Rush Limbaugh provides material support for terrorism

The Lord’s Resistance Army was officially designated as a terrorist organization by Colin Powell in 2001. When President Obama sent troops to help fight them, Rush Limbaugh described that as an attack on Christians. Will any Republican Presidential candidate dare to disagree with Limbaugh? Will any reporter ask one to?

Below is a photograph of one of the victims of the Lord’s Resistance Army, added by Colin Powell in December of 2001 to the official State Department list of terrorist organizations. (Here’s the BBC story including the photo.)

LRA victim, John Ochola

After President Obama sent 100 peacekeepers to Uganda to help get this truly loathsome crew under control, Rush Limbaugh ran the following headline:


Here’s the key paragraph from the story:

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.

He then proceeded to recite the LRA’s own propaganda as evidence of its pure intentions. That may not constitute “material support” for the LRA under the meaning of the statute, but morally Limbaugh has innocent blood on his hands. And why? Because his lunatic listeners love the idea that Barack Obama secretly hates Christianity.

Will any Republican Presidential candidate denounce this bit of mindless partisan outrage? Will any reporter ask any Republican Presidential candidate any pointed question about it?

No, I don’t think so, either.

No national Republican leader would dare refuse a summons from Limbaugh to appear on his show. That’s why all the discussion of what one or another Republican actually believes is so irrelevant. They’re all the slaves of the same insane movement.

Author: Mark Kleiman

Professor of Public Policy at the NYU Marron Institute for Urban Management and editor of the Journal of Drug Policy Analysis. Teaches about the methods of policy analysis about drug abuse control and crime control policy, working out the implications of two principles: that swift and certain sanctions don't have to be severe to be effective, and that well-designed threats usually don't have to be carried out. Books: Drugs and Drug Policy: What Everyone Needs to Know (with Jonathan Caulkins and Angela Hawken) When Brute Force Fails: How to Have Less Crime and Less Punishment (Princeton, 2009; named one of the "books of the year" by The Economist Against Excess: Drug Policy for Results (Basic, 1993) Marijuana: Costs of Abuse, Costs of Control (Greenwood, 1989) UCLA Homepage Curriculum Vitae Contact:

15 thoughts on “Rush Limbaugh provides material support for terrorism”

  1. so far as i can remember, there has never been an instance in his entire career in which rush limbaugh has said something so outrageous as to receive general disapproval for republicans. why should this be any different?

      1. navarro,
        If they didn’t complain about Rush mocking the Parkinsons symptoms of Michael J. Fox, when he thrashed around his ‘Broadcasting In Excess” studio like Jabba the Hutt in wet boxers sitting on an a cunductive Whoopie Cushion connected to Old Sparky, than I doubt they have the decency to object to anything.

        How low can they go?
        No limit has yet been discovered.
        And I suspect, none ever will be.

  2. It seems like every year Rush finds a way to top himself, it really is quite impressive. I remember arriving home from school one day to find my mother watching CNN and laughing hysterically with a tall glass of champagne in her hand. I mentioned that it might be a little early, and in response she poured me a glass and said “come look at this!” CNN was covering Rush’s narcotics arrest, and I remember that glass of champagne being particularly satisfying.

  3. They’re all the slaves of the same insane movement.


    I remember, some two decades ago now, when I was working a trade in Sacramento where Limbaugh got his start. He seemed at the time just a harmless but full-of-hate distraction for the undereducated and underthinkers. How wrong I was!

    1. I remember making a special effort to catch his show when it first started showing here to see what all the fuss was about. I also marvel now at how naive I was. I was sure he was a passing fad.

  4. Rush would do well to start the interview process for the militia he will be hiring in the very near future as the American Middle Class continues building its critical mass for economic justice! That corpulent man is a freaking out!

    As to his most recent vulgarity – U.S. foreign policy is very complicated in the early 21st century and Rush has not the capacity to keep up! So what’s a loud mouth to do, but rant on in the gibberish he knows so well!

  5. Kevo,
    Rush Limbaugh is a very smart and reasonably well-informed person. He’s neither stupid nor ignorant–he’s evil.
    I view hell as a very selective club that is extraordinarily difficult to enter. Doing evil is not enough. Many people who do evil are weak or stupid or both, and don’t wind up in my hell. Most concentration camp guards were merely following a path of least resistance. Other people who do evil are choosing the lesser of evils. They don’t wind up in my hell either, even if they chose wrong. The madmen–the Jeffrey Dahmers–don’t go to my hell either. You’ve got to know evil and actively choose evil to get into my hell–be a fully-aware Iago. There are not many of them. Roy Cohn. Rush Limbaugh. I’m not sure about Dick Cheney.

    1. Interesting thought; another Judgment Day myth goes something like this:

      Slanderers have much to dread upon their death. Standing trial before the Almighty, they must listen silently and without protest to the Accuser as he lists not only the sins they committed, but even ones they did not commit. Because they slandered others, the slanders of the Accuser are all admissible as evidence against them. The only thing that can save them is mercy, and if they extended mercy to others even once, there is hope for them. But the just judgment is a thing much to be dreaded.

  6. No worries, Rush is on this. From the link:

    “The Lord’s Resistance Army is being accused of really bad stuff? Child kidnapping, torture, murder, that kind of stuff? Well, we just found out about this today. We’re gonna do, of course, our due diligence research on it.”

    I suppose one might consider due diligence before opening one’s big fat idiotic mouth, but hey. I think there’s an even chance that he might stop talking about it because of blowback, but actual retraction seems unlikely.

    Among other stupidities, South Sudan isn’t Sudan, and is itself Christian.

    At the same link, Rush seems to think Libya hasn’t worked out well.

    I think there’s an opportunity for the D’s to run with this.

Comments are closed.