Brilliant Think Piece: How Did Freedom Become So Controversial? (Rush Lits Into Bush Critics)

RushLimbaugh.com ^ | 01/21/05 | Rush Limbaugh

[PeterPhilly]

I am not advocating appeasement. And I agree that it is much better to kill them there before they get over here. But we do not have the right to dictate the form of government in other sovereign countries on the off chance that it will might perhaps someday make them less likely to fund terrorists. We find it objectionable that the Islamofascists want to change our form of government from a Socialist democracy into an Islamic theocracy. Why is it any different if we are the ones effecting the change? Is a new American Reich, which is what this proposal amounts to, more tolerable because our intentions are pure? What we are witnessing is most probably the final death throes of our "Republic". We want to export order to the world, a Pax Americana. The Romans seized on a similar goal as their Republic fell and they embarked on the course of Empire. Again, tend to our own defense, encourage freedom when possible. However, you can't go and remake other countries in our own image, which is what this philosophy espouses. Simply because our intentions are relatively benevolent doesn't make them any less wrong. Secondly, this policy can't be applied arbitrarily. It either applies to all countries who oppress their people or to none. And Condi Rice stated in front of the Senate that countries like China and Pakistan would be exempt from this type of policy. Do you think the terrorists won't know that and simply seek out more friendly territory from which to base their attacks? And, if no other country is hospitable to them, they can simply go to Mexico or Canada and walk over our border, as we have seen this week and do their planning right here. This is nothing more than rehashed One World Order policy from Bush senior, but with America at the helm. Freedom cannot be imposed from without, at the whim of a 3rd party. And what better policy to give credence to what the Islamofascists have claimed was our ultimate goal all along? To set up puppet governments throughout the Mideast or anywhere else will do little to stem the tide of terrorism. Instead, it will have the effect of removing the stigma of being a murderous terrorist and will instead give them the legitimacy of freedom fighters and rightly so, since we will be initiating the "attack" by interfering in the governing process of their sovereign home nations. I am still trying to find the section of the Constitution that gives the President the authority to decide the fate of the governments of other sovereign nations. However, that's not surprising since that document long since ceased to be paid more than token lip service.

[Captain Beyond]

Go Rush.

[TASMANIANRED]

It's a well considered response for sure.

We may have to agree to disagree politely.

We have the misfortune of living in interesting times.

It is far easier to live in times with no great importance.

[gogipper]

I think you are overemphasizing the use of force and underestimating the power of ideas contained in Bush's speech. Look at the Ukraine (and didn't Lech Walesa make some speeches there?) Freedom brought about by popular will with moral support of other nations. A large part of what brought the USSR down was Reagan naming them as the evil empire.

Can Democracy be imposed by force? What about Japan?

[Ohioan]

It is a hard call whether the "Neo-con" delusions draw more heavily from the Communist or Nazi variety of Collectivist Utilitarianism. But that is of academic interest only. They are inherently flawed, because they are premised upon the same fantasies that drove the great Totalitarian movements of the last Century. It is not that empire building cannot be successful--if that was really what was desired. But this is not empire building in the Roman or even the British sense.

This is more of the same lunacy that suggests that you can have an educational system, where no child is left behind; that believes it does not matter where immigrants come from; that believes that social environment determines human potential and culture, rather than the other way around. Since some of the "Neo-cons," at least, have above average I.Q.s, it is not that they are all stupid. But they are living in a fantasy world of unreality. And to end where I began, whether that fantasy is motivated by Nazi like sentiments or Communist sentiments, it is fantasy none the less. We need to be done with them!

William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site

[PGalt]

Thanks so much for the post. I wasn't able to listen.

Rush Limbaugh at his best! He obviously untied the other half of his brain on this synaptic stream of FREEDOM.

OUTSTANDING!

