Rush on Syria

[George Rice]

Today on his show, Rush Limbaugh said something to the effect that we should be thinking about going into Iran and then Syria after Iraq.

I realize he doesn't speak for the administration, but if he keeps saying things like this, others will starting thinking this way too.

[adios]

Certain people already are to be honest. Don't think it will happen though.

[MMMMMM]

Well we probably should, and I thought it long before Rush said it. Iranians need our help to dethrone the mad-thug-mullahs who use helicopter gunships and bands of professional thugs to keep down the population and supress any kind of movement towards a meaningful democracy. Both Iran and Syria support terrorist groups but Iran is worse. Iran needs basic change but Syria might just need to have those terrorist camps obliterated.



"February 10, 2004, 8:35 a.m.
The Jihadis’ Primal Scream
Zarkawi's "Yaarrrhhh!"

Unless you depend on CNN for information — CNN totally and stunningly transformed the story, as Instapundit informed us yesterday — by now you have heard of the New York Times story about the discovery of a 17-page letter from Abu Musab al Zarkawi, written from Iraq in the middle of last month to the leaders of al Qaeda. It's an extremely explosive story.

According to the Times — whose correspondent, Dexter Filkins, saw both the Arabic original and a military translation, and "wrote down large parts of the translation" — the letter is a sort of jihadist primal scream. It says that the jihad against the Americans in Iraq is going badly. The Iraqis are not signing up for martyrdom or jihad, they do not even permit the jihadis to organize their terrorist attacks from local houses, and, worst of all, the Americans are not afraid of the terrorists. With that charming neglect of logic that seems to define much of the radical terrorist "mind," Zarkawi says both that the Americans "are the biggest cowards that God has created," and that "America...has no intention of leaving, no matter how many wounded nor how bloody it becomes."

And he adds, "we can pack up and leave and look for another land, just like what has happened in so many lands of jihad. Our enemy is growing stronger day after day, and its intelligence information increases."

If we had a government capable of advancing its case to the world at large, those phrases would be broadcast around the world, because they constitute an admission of defeat by a man in the forefront of the campaign against us in Iraq.

If that were all it said, it would be sensational for most Americans, although certainly not for NRO readers. I pointed out a couple of months ago that the terror masters in Damascus, Tehran, and Riyadh were undoubtedly gnashing their teeth, because their grand design for mass slaughter of Americans and bigtime insurrections all over Iraq, had failed. They had expected a bloodbath of epic proportions, and the same sort of "revolutionary" demonstrations that they had used so effectively against us in Lebanon in the 1980s and against the Israelis a decade later. But instead, they have discovered that the Iraqis don't like them (can we all finally put a nail in the coffin of that idiotic "they're all Shiites so they will all work together" myth?), and that the country is, indeed, headed toward democracy. Zarkawi even uses the word, as he gasps, "by God, this is suffocation!"

But there is more. He says the only chance for victory in Iraq is to provoke a Sunni/Shiite civil war, and the best way to do that is to unleash jihad against the Iraqi Shiites — referred to as "the perverse sects" — expecting that they will blame the Sunnis for it. The civil war would then "awaken the sleepy Sunnis..."

I have said for some time that the strategy of terror masters — above all, the mullahs in Tehran — was to foster civil strife in Iraq. They have been trying very hard to foment Kurdish/Turkamen, Sunni/Shiite and intertribal conflict for at least the past few months. But they greatly underestimated both the savvy of the Iraqis — who have seen the hundreds of Iranian Revolutionary Guards officers and their al Qaeda allies swarming all over the country, guiding the suicide bombers, organizing the radio and television broadcasts, and intimidating the locals whenever possible — and the slow but deliberate progress of the American armed forces. We aren't nearly as stupid as we look, and, as Zarkawi has discovered to his dismay, we don't run from a fight. At least not so long as this president is confidently in charge.

At the same time they underestimated us and the Iraqis, they overestimated their own capabilities. Iranian leaders have been told for months by their operatives in Iraq that large-scale destruction and major political action was just around the corner. But with every passing week, they realize they've been the victims of their own fantasies.

Although Zarkawi has often operated from Iran — as proven by court documents in Italy and Germany, and by information gathered by both our military and our intelligence folks in Europe and the Middle East — he is not Iranian. He's a Jordanian Palestinian, whose basic mission is the overthrow of the Hashemites in his native land. To judge by this letter, he is not particularly sophisticated about the requirements of the mullahcracy back in Tehran. They cannot "pack up and leave and look for another land," for, as President Bush rightly said in his Sunday session with Tim Russert, they are mortally threatened by the spread of democracy in the Middle East. They will have to play every card they have to drive us out, and, as Zarkawi's letter shows, they realize they are on a tight schedule: Once an Iraqi government is in place in June, "the sons of this land will be the authority...This is the democracy. We will have no pretexts."

