He realized his error and corrected it. But that's something you won't see in anyone's reporting of his original statement.
ReplyDeleteThe point is I think he should never have had to retract a single thing. Had he handled post research and in a mature rational way.
ReplyDeleteBy the way Jersey, I do not support the action based on the argument I said Rush should have made and left it at that.
Les, I quite well remember all those years of "America held hostage." I have yet to hear him take that ridiculous nonsense back. Rush Limbaugh is a sleazy idiot.
ReplyDeleteJMJ
No the conservative mantra is Obama loves terrorists. Period. Point of fact. Discussion over. Rush said it. Faux News said it. I heard it. That settles it.
ReplyDeleteObama is as big a warmonger as Bush. But, if Obama's successes (Bin Laden, Somalia Pirates, Qaddafi) occurred with a Republican in office, The RNC, and MOST conservative blogs would be trumpeting his/her inclusion on Mount Rushmore for keeping us safe.
It's ludicrous to listen to Limbaugh he's long lost the one angstrom thin sliver of credibility he had back in 1992.
Grung, that's not the conservative mantra. Conservative thought leaders include Krauthammer, Sowell, Will, Barone, Goldberg, and Barnes. Find a quote from one of them saying that Obama loves terrorists and I'll give you the time of day.
ReplyDeleteYou guys on the left give more credibility to Limbaugh than we on the right.
Of course, if the Obama administration's reluctance to treat terrorists like enemies is derived entirely from deep-seated ideological principle, then it should stick to its guns. ~ Jonah Goldberg
ReplyDeleteFor a week people have been asking, "Why won't the president release Osama bin Laden's photo?" That's the wrong question. We should be asking, "Why was Barack Obama in such a hurry to tell us Bin Laden was dead?" ~ Jonah Goldberg
It sure seems like Obama has an ideological problem with democracy. ~ Jonah Goldberg
Sen. Barack Obama's "campaign headquarters in Houston had a Che Guevara-emblazoned Cuban flag hanging on the wall." ~ Jonah Goldberg
Charles Krauthammer Jan. 29, 2010 article titled "Soft on Terror":
"Of course, this case is just a reflection of a larger problem: an administration that insists on treating Islamist terrorism as a law-enforcement issue..."
What these conservative thinkers do is nuance, they give the 'reasoned' approach to why President Obama hates America and sides with our enemies, so that the Ann Coulter's, sean Hannity's, Ralph Peters, Michael Scheuer's can go out and declare Obama is on the side of Terrorists.
I suppose you think you've proven something here. What you've done is spend the last 24 hours digging up the most extreme quotes you could find from the names I listed.
ReplyDeleteInstead, you've proven my point. None of those are extreme statements. Sure, you probably think they are, but you're on the left and don't understand what it means to be mainstream conservative.
And in all of your research, you didn't find one quote claiming that Obama loves terrorists. Your best response to this failure? Each offers "nuance" and a "reasoned approach" but they really believe Obama hates America.
You know Grung, we'll make no progress in our politics as long as people like you can't learn how to be reasonable and stop manipulating your opponents' words to score points on strawmen.
Heathen,
ReplyDeleteYour very comment is infused with sublime baloney. I spent 24 hours? Try 5 minutes on google and I didn't even include everything I found. Goldberg is "paid" to write so he writes a lot, it's tough for him to have a real job like me and get immediately back to defeat your bs assertion.
What I would prefer once I have vanquished your false position is "Oops, I heathen republican am wrong, as is usually the case'. Republicans (paul broun), Obama is like Hitler and Soviet Russia before he even took office. You just can't accept that the Republican party and your conservative movement is full of hyperbolic buffoons. Too bad, it is and I'll point it out every time you try and parse the issue.
End of victory statement.