You can listen here... http://mediamatters.org/items/200405130001 ________________ Media Matters for America Television Spot Reveals Controversial Iraqi Prisoner Torture Commentary Ad Cracks Down on Limbaugh's Outburst Media Matters for America today launched an aggressive television ad campaign spotlighting highly controversial comments on the torture of Iraqi prisoners made by Rush Limbaugh, the political commentator with the largest radio listenership in the U.S. The 30-second ad contrasts the Bush Administration's denunciation of Iraqi prisoner torture with Limbaugh's May 4th statements comparing the torture to a college fraternity prank and people 'having a good time.' VOICEOVER: 'SECRETARY RUMSFELD CALLED THE TORTURE OF IRAQIS SADISTIC...CRUEL...' RUMSFELD: 'FUNDAMENTALLY UN-AMERICAN.' VOICEOVER: 'BUT HERE'S WHAT RUSH LIMBAUGH SAID:' LIMBAUGH: 'THIS IS NO DIFFERENT THAN WHAT HAPPENS AT THE SKULL & BONES INITIATION...I'M TALKING ABOUT PEOPLE HAVING A GOOD TIME. THESE PEOPLE -- YOU EVER HEARD OF EMOTIONAL RELEASE? YOU EVER HEARD OF NEEDING TO BLOW SOME STEAM OFF?' VOICEOVER: 'THIS IS THE MOST LISTENED-TO POLITICAL COMMENTATOR IN AMERICA?' 'We first posted reports of Limbaugh's comments to our website, www.mediamatters.org,' said David Brock, president and CEO of Media Matters for America. 'His radio show reaches 20 million Americans each week, with many of these listeners considering him a legitimate news source. We are running the ad to spotlight whether Rush Limbaugh is a credible source of information.' Media Matters for America's ad will run for four days in the Washington, DC area on major cable networks including CNBC, CNN, ESPN, FOX News and MSNBC. Media Matters for America's website, www.mediamatters.org, currently features numerous analytical reports and full transcripts of Rush Limbaugh's Iraqi prisoner torture comments, including: May 3, 2004 - Limbaugh likens the photos to 'anything you'd see Madonna, or Britney Spears do on stage.' May 5, 2004 - Limbaugh claims 'the reaction to the stupid torture is an example of the feminization of this country.' May 6, 2004 - Limbaugh calls the torture a 'brilliant maneuver' and the photos 'good old American p*rnography.' May 10, 2004 - Limbaugh mimics barking in describing a photo of a nude Iraqi prisoner terrorized by vicious guard dogs [later announces that he was incorrect in asserting that the prisoner had not actually been attacked]. May 11, 2004 - Limbaugh equates brutal sodomizing of Iraqi prisoners to the 'cigar in the Oval Office.'
that's what comes from popping 30 pills a day will get you... on a side note, a little gem of a quote from Rummy today in Iraq
Limbaugh lost every shred of credibility he may have possessed otherwise. I realize that some of you thought that a loooonnngggg time ago. But these last statements are so far off the course, it's silly. You can't drop all integrity for political purposes. You just can't
I think a lot of times, Rush says things for effect and to gin up controversy. Sounds like he hit the jackpot here, with everyone rushing to "condemn" him. He's a radio host, for crying out loud.
You may be correct. But no matter why he does it, it's an example of why he should not be taken seriously or as a credible source. The fact still remains that people do take him seriously.
It's just an opinion that he stated. Often times, he is quite good about digging up different nuggets on a story that are quite informative. I listen to him sometimes mostly for the entertainment value, because he's pretty hilarious.
opinions are fine. and when you're in the mainstream media and you compare this to a fraternity hazing event, prepare to have your opinion slammed. he is absolutely entitled to his opinion...and I'm absolutely entitled to slam it.
I listen to him sometimes in the car. He can be hilarious, although I think he used to be funnier. I view him as entertainment and a window into the stuff being chattered about by the "other side". The guy has a lot of influence with those too lazy to do more than get their politics from the radio and Fox News. Somebody said, "Know thine enemy." I think that's close.