So we can expect to see a desperate campaign against us and against the Shiites in the next several weeks.

Meanwhile, back in Iran, the natives are reading the various auguries, wondering what the primal forces of world history have in store for them. On the one hand, the parade of appeasers added a distinguished figure from the country that coined the word itself. Britain's very own Prince Charles sneaked off to Tehran to meet with the impotent President Khatami in yet another effort to make a deal that would save the tyrants from their doom. On the other hand, a handful of parliamentarians, mostly those rejected by the regime and thus denied high status and a guaranteed monthly wage, went to the universities to join in the boycott of the February 20 general elections. Their support is hardly necessary — a government poll in Tehran a week ago produced a truly amazing statistic: More than 90 percent do not intend to vote — but they deserve high marks for personal and political courage. Most Iranians expect that the regime will install a new Stalinism once the elections have been held, leading judicial figures have publicly scolded the parliamentarians to expect punishment, and the regime's thugs have launched a preemptive war on student leaders all over the country.

Nonetheless, demonstrations continue all over the country. Demonstrations in Kerman a couple of weeks ago were so large that the regime was forced to bring in helicopter gunships to mow down the protesters, and the usual thugs were unleashed on student demonstrators in Tehran and Shiraz in the last few days. Despite the calls for appeasement from the State Department and a handful of our elected representatives, the Iranian people can see what is going on in Iraq, and they must take a measure of comfort from it. And the regime was so upset by President Bush's passing reference to Middle Eastern tyrants who feel threatened by the liberation of Iraq (this weekend), that on Monday the official news service reported that Bush had threatened Iran with the same treatment he had delivered to Iraq. I can hear the Iranians sighing, "oh, if only it is true."

We do not need to fight a war to liberate Iran, but we must liberate Iran in order to win the terror war in Iraq. Zarkawi is part of a terror network that is based in Iran, and receives enormous support from the mullahs. If Iran were a free country, Iraq would be immeasurably more peaceful. It is time for Secretary Powell to call an end to the shameful efforts at appeasement, and throw his enormous personal prestige behind the just cause of the Iranian people. He disappointed them last summer, when he proclaimed that we did not wish to get engaged in the Iranian "family squabble." But it is not that; it is part of the life-and-death struggle in which we are now engaged. The longer we wait to support freedom in Iran, the more Americans, Italians, Poles, Japanese, Dutch, Romanians, Spaniards, and others, will be killed in Iraq.

Faster, please.

by Michael Ledeen, NRO contributing editor"

The Jihadi's Primal Scream (http://www.nationalreview.com/ledeen/ledeen200402100835.asp)

[ThaSaltCracka]

I don't think we need to do anything in either country. Mark my words, Iran will be in a revolution in 5-10 years maybe even earlier. Their citizens want fredom, especially their young who are becoming increasingly intelligent.
as for Syria, I really don't think anything will happen there. I can't possibly see how the Admin would get any support from the U.S. citizens or the world, because of this whole Iraq debacle.

[jokerswild]

I can't wait for his trial.

[MMMMMM]

So do you think all drug addicts belong in jail, or just those who disagree with your views and host radio talk shows?

[ThaSaltCracka]

how about those that break the law.... especially when you are condescending towards those who are just like you. He is a huge hipocrite, next thing you know we will find out he is gay, or a communist.

[Utah]

I realize he doesn't speak for the administration, but if he keeps saying things like this, others will starting thinking this way too.

Good! However, if you take down Iran Syria will not be an issue. Also, given the fact that we did take down Iraq, the threat of taking down Iran might be all that is needed.

[Taxman]

Someone who has consistently taken a hard line stance against drug users, like Rush, ought to submit himself to the maximum punishments that he so loudly supports. Furthermore, most of the trouble he's in is not simply because he abused painkillers.

[MMMMMM]

I agree that it appears Russ has taken a hypocritical position.

However, since I don't believe addicts belong in jail, I have trouble with the notion that Russ or any other addict should serve jail time for their illegal personal use of drugs--regardless of the hypocrisy factor.

