Rush Limbaugh

Rush Limbaugh

Rush Limbaugh opened his show on Monday with the following (listen here):

"He's a little wuss, Julian Assange. Need to find this guy and string him up."

In the same breath, however, with barely a full stop to punctuate the thought, he says this:

Frankly, I find what's in this stuff interesting. I think it's more interesting than the news the networks come up with each and every day. Give me more of this stuff.

He goes on to point out the information we now have at our fingertips is worth its weight in gold.

Now, as I say, none of this is unknown – for example, the business that our friends, the Saudis, are paying for al-Qaida, that they're funding al-Qaida, that they offer support for al-Qaida, that they may as well be al-Qaida in some cases. Now, this is not surprising to anybody. It's just nobody has the guts to say it. Some of this stuff in these cables is actually fascinating. I want more of it. You know, this is the stuff that's true.

He was particularly bothered by the hypocrisy displayed by the Saudis when it came to their desire that the US take out Iran.

We continue to sell $60bn of sophisticated armaments to Saudi Arabia; it's our largest such sale to anybody ever, and they're funding al-Qaida. And they're not prepared to go to war with Iran. We're selling them all this ammo and all these armaments, but they want us to go take Iran out. What kind of idiots …

So, like many of us in the media and elsewhere, Mr Limbaugh was intrigued to suddenly have real and reliable information at his fingertips.

People in the email asked: 'Why do you like these leaked cables so much, Rush?' Because they don't lie in diplomatic cables. The odds are that what we're getting here is the raw truth. People don't lie in these cables. These are not trumped up speeches, they're not written for the teleprompter. I mean this stuff is better than People magazine.

I couldn't agree more. I mean, how great is it to know what is actually going on, rather than being fed some diluted soundbite about what our government would like us to think is going on. Isn't that what democracy is all about? Our elected leaders do not get to keep secrets from us and we get to hold them accountable. It's a beautiful thing.

Yet, Limbaugh could not make peace with the fact that the individual who made much of this possible continues to roam free:

Now, the Wikileaks website is international law, so we just can't unilaterally shut the guy down, but, you know, back in the old days when men were men and countries were countries, this guy would die of lead poisoning from a bullet in the brain, and nobody would know who put it there.

Laura Ingraham

Laura Ingraham

Laura Ingraham was concerned that the leaked documents were damaging the Obama administration's attempts to heal our rifts with other world powers (view clip on Fox news, about 7mins in):

"I think that what we're finding out is that, once again, America is demonstrating to the world that its influence is on the wane and its … apparently, its determination to work with the world community on this is also absent."

Remember when Obama came into office, it was going to be a whole new deal. We were going to be building bridges to all these other countries and they were going to be working with us, because it wasn't my way or the highway anymore. Yet, now we find out that this guy is doing an enormous about of damage to America's interests, America's security around the world, and we basically are saying we can't do anything about it.

Later, on her radio show, she made clear that she never thought much of Obama's bridge building efforts, anyway.

Shoring up our relationships in western Europe? Shoring up our relationships with Britain and France!? Well, last time I checked, you gave DVDs to Gordon Brown that didn't work in his DVD player. Last time I checked, Michelle grabbed the Queen, touched her back, touched the person of the Queen!

But Ingraham was, at least, heartened to know that US diplomats were not above spying.

We now know Hillary Clinton is my kind of gal, because she wants to spy on people at the United Nations. That's the best thing I've heard about Hillary all day, all year, all decade. Good for her: we should be spying on these people, that's what I say. But it's not good that it's come out.

Later in the broadcast (listen here, 9mins in), she elaborates her reasons for approving of spying on the United Nations:

I say, I'm giving the Obama administration a big high five for doing that. Good. Of course, we should be doing that! We don't know what half these people are doing with their diplomatic immunity in the United States, and the more information we can find out about why they're here and if they're really here for diplomatic reason or if they're here for some other reason, prowling around New York and other areas of the country, then I say, 'fine'.

Her position on the laudability of espionage seemed to differ, however, when it came to what needed to be done about Julian Assange, the man behind the WikiLeaks.

I'm with O'Reilly on this one. I think the tone that the administration sets beyond just saying, 'well, this is unacceptable' and 'this could be harmful'. I think there's a seriousness with which the administration should take these threats and revelations that won't convey panic but will convey, I think, a sense to the world that we mean business, and if you do this to us, there will be a price to pay.

Michael Savage

Michael Savage

Over on the Savage Nation, the host was also baying for blood (listen to show here:



"I believe that the vermin who runs WikiLeaks should be arrested for terrorism, should be tried for treason!"



He was also not satisfied with the administration's measured response.

This piece of vermin has committed a worse piece of treason! This is the biggest act of treason I have ever seen in my life! And we have a wimpy response from Eric Holder, a mealymouthed response from Hillary Clinton, and no response from the basketball player.

Still, Mr Savage couldn't help being riveted by some of the content – particularly, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia's alleged desire to insert chips into Gitmo detainees.

By the way, I agree with the king. The king turns out to be the smartest of all of them; that's why he's still a king. The reason he's the king of Saudi Arabia is that he's smarter than everybody else. Presidents may come and presidents may go. Prime ministers may come and prime ministers may go. But kings don't change. The king is smarter than all of them put together. He said put chips in the Gitmo prisoners upon release. Very interesting, that statement. I read that one. Unto itself, it's all very interesting.

But Savage's real beef with the leaked documents was not so much what they revealed as what they omitted.

Case in point: Michael Savage was banned from Britain in 2008. You say you don't want to hear about it? You're going to hear about it! How is it possible that the only member of the American media to have been banned from entering England, Michael Savage, banned by the United Kingdom government in 2008 – it was originally done, by the way, during the Bush administration, during the reign of Bush, who I criticised continuously! I am convinced it was Bush and Condeleezza Rice in consort with those in the United Kingdom. How is it possible that not one email released by these rats in WikiLeaks covers that particular incident?!

Savage should keep the faith. There are many documents yet to be released – and if the truth behind this incident is revealed, I would not be surprised if he ends up hailing Julian Assange as a hero.

• More from Sadhbh Walshe's The Right Word series