Rush Limbaugh Should Be Waterboarded*

*Of course I don't really mean that. But based on his approval of this form of torture, who could blame, say for example, the Chinese from performing a waterboard operation on Rush Limbaugh if they became the world's only superpower?

Waterboarding is wrong, but somehow Rush doesn't see it that way. Because it makes for excellent ratings among his mind-full-of-mush minions.

I was running an errand yesterday, and my radio happened to be tuned to the local station that carries Rush, and I was astonished (well, not really, because I've heard enough of his crap) at what I heard.

He mentioned that a caller had posed the question, 'If waterboarding would have saved 9/11 from happening, do you think it would be worth it?' Rush's pompous reply was, to the effect, 'Now that is a very important and valid question. And I think the answer is yes.'

Bullcrap!

It is NOT a valid question. It's as hypothetical as the day is long. The question that we should be asking is much more simple: is waterboarding ever justified? And the answer to that question is no. Waterboarding, Mr. Limbaugh is NEVER justified. But then of course, that would give you a lot less to talk about on your show.

But to wrap it all up in the arrogance of claiming that somehow waterboarding would have stopped 9/11--now that is filthy illogic!

Waterboarding has never produced good evidence. Waterboarding has never solved a crime. Waterboarding's only effect is to make imbeciles of men, the like of which learn to enjoy seeing others suffer.

How about another hypothetical question, Rush? If you knew that waterboarding increased the number of attacks against America, would you stop doing it?

Wait a second...that's not hypothetical.



Comments

  1. With any luck Rush will be pulled over in Utah and questioned for appearing under the influence of narcotics. Of course, he'll resist and, with any luck, he'll get tazed. Now that is what YouTube was made for.

    In claiming such means justify ends, Rush assumes you know the waterboarding would actually bring about the ends of stopping 9/11. As you pointed out that is hypothetical to the fullest. It also present a major fault in thinking that means justify end; you can never be sure your means will achieve your worthy end.

    And as you point out waterboarding is highly unlikely to produce the ends we seek. So even, if means could justify ends were granted to Rush his argument is still bunk.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Jason,

    You said it better than me: "you can never be sure your means will achieve your worthy end".

    Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Limbaugh is only one among far too many commentators who confuse real interrogations with what they saw on "24."

    ReplyDelete
  4. Waterboarding HAS helped stop attacks and get information. Look up Abu Zubaida or Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. And I think the idea that people attack America because we have waterboarded approximately 3 people is unfounded and ludicrous.

    You can argue that waterboarding is torture all you want, but do so from a factual basis. And to argue that everyone who doesn't oppose waterboarding is a fool who deserves to be tortured is disingenuous.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Craig,

    Would you like to run that last sentence by me again? You're now saying I prefer torture for certain people. Wow! You missed my satire, complete with asterisks.

    Also, Wikipedia states: 'Torture, according to international law, is "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions."'

    That sounds like a good definition to me. Would you agree? If it IS a good definition, then waterboarding is torture.

    Please point me to accurate and helpful information that Abu Zubaida or Khalid Sheikh Mohammed have given us?

    ReplyDelete
  6. The biggest problem in my eyes is not that waterboarding will cause terrorism. I imagine that is a drop in a bucket to other grievances terrorists have against us.

    My concern is what happens when a country like Iran captures some of our soldiers, like the British sailors not to long ago.

    What argument do we have against these nations when they use the same techniques to obtain information. To me the issue is not so much about the actual act but maintaining the moral high ground I've always been taught was America's hallmark.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Here's a former interrogator and waterboarding opponent who admits that it has worked. While I disagree that we should completely ban the practice, I think reasonable people can disagree over the use of this technique.

    ReplyDelete
  8. This is an interesting part of that article:

    "He said the session yielded valuable information and probably helped prevent attacks, but he now believes waterboarding is torture"

    (a) He believes waterboarding is torture (by the way, I was disappointed to hear Glenn Beck yesterday say that waterboarding isn't torture).
    (b) The article does not even intimate what the valuable information was.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Ok, for all of 189 Congressional Representatives, along with those of the general populous, who claim that waterboarding isn't torture, let me break it down for you.

    Waterboarding isn't "Chinese water torture" where water is dripped on you slowly.

    Waterboarding isn't dunking your head under water.

    Waterboarding isn't making you think you are drowning when, in fact, you are not.

    What waterboarding IS

    Literally filling a person's lungs with water

    Repeatedly drowning and rescucitating a person after having drown him

    (So, now any Congressmen, Attorney Generals or other interested parties can no longer feign innocence in knowledge of the true aspects of waterboarding)

    And just to bring an end to this discussion, the Gestapo used this method regularly.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Thank you for commenting. If you have a Google/Blogger account, to be apprised of ongoing comment activity on this article, please click the "Subscribe" link below.

Popular posts from this blog