If one doesn't believe addicts belong in jail for personal illegal drug use, then to say Russ belongs in jail for the same reduces the argument to a punishment for hypocrisy. And not only do I think our legal system should not be punishing people for illegal personal drug use, I don't think our legal system has any business punishing people for hypocrisy.

Now if Russ should wish to do community service as penance for his illegal drug use and hypocrisy, that might be a good thing and something of which I would approve should he so decide.

[ThaSaltCracka]

maybe he doesn't deserve Jail, but I am enjoying the fact that he got caught, and he has been exposed for the liar he is.

[Taxman]

[ QUOTE ]
However, since I don't believe addicts belong in jail, I have trouble with the notion that Russ or any other addict should serve jail time for their illegal personal use of drugs--regardless of the hypocrisy factor.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with you. Drug addicts do not belong in jail unless they commit other crimes in addition to their habit. The problem is that Rush may have done exactly this in his interactions with his former maid. It's a very tough issue for me though and I am not sure exactly where I stand. Mostly it must simply be aknowledged that he is indeed a hypocrite.

[jokerswild]

He won't get to decide. The Judge and Jury will decide.

by the way, It was King George I thaat started the silly war on drugs. Nevetheless, Rush himself stated in public previously regading mostly Black Athletes, that upper class illegal drug users belong behind bars. His racism, however, is well documented.

[ThaSaltCracka]

by the way, It was King George I thaat started the silly war on drugs.
silly is the key word, the drug war is quite possibly the biggest failure in the history of the US government, although one could also make a case for the 9/11 information gaffe.

[Mano]

Our jails are full of drug addicts. Rush deserves no special treatment. The penalties he faces for his crimes should be the same as if you or I had comitted them - no more and no less. The fact that he is a hypocrytical ass should have no bearing on his trial.

[MMMMMM]

I agree that his hypocrisy should have no bearing on his sentence.

Now, do you think our jails should be full of drug addicts who have committed no other crime than to obtain and use drugs illegally? In other words, do you think illegal use of drugs should be a criminal offense punishable by incarceration?

[MMMMMM]

I think after he has been cured of his dependency (has he yet?), that he should devote some time to studying drug addiction and then work part-time in a community facility helping addicts. Given his fame and wealth, I think he could also easily devote some time to giving free speeches at universities and high schools about the evils of drug addiction based on his personal experience, and advising young people how not to get trapped in the first place.

I don't necessarily think he should be sentenced to do this and I think it would be more meaningful if he were to decide to do this on his own. However I would much prefer to see him given such a sentence than a sentence of jail time.

[Mano]

do you think illegal use of drugs should be a criminal offense

Probably not. I think in the long run we would all be better served if the money we currently spent to incarcerate drug addicts was used on treatment and rehabilitation. But, the fact of the matter is that drug use in our country is a criminal offense, and we should not use a double standard and put the poor inner city crack users in prison while sending affluent prescription drug addicts to the Betty Ford clinic. Equal treatment for everyone under the law - if the law sucks get it changed.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[MMMMMM]

"But, the fact of the matter is that drug use in our country is a criminal offense, and we should not use a double standard and put the poor inner city crack users in prison while sending affluent prescription drug addicts to the Betty Ford clinic. Equal treatment for everyone under the law - if the law sucks get it changed."

Hence my original question to jokerswild, asking whether he thinks all drug addicts belong in jail--or only those drug addicts who also happen to be talk show hosts with views he doesn't like. Thank you Mano for helping this subthread to come full circle and back to jokerswild (who has not yet answered the question).

[Mano]

Is community service the usual punishment given to someone convicted of the crimes he is accused of (I imagine he would be a first time offender)? If so, that could be a fitting sentence, along with appropriate probation period and mandatory testing. Again, I think sentencing should be based on your crimes, not your affluence or fame. (What other charges is he accused of? I wasn't sure if there were conspiracy charges due to the fact that he apparently involved others in obtaining his drugs.)

[Wake up CALL]

Actually people are rarely prosecuted for the crimes of which he is accused. This does not mean he is innocent just that he is being singled out and punished more harshly due to his fame ( or political affiliation) rather than being given any breaks.

[ThaSaltCracka]

Actually people are rarely prosecuted for the crimes of which he is accused. are you refering to drug possesions? Because if you are, you are wrong, most people in America charged with drug possesions are usually prosecuted. Now if you are refering to people accused of prescription drug abuse, then yeah you are right, however most of these people have money or the means to hire a lawyer to get the charges dropped. Someone said it earlier, there is a definite double standard with drug abusers/ sellers in this country. So called fashion drugs, ie vicadin, ritalin abusers are let off the hook for becoming addicted to presription drugs simply because they are prescription drugs. Now the addiction aspect of it is sad, however the continued "illegal" purchase/possesion/use does not deserve the same amount of compassion. Its illegal under the law bottom line. The fact that few people get prosecuted for it is probably the saddest part.