Check out the date on this story... _________________ U.S. Pledges to Avoid Torture Pledge on Terror Suspects Comes Amid Probes of Two Deaths By Peter Slevin Washington Post Staff Writer Friday, June 27, 2003; Page A11 The Bush administration pledged yesterday for the first time that the United States will not torture terrorism suspects or treat them cruelly in an attempt to extract information, a move that comes as the deaths of two Afghan prisoners in U.S. custody are being investigated as homicides. "All interrogations, wherever they may occur," must be conducted without the use of cruel and inhuman tactics, the Pentagon's senior lawyer wrote after members of Congress and human rights groups pressed the White House to renounce abusive tactics reported by U.S. government officials. On a day when President Bush asserted that his administration intends to lead by example in a global fight against torture, Defense Department general counsel William J. Haynes II said that anyone found to have broken the law in the Afghanistan deaths will be prosecuted. Human rights organizations welcomed the announcement, which went further than the Bush administration had gone before. An earlier letter from Haynes, for example, had mentioned the prohibition against torture without citing the broader category of mistreatment that is against the law in the United States. While neither Bush nor Haynes cited specific tactics, human rights activists said the administration appeared to bar such techniques as depriving prisoners of sleep, withholding medicine and forcing them to stand at length in painful positions. U.S. authorities have used each technique against captives held abroad in the war on terrorism, according to current and former national security officials interviewed last year by The Washington Post. "The president and Defense Department have today unequivocally rejected the use of any techniques to interrogate suspects that would constitute 'cruel' treatment prohibited by the U.S. Constitution," a group of human rights organizations, including Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, Freedom House and the Center of Victims of Torture, said in a joint statement. They called on the administration to allow independent monitors to "assure the world that this pledge is being fully redeemed in practice." U.S. treatment of terror suspects and potential witnesses has been particularly obscure. The Bush administration typically prevents prisoners from contacting attorneys or asserting rights to fair treatment. Indeed, U.S. authorities have refused to identify the large majority of detainees or release any information about them, arguing that such data could help terrorists. In the first 15 months after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, nearly 3,000 suspected al Qaeda members and supporters were detained worldwide, according to U.S. officials. National Security Council spokesman Sean McCormack said yesterday that prisoners abroad are being treated humanely, but reports have surfaced in the news media about cruel treatment of detainees in American-run detention centers, where the rules of due process are not always applied. In interviews with The Post last year, members of the U.S. government's national security apparatus defended the use of violence as just and necessary. "If you don't violate someone's human rights some of the time, you probably aren't doing your job. I don't think we want to be promoting a view of zero tolerance on this," said an official who supervised the capture of accused terrorists. Officials said painkillers were used selectively to win cooperation of Abu Zubaida, a high-ranking al Qaeda member shot in the groin during his arrest. U.S. officials said they sometimes transfer uncooperative suspects to foreign countries where security services are known for brutality. In some of countries where "extraordinary renditions" take place, security services use mind-altering drugs such as sodium pentathol to get detainees to answer questions relayed by U.S. government personnel. The secret CIA interrogation center at Bagram air base north of Kabul, the Afghan capital, has been the site of mistreatment including "stress and duress" techniques in which prisoners are deprived of sleep or kept in awkward positions until they feel pain, sources told The Post. Two Afghan detainees died in Bagram in December. Military pathologists said one died of a heart attack and the other of a blood clot in the lung, but both showed signs of blunt force trauma. Their deaths were classified as homicides in March. A U.S. Army criminal investigation is underway. The death of an Afghan man in U.S. custody over the weekend is also under investigation, U.S. military officials in Kabul said Monday. The man died Saturday afternoon at a holding facility near Asadabad in the eastern province of Konar. Human rights organizations and members of Congress invoked the global convention on torture to argue that the techniques cited by U.S. officials did not comport with U.S. law or international commitments. In a June 2 letter to national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) raised a number of legal issues about the treatment of detainees arrested during the post-Sept. 11 crackdown on terrorism. Haynes replied in a letter released yesterday that the U.S. promise of good behavior goes beyond a prohibition on torture to encompass "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." Avoiding comment on specific cases and practices as "inappropriate," Haynes said the definition refers to behavior considered unconstitutional in the United States. "It's a very, very welcome statement," Human Rights Watch executive Tom Malinowski said of Haynes's letter. "What that means is that whether you call it 'stress and duress' or 'torture lite,' the administration is saying that it's wrong and prohibited, that the United States isn't doing it and that no one else should do it." Malinowski said officials from some countries whose treatment of prisoners is considered objectionable have countered that the U.S. government itself uses similar techniques. Bush, in honoring U.N. Torture Victims Recognition Day yesterday, said, "The United States is committed to the worldwide elimination of torture and we are leading this fight by example. I call on all governments to join with the United States and the community of law-abiding nations in prohibiting, investigating, and prosecuting all acts of torture and in undertaking to prevent other cruel and unusual punishment."