[Ohioan]

Learn to live with the fact that American Conservatives do not aspire to trash centuries of developing relations with other peoples based upon the sound wisdom of the Founding Fathers--and consistent with every classic theory of international law of the time in which they established our Republic. The only way we can claim a right to define "freedom" for others--who have other priorities--is based upon the Nazi mantra that 'Might Makes Right." The only way that we can even imagine that such definition would be a benefit to other peoples is based upon the Communist mantra of a plastic humanity, whose characteristics are determined by their cultural environment.

Spouting words that have different meanings to different peoples does not make your point--it does not justify disregarding the counsel of men who understood both history and human nature. Have you even bothered to read George Washington's counsel: Farewell Address.

Or Jefferson's: Memorandum To Washington.

Or can you with a straight face--or straight key board--suggest that George W. or Rush are in their class?

William Flax

[roses of sharon]

Yea, lets go back to the successful policies of the last 30 years, that resulted in 9/11, Saddam and Sons "contained" with their billions, for WMD and the open funding of Islamic cults, OBL running Afganastan, Islamic cults roaming the globe murdering innocents, US military, US institutions, with impunity, a corrupt and failed UN, and Arafat with a "peace" prize.

I'd say give the "neo-cons" a least 30 years, since the "paleos" policies have failed.

[norton]

"Now we will be working against governments based on their attitudes toward us without needing covert action against us."

I'd be quite happy if we simply cut off all fiscal and material aid to any who held a bad 'attitude' toward our being or our interests.

Starting with the UN, mexico, and the indirect financial boon of our military presence in germany.

[Ohioan]

Yea, lets go back to the successful policies of the last 30 years, that resulted in 9/11, Saddam and Sons "contained" with their billions, for WMD and the open funding of Islamic cults, OBL running Afganastan, Islamic cults roaming the globe murdering innocents, US military, US institutions, with impunity, a corrupt and failed UN, and Arafat with a "peace" prize.

The last 30 years saw the collapse of Communism in Eastern Europe--far more significant than any thing those "cults" to which you refer are capable of impacting. But the issues in dealing with Communism had nothing to do with the "Neo-Con" fantasy. Aside from the Reagan years, and the Gulf War in 1991, however, I am hardly an advocate of our foreign policy since 1960. I supported the Viet Nam War, as a concept, but not the way that LBJ waged it.

For what was wrong with the Dean Rusk foreign policy (1961-1969), which involved the same mixture of cant and fantasy as the "neo-con" vision, see An American Foreign Policy; and Democracy In The Third World.

Your sarcasm shows a preoccupation with Islamic issues. While I respect all peoples, I would suggest to you that the major focus of American policy has not involved the Islamic world in the past; nor, other than rounding up the actual terrorists--who this time are Islamic--should it do so in the future. Our more vital issues are with Europe and Eastern Asia, the areas with the technology to someday threaten our existence, unless we can either keep ahead of them, or keep them friendly, or both. That the "Neo-cons" are more focused with playing fantasy games in the Third World, tells us something about them, not about our future.

William Flax

[roses of sharon]

The lack of a "preoccupation" with Islamic cult issues are exactly why 9/11 occurred.

And thankfully we had those that were "preoccupied" with the fall of communism, who's visions were mocked in the same fashion, as a "fantasy" and an "adventure", as I recall.

The US can and will be engaged in more than one issue at a time, and I suspect the EU is satisfied with its Islamic proxy war against US power, for now.

Time will tell, if Europe will join in our concerns of a nuclear ME.

[Ohioan]

Time will tell, if Europe will join in our concerns of a nuclear ME.

Europe has more realistic concerns on that subject than we do. The area is in her back yard. We should be more focused on the present nuclear North Korea, a nation we were at war with in the 50s, and one that has never abandoned its hostility.

There are six nuclear powers, far, far closer to the Near and Middle Easts than are we. They do not need our presence to protect their interests. And our youth are not the playthings of theorists, in the grip of delusions of grandeur or messianic fantasies.