[Wake up CALL]

Dr. shopping is the crime for which he is being prosecuted. I said nothing about illegal posession of drugs.

[ThaSaltCracka]

If you want to believe his lawyers spin go ahead!

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
If you want to believe his lawyers spin go ahead!

[/ QUOTE ]

If you want to believe the criminaliberals, go ahead. I do not have to believe any spin, the charges are a public record.

[Mano]

What exactly are the charges?

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
What exactly are the charges?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ten felony violations of (what are called in Florida) Doctor shopping statutes. I am searching for an online source showing the official documents. Keep in mind Rush was offered a chance to plead guilty to a single count of doctor shopping. For which he would receive, in addition to three years of probation, treatment for addiction and must submit to random drug testing.

[MMMMMM]

"Is community service the usual punishment given to someone convicted of the crimes he is accused of (I imagine he would be a first time offender)? If so, that could be a fitting sentence, along with appropriate probation period and mandatory testing. Again, I think sentencing should be based on your crimes, not your affluence or fame."

Well let me make my position more clear. I don't think ANYONE should be prosecuted for "victimless" crimes even if it is the law. I don't think ANYONE should go to jail for "victimless" crimes even if that is the statute, and even if that is the norm. In other words I think every similar case, not only Rush's, should be disposed of. These people are just victimizing themselves and IMO it is wrong to victimize them further. It would be different if they were actively harming someone else.

[ThaSaltCracka]

I agree with you... what you are talking about is nice, I would support that as well, but the real world is what we live in so..... drug abusers go to jail. Unfair? sure, the wrong approach? sure, however thats the way it will be until some progressive thinking people are apponited or elected to top posistions.

[jokerswild]

[ThaSaltCracka]

this has no relevance what so ever, shut up

[MMMMMM]

That is irrelevant, jokerswild, but since you bring it up I will add a few observations.

It is too bad, IMO, that during the Crusades the Christians did not reclaim more of the land which Mohammad's armies had taken by force, as Mohammed's armies had enslaved, pillaged and forced conversions at swordpoint as they went. You do know that Islam was spread by the sword, don't you, and that Muhammad personally led over a dozen military campaigns? Of course, it helped him gain warriors and followers when he told them that they, as Muslims, had the God-given right to enslave the women and children of the vanquished peoples, and to turn the captured women into sex slaves.

jokerswild, once again you somehow seem to have landed on the wrong side of history.

You once argued that Communism did not kill as many as America and Christianity had killed, which was an absurd statement. Now, you seem not to realize that the Crusades were primarily wars to recapture, not capture, lands which Mohammed's armies had previously taken by sheer force.

Muhammad was a warlike expansionist-minded leader who encouraged similar traits in his followers, both by guarantees of booty and by promises of sensual delights in the afterlife. He followed through on his plans to spread Islam by war and by force, leaving bloody swathes in his wake and populations either converted by the sword, enslaved by the sword, or killed by the sword. At the very least, the conquered populations were accorded dhimmi status which is to say they had few legal or political rights compared to Muslims, anbd they had to defer to Muslims in many ways.

Mohammed's ultimate goal was to subjugate the entire world to Islam--to the will of Allah--and by force wherever necessary. So, why be surprised when so many of his followers today also believe that the world should be forced to live under Islam. It is precisely this tenet of the Islamic faith and teachings which is so incompatible with nearly every Western value and freedom that we cherish.

All in all, it would probably have been a very good thing had the Crusades recaptured more of those lands which Mohammed's fanatical armies had captured previously. At the very least, a larger portion of the world would today would be under a more rational and more forgiving influence, had the Crusades better succeeded.

[jokerswild]

Unless the current occupant of the
White House is willing to pardon all the thousands of minorities, and lower class whites currently in prison for similar charges (some for just marijuana charges), then Mr.Limbaugh should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. If he is found guilty by a jury, then he should be sentenced to one of the same maximum security prisons that current drug offenders occupy. Martha Stewart (a Democratic financial contributor) should be imprisoned if found to be guilty. The law should be race and money blind.

Unfortunately, it will never be either.

[jokerswild]

Your kind seek to impose it's will on the world by force.