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- HoustonChronicle.com -- http://www.HoustonChronicle.com | Section: National May 13, 2004, 2:38PM 'I have been disgraced,' Bush says of abuse photos Interrogation techniques called violation of Geneva Conventions Wolfowitz, Pace say they don't know who approved them Associated Press RESOURCES Current time in Baghdad: 12:30 a.m. Friday WASHINGTON -- The No. 2 general and civilian at the Pentagon indicated today that interrogation techniques ordered in Iraq violated the Geneva Conventions and said they did not know who approved them. Marine Gen. Peter Pace and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz said they were unaware of any U.S. military rules for interrogating prisoners that would allow them to be put in stressful positions, deprived of sleep for up to 72 hours, threatened with dogs or kept in isolation for more than 30 days. Their statements came on the same day that a campaigning President Bush told an audience in West Virginia that "I have been disgraced" by scenes of American soldiers brutalizing Iraqi prisoners. Pace, the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Wolfowitz were responding to questions during an appearance before the Senate Armed Services Committee. Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., had asked Pace if he would consider it good interrogation methods or a violation of the conventions if he saw a video of a U.S. Marine in enemy hands, bound, naked and in a stressful position with a hood on his head. "I would describe it as a violation, sir," Pace replied. "What you've described to me sounds like a violation of the Geneva Conventions," Wolfowitz added later. Such images have appeared in photos of Iraqi prisoners that were taken by American military guards in Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld on Wednesday had defended the techniques, rejecting complaints that they violate international rules. Rumsfeld said Pentagon lawyers had approved the methods and said they required that prisoners be treated humanely at all times. Sen. Carl Levin, ranking Democrat on the committee, read from a paper describing the techniques -- entitled "Rules of Engagement Relative to Interrogation." They were orders issued to an intelligence unit at the prison as "standard procedures that could be followed" and a copy was given to senators Wednesday by the Pentagon, Reed said. "Take a look at that title," Levin said. "Rules of engagement have to do with the use of force. The title of that document seems to me to dramatically say it all." Reed and Levin, a Democrat from Michigan, said the procedures were approved by Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, the top U.S. commander in Iraq. Wolfowitz said he and Pace were unaware the procedures had been issued by Sanchez. Reed questioned whether the procedures were "unvetted by the senior members of the Defense Department" and Levin said it "dramatizes the failure of leadership." Bush raised the prisoner scandal during a speech on education in Parkersburg, W.Va., a day after House and Senate members saw fresh photos and video of Iraqi corpses, military dogs menacing cowering Iraqi prisoners, Iraqi women forced to expose themselves and other sexual abuses. "I want to say one other thing about our troops," Bush said. "Like you, I have been disgraced and -- by what I've seen on TV, what took place in the prison. But the actions of a few do not reflect on the fantastic character of the over 200,000 men and women who have served our nation" in Iraq. Some lawmakers said the pictures included forced homosexual sex; others said the quality of the photos were too poor to discern what was happening. The 1,600-plus photos, which included scenes of abuse mixed in with travelogue-type snapshots, were in addition to those that already surfaced publicly depicting abuse and sexual humiliation at Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad. The photos have created international condemnation and threatened to undermine U.S. military and rebuilding efforts in Iraq. Rumsfeld and Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, made a surprise trip to Iraq today and visited the prison facility. Rumsfeld reiterated that those responsible for the abuse would be punished. At home, lawmakers differed over whether the new batch of photos should be released -- a decision likely will be left up to the administration. Some said they feared releasing photos would only further inflame international passions; others argued that it would demonstrate the openness of American society and limit the damage caused by the gradual leaking of photos to media outlets. Rumsfeld told reporters traveling with him to Iraq that administration lawyers oppose releasing the photos on grounds that would violate a Geneva Convention stricture against presenting images of prisoners that could be construed as degrading. Meanwhile, it was reported that the CIA has used coercion in interrogating prisoners who were high-level members of al-Qaida. The New York Times, quoting unidentified current and former counterterrorism officials, said at least one CIA worker has been disciplined for using a gun to threaten a detainee. The Armed Services panel has been holding hearings to determine whether prisoner abuses were limited to the Abu Ghraib facility. Among the uncertainties is whether military intelligence officials directly or indirectly encouraged the abuse in order to "soften up" detainees for interrogations. The Defense Department is investigating the abuse, and the courts-martial of three military police guards have been ordered. Interesting departure by Wolfowitz from what Rumsfeld said. And I'm glad Bush made that statement. The question remains... what will be the consequences?