But let me get more specific, without using more bandwith: Iraq--2005.

William Flax

[Pelham]

Can Democracy be imposed by force? What about Japan?

Japan had its first constitution and elected Parliament as early as 1889.

[Pelham]

I'd say what failed was the neocon's policy of open borders.

[roses of sharon]

Cut the drama, it does not work with me.

[x]

It must work better on the air than on the printed page where it rambles or sprawls. Rush attacks big-spending liberal interventionist programs and the assumptions behind them until he gets to Bush's big-spending liberal democratization program.

So the message is you can do it on your own. But then it looks like building democracy isn't something people in the Middle East can do on their own. It turns out that they aren't up to it and need our help.

But if they aren't up to achieving much even with our help, if it's not what they want, what then? If we have to do that, that's one thing, but Rush doesn't convince me that he has made the best case for intervention.

The liberal comes to people and says "I am your savior, I have a program to help you," and it's horrible or ridiculous or oppressive or arrogant. We go to other countries with plans and programs to change their lives and nobody's going to think that horrible or ridiculous or oppressive or arrogant? Not that it is, but that's certainly a common impression in that region and around the world, and people's perceptions count.

I'm not saying Bush is wrong or that his policies won't work, just that Rush's argument doesn't necessarily add up. To be sure, the Marshall Plan worked, but our plans to win "hearts and minds" in Vietnam and elsewhere didn't always work.

The first generation of neocons were honest enough to admit that there was a certain amount of Harry Truman or John Kennedy liberalism in their approach to the Cold War, and their candor was admirable. In practice, though, the Reagan administration was more modest in what it actually attempted. The results were spectacular, but Reagan never bit off more than he could chew.

Rush wants to have it both ways: to tack his defense of a very ambitious program onto his usual skepticism about big government, and it doesn't hold up well.

[PeterPhilly]

As would I, but there's not a prayer that that will happen.

[Ohioan]

Cut the drama, it does not work with me.

My post was simple fact. But drama, as in justifying a radical departure from accepted behavior, apparently works quite well with you--else why are you supporting a half-baked program? Or do you have an answer, that is not merely a wise crack for my argument:

Europe has more realistic concerns on that subject than we do. The area is in her back yard. We should be more focused on the present nuclear North Korea, a nation we were at war with in the 50s, and one that has never abandoned its hostility.

There are six nuclear powers, far, far closer to the Near and Middle Easts than are we. They do not need our presence to protect their interests. And our youth are not the playthings of theorists, in the grip of delusions of grandeur or messianic fantasies.

But let me get more specific, without using more bandwith: Iraq--2005.

William Flax

[Pelham]

I'm surprised his head hasn't exploded from cognitive dissonance.

[roses of sharon]

Your "argument" has as its template that the President of the United States, VP Cheney, Rice, Powell, Rumsfeld, Lieberman, McCain, the PM of GB, Australia, Italy, Israel, any many others, are all, "messianic" conspriazoids, prone to delusions, look upon the deaths of our soldiers as some sort of computer game.

I would call that dramatic, worthy of an OJ Juror.

This so-called "radical departure" policy has been debated for decades, and I have followed it closely, and is a good debate, worthy of serious discussion, and will obviously continue according to events on the ground, leaders that rise in the ME and Europe, the UN, the EU, ect, and how seriously they deal with the ME, and how their decisions rely on their natural need to protect and strengthen themselves, and their goal to reduce American power and influence.

Finally, if I were on your jury, you would know that I have also followed negotiations with NK for the past decades, and the past 3 years, so hopefully, you wouldn't try that talking point in your argument for a guilty verdict for the President.

My verdict is "not guilty", for the defendants listed above, I have seen no past displays of sinister, vile, or nefarious behaviors in them during their combined century in government, nor do I see them all waking up one morning, in a "deluded" state of mind, wanting to take over the world.

It is not logical, and I suppose we will have to agree to disagree.

See ya.