Why don't you ask a real question? Why weren't the 9-11 planes tailed by the military immediately once they were hijacked, which is standard military protocol BEFORE 9-11?

Why did Bush sit in a classroom listening to children read after being told that America was under attack?

It has evrything to do with the neocon fundamentalist Christian view of world politics today.

I would die to defend your right to speak. You would kill to prevent mine.

Sorry,I won't shut up unless someone like you kills me.

[MMMMMM]

So you believe that drug addicts should be in jail unless the law is changed. I on the other hand believe no drug addicts should be in jail (unless they have committed some other terrible crime).

I would see as many spared as possible, but you would see all punished until the law is changed. What an immoral viewpoint IMO. I guess we can see who favors the jack boot philosophy on this issue.

[MMMMMM]

"Why weren't the 9-11 planes tailed by the military immediately once they were hijacked, which is standard military protocol BEFORE 9-11?"

Do you have any articles which support these assertions (please not some rambling far-fetched conspiracy theory articles, just good plain verifiable facts would be welcome).

[ChipWrecked]

It's not widely known that Nixon (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/1999/05/11/nixon/) was the first president to advocate treatment and education rather than incarceration for drug offenders.

[Taxman]

[ QUOTE ]
So, why be surprised when so many of his followers today also believe that the world should be forced to live under Islam.

[/ QUOTE ]

Once again we're making overgeneralizations. Ok, a lot of Muslims believe this, but many many more do not and you know it. The crusades were just as wrong as any of Mohammad's campaigns. The Spanish Inquisition was worse as were the salem witch trials or the violent forced conversion of various peoples to christianity throughout history (ok that one's the same). Nearly every religion has bad history to go with the good. None are entirely evil or entirely good. And given the greater amount of power generally wielded by the christian west, they've had more opportunity for wrong doings.

[jokerswild]

No, I support equal treatment under the law. You support special priviledge for the wealthy and conservatives.

[MMMMMM]

No, I say the same for anyone, not onlyt the wealthy or conservative.

You would see all drug addicts go to jail as "equal treatment under the law." I would see them all go free as "equal treatment under the law." So who's favoring the 'brown-shirt' type line now? I think you should consider changing your stance to "they all should go free" rather than "they all should go to jail."

[MMMMMM]

Agree with you as to what evils people have done in the names of both religions. However one religion (Islam) calls for forcibly coverting or subjugating others, whereas the other religion (Christianity) does not.

It isn't Jesus' fault that people perverted his teachings. However Muhammad specifically called for conquest by war and by the sword, and for forcibly subjugating the world: forcing the world to submit to Islam. Jesus on the other hand preached forgiveness, turning the other cheek, and to love one's neighbor as one's self. Therein lies the fundamental difference.

I agree that people have done great evils in the names of both religions, but one religion in its most basic form supports such evils while the other religion does not (The Koran is rich with passages urging Muslims to slay the unbelievers, smite their necks until they confess there is no God but Allah and are subdued to Islam, pour boiling water down their throats, etc. The New Testament urges no such things but rather preaches forgiveness to those who have wronged you).

The teachings of Jesus and Muhammad are worlds apart--although one might not know it by some of the deeds their organized followers have done in their names.

[ThaSaltCracka]

Why weren't the 9-11 planes tailed by the military immediately once they were hijacked, which is standard military protocol BEFORE 9-11
nobody knew they were hijacked until the crashed into the buildings

Why did Bush sit in a classroom listening to children read after being told that America was under attack?
did you want him to run away from the school screaming or running for cover. When Bush was first told that a plane had hit the WTC, he and everyone else thought it was an accident, no one knew it was terrorism until the second struck.
Sorry,I won't shut up unless someone like you kills me. too bad I can't, the world would be better without stupid people like yourself.

[ThaSaltCracka]

Muhammad was a warlike expansionist-minded leader who encouraged similar traits in his followers, both by guarantees of booty and by promises of sensual delights in the afterlife. He followed through on his plans to spread Islam by war and by force, leaving bloody swathes in his wake and populations either converted by the sword, enslaved by the sword, or killed by the sword.
this statement may shock people but it is a historical fact.

[Taxman]

You might be suprised by some of the things in the New Testament, but generally speaking you're right. Of course the old testament is part of the christian religion too and that has plenty of passages just like the ones you described. As you should know, you can justify nearly anything in the Bible. Yet today most christian sects realize that you shouldn't take everything the Bible says literally and such passages are taken with a grain of salt. This is equally true in the Muslim religion. The "fundamental difference" is mostly smoke and mirrors in my opinion.