Congress wants accountability in abuse scandal Some seek resignation at Pentagon WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Bush administration officials acknowledge persistent pressure from Congress that someone in the senior Pentagon management be held accountable for the prisoner abuse scandal in Iraq. Some Republicans are privately making the case that if Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is to keep his job, then one of his senior deputies -- possibly Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence Stephen Cambone -- should resign for encouraging the use of military police officers to help military intelligence units at the Abu Ghraib prison. http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/05/13/congress.abuse/index.html
I actually prefer Rummy over Wolfie, so i don't want Rummy to resign and allow Wolfie to even be acting for a few hours.
I don't know what kind of fraternity you were at but the fraternity I was in didn't force pledges to sodomize each other or have the brothers sodomize the pledges, didn't sick attack dogs on pledges or anything near what has been alleged. Those who have been trying to justify such behavior by pointing out the actions of our enemies miss the point. We are supposed to be better than our enemies. We aren't terrorists and we don't expect our soldiers to be in the same moral neighborhood as terrorists.
Damage control Iraq style ------------------------------ Hundreds of Abu Ghraib prisoners freed - Rumsfeld visits site of detainee abuse BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Five buses carrying an estimated 315 prisoners left Baghdad's Abu Ghraib prison Friday, the first mass prisoner release since images of abuse at the hands of the U.S. military surfaced several weeks ago. http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/05/14/iraq.abuse/index.html
Senators Assail Request for Aid for Afghan and Iraq Budgets By ERIC SCHMITT, NYTimes WASHINGTON, May 13 — Senate Democrats and Republicans attacked Bush administration officials on Thursday for submitting a vaguely worded request to add $25 billion to pay for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan beginning on Oct. 1. The new money would be added to the more than $400 billion already sought for military uses worldwide in fiscal 2005. Lawmakers complained that the new request lacked specific details and sought to circumvent the Senate's oversight role. "This is a blank check," Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, said. Senator Robert C. Byrd, Democrat of West Virginia, spoke for virtually all senators when he predicted that the Senate would approve the extra money to pay for fuel, body armor, troop transportation and supplies, but not without some strings attached. "I'm going to support this $25 billion," Mr. Byrd said. "But we're going to put limitations on it." With war spending in Iraq and Afghanistan approaching $5 billion a month, the total cost for next year will be $50 billion to $60 billion, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz told senators. "If you look at our operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, it's a big bill," he said. At a contentious three-hour hearing in which a Senate Democrat accused Mr. Wolfowitz of botching his job and two senior senators clashed over the questioning by the Armed Services Committee, interrogation techniques came under fire from some lawmakers, who said the methods used in Iraq violated the Geneva Conventions. Under questioning from Senator Jack Reed, Democrat of Rhode Island, Mr. Wolfowitz and Gen. Peter Pace of the Marines, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, acknowledged that taken individually some of the approved techniques could be interpreted as violating the conventions. Mr. Wolfowitz said Mr. Reed's hypothetical example of a prisoner who was hooded, naked and forced to crouch for 45 minutes "goes quite beyond what is permitted." On Wednesday, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Gen. Richard B. Myers of the Air Force, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, testified that the American military in Iraq was adhering to the conventions. The double-barreled jousting over two sensitive parts of Iraq policy, cost and the treatment of prisoners, underscored growing unrest on Capitol Hill over operations there. The hearing veered early toward a major partisan clash when Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, objected to an effort by the committee chairman, Senator John W. Warner, Republican of Virginia, to limit the scope of questions to the $25 billion reserve fund. "I've been on this committee for 24 years, I've been in the Senate 42 years, and I have never been denied the opportunity to question any person that's come before a committee, on what I wanted to ask for it," Mr. Kennedy said, his voice booming. "I resent it and reject it on a matter of national importance. And we're talking about prison abuses." Mr. Warner backed down, noting that Mr. Wolfowitz's opening statement had opened the door to a broader line of questioning. That decision allowed Mr. Reed's questioning, first to General Pace. He said: "If you were shown a video of a United States marine or an American citizen in the control of a foreign power, in a cellblock, naked, with a bag over their head, squatting with their arms uplifted for 45 minutes, would you describe that as a good interrogation technique or a violation of the Geneva Convention?" "I would describe it as a violation, sir," General Pace replied. Mr. Reed then cited a list of interrogation techniques approved for use in Iraq last October by the top commander there, Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez of the Army. Some techniques required General Sanchez's approval, including sensory deprivation, solitary confinement beyond 30 days and "stress positions" like prolonged periods of standing or crouching. "As I read General Sanchez's guidance, precisely that behavior could have been employed in Iraq," Mr. Reed said. Military officials said later that General Sanchez had never been asked to approve such treatment and that Mr. Reed's example would not have been approved. General Pace and Mr. Wolfowitz acknowledged that neither of them had seen the list of approved techniques, "Interrogation Rules of Engagement," until just before the hearing on Thursday morning and that they did not know whether senior military officials had reviewed them. Senate Democrats said the title was not a good one because "rules of engagement," in military language, govern the use of force. The most heated exchanges were between Mr. Reed and Mr. Wolfowitz. "What I've heard from you is dissembling and avoidance of answers, lack of knowledge," Mr. Reed said. "I'm not dissembling, Senator Reed," Mr. Wolfowitz responded. "I have the same reaction as General Pace. What you described to me sounds to me like a violation of the Geneva Convention. It's the first time I've heard that it was in General Sanchez's direction." "I would suggest, Mr. Secretary, that you're not doing your job, then," Mr. Reed said. Senator Warner and Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, the ranking Democrat on the panel, briefly intervened. But Mr. Reed quickly returned to questioning Mr. Wolfowitz. "Mr. Secretary, do you think crouching naked for 45 minutes is humane?" Mr. Reed said. "Not naked, absolutely not." "Sensory deprivation, which would be a bag over your head for 72 hours. Do you think that's humane?" "Let me come back to what you said, the work of this government——" "No, no. Answer the question, Mr. Secretary. Is that humane?" "I don't know whether it means a bag over your head for 72 hours, senator." "Mr. Secretary, you're dissembling, nonresponsive. Anybody would say putting a bag over someone's head for 72 hours, which is——" "I believe it's not humane." On his flight to Iraq on Thursday, Mr. Rumsfeld told reporters traveling with him that the Geneva Conventions were open to interpretation. "There are always going to be differences of views as to whether something does or doesn't" adhere to the conventions, he said. "The test is what is decided and what is issued, and then is it adhered to." By the end of the Senate hearing, Mr. Wolfowitz seemed frustrated with the questions about prisoners and had raised a white flag on the complaints from senators about the request for the reserve money, promising to work with the committee to provide details. "There's some room to work on something that gives the troops the flexibility they need and gives the Congress the oversight it needs," Mr. Wolfowitz said. When the administration introduced its military budget this year, officials said they did not intend to seek more money in 2004, relying on the $87 billion approved in November. But the security situation in Iraq is more dangerous than military officials expected. The Pentagon now plans to keep about 135,000 soldiers in Iraq through 2005, instead of reducing the ranks to about 115,000 troops this summer. In its formal four-page submission, the White House gave a minimal summary for the $25 billion, noting that the largest part, $14 billion, was for Army operations and maintenance. Mr. Wolfowitz emphasized that the request was just to tide the Pentagon through the end of this year and early next year, when the administration would make a much larger spending request. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, Democrat of New York, questioned Mr. Wolfowitz's credibility in predicting what will occur in Iraq, from its cost to the national treasury to the number of American lives that will be lost. "You have made numerous predictions, time and time again, that have turned out to be untrue and were based on faulty assumptions," Mrs. Clinton said. But even staunch White House allies like the Republican senators Jeff Sessions of Alabama and Wayne Allard of Colorado told Mr. Wolfowitz and the deputy White House budget director, Joel D. Kaplan, that the Senate needed more details. "We need to strike the right balance here between the administration's understandable need for flexibility and the Congressional need to closely oversee spending," Senator Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, said. "You don't need this dispute." Separate from Thursday's hearing, Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, raised questions about Iraqi prisons in another context, urging Attorney General John Ashcroft to investigate how the Justice Department had selected civilians to oversee the prisons, including an official from Utah who has been linked to accusations of prison abuse in the United States. The official, Lane McCotter, resigned in 1997 under pressure as director of Utah Corrections Department after an inmate died while shackled naked to a restraining chair for 16 hours. He became an executive at the Management and Training Corporation of Centerville, Utah, which ran a private prison in New Mexico that the Justice Department criticized for unsafe conditions and lack of medical care for inmates.
