Rush: Friedman Provides Cover for Democrats

RUSH: Rich Galen in his Mullings web log today said, "We have to be the dumbest superpower in the history of the planet. The latest example of Liberal intellectual rigor mortis is this business about closing down the prison at Guantanamo Bay because of 'allegations of abuse.'" [Snipped comments about Dittocam problem]

Mullings continues, "Senator Biden who wants to ride the Gitmo Train all the way to the White House in 2008, is the senior Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He said on ABC's Sunday show, 'I think we should end up shutting it down, moving those prisoners.'

In this case I agree with Senator Biden. We should shut down the prison at Guantanamo Bay. Then we should move the terrorists to the Delaware Correctional Center near beautiful downtown Smyrna, Delaware 15 miles from the capital of Delaware.

According to the state of Delaware's web page aptly titled 'Death Row Fact Sheet,' there are 15 inmates who are on death row at the DCC. We could put the Gitmo guys in with them and see who is left standing after lunch which is 'served on insulated dishware made of polypropylene' in the inmate's cell and is eaten with 'a plastic utensil called a spork.'

I gotta tell ya. I don't think forcing inmates to use a utensil called a 'spork' is going to pass muster with the ACLU.

In one of those unintentional ironies, the 'Death Row Fact Sheet' lists 'First executed inmate: John Turck on October 19, 1662.' Delaware's slogan - celebrating the fact that it was the initial state to adopt the Constitution - is included in the logo at the top of the page is: 'It's good being first.'"

So nevertheless, the point here is we can really put these guys in a rotten place. For us to be told that these people are being abused and then to listen to how prisoners at The Delaware Correctional Center are being treated and how their meals are served, I think is a pretty good contrast.

Senator McCain yesterday, press conference on Capitol Hill, he was joined by Bill Frist. An unidentified reporter says, "One of the challenging issues the UN ambassador will have to deal with is the US image around the world. Can I get both of you to comment on whether you think G'itmo should be shut down?" Here's McCain.

MCCAIN: There's no doubt that there is a problem there that exists as far as America's image is concerned. But I believe that the issue is more related to the disposition of the prisoners than Guantanamo Bay itself. I was there two years ago in 2003. Senator Graham and Senator Cantwell and I were there, and on our return we wrote a letter to Rumsfeld saying, "Try 'em or release them." I think the key to this is to move the judicial process forward so that these individuals will be tried, brought to trial, for any crime that they are used of, rather than residing in the Guantanamo facility in perpetuity.

RUSH: Now, who was it that got all this started? Do you remember who got all this started, Mr. Snerdley? It was the New York Times, Thomas Friedman.

Thomas Friedman and the New York Times got all this started, "Close G'itmo, just shut it down, Mr. President," and that gave everybody up on Capitol Hill the cover.

In other words, they didn't have to be first. I have no idea, somebody shuffled the idea on to Friedman, "Tom, write this and we'll make you look like you know what you're doing in leading us here." I'm not naïve to know how these things work. You can't tell me that a bunch of guys on Capitol Hill are sitting around playing marbles and playing chess and all of a sudden read a New York Times piece and say, "You know, that's a good idea."

That's not how this happens. There are people trying to shut Bush down. There are people trying to shut the White House down is what's going on here. There are people trying to get the president of the United States to face some kind of tribunal and they want him tried, impeachment or otherwise, so you have a little conversation back and forth with some journalists, go maybe to Tom Friedman and say, "Tom, what do you think about G'itmo being shut down?" You make the case to Friedman, Friedman says, "Yeah, yeah, makes sense to me." "Tom, you write that and we'll provide you cover." And he writes it. Everybody else says, "Ah, somebody's come up with a good idea here."

Nobody on Capitol Hill had the guts to want to be first to suggest this, so when it shows up in the New York Times, "Oh, there's our cover."

Same thing with David Broder and the Washington Post when it came to this deal on ending the judicial filibuster of the Democrats regarding the president's judicial nominees. I think the same process takes place there. I don't believe this stuff originates on the editorial pages of these papers. I mean this as no insult to these writers, don't misunderstand. I just know there's a symbiotic relationship between Democrats and the press. The mainstream press, the Washington press corps. I know this to be true. You'd have to be an idiot to deny it.

Friedman's column today suggests that we double the boots on the ground in Iraq, that Iraq is still winnable despite all that's happening, we've got too much of an investment there, but we need to do this right. We need to double the troops on the ground. We need more troops on the ground because the Iraqi forces training is not going fast enough.

Now, have we heard this before? When did you hear that before, Mr. Snerdley? I want to know. When did you first hear we need to double or massively increase the number of troops on the ground?

It was before John Kerry. Kerry certainly picked up the refrain. It was about 2004 sometime, less than a year after we were in there and during the campaign year -- it might have been Kerry, but sometime -- I think it preceded Kerry saying it. I think Kerry was one of the amen chorus members on this. But we can do some research and find out when it was first stated.

But apparently whoever said it didn't carry enough weight-- (interruption) Biden? I know it was a Democrat that said it. It was a Democrat, "We need to double the troops," and a lot of people said, "Double the troops? You guys don't even want us to be there." You remember this?

I'll never forget this whole process. The Democrats didn't want us to go there in the first place and they were talking about the unnecessary loss of life and the unnecessary loss of national treasure and all this, and then all of a sudden someone says, "You know what? We need to double the troops. We're not doing this right. Rumsfeld doesn't know what he's doing. He didn't plan for the aftermath, he didn't plan for the peace. We need to double the troops on the ground."

I know Kerry did say it. So now here it is brought back as an original idea once again by Mr. Friedman on the op-ed page of the New York Times, ladies and gentlemen.

I don't know if it was Wesley Clark. I don't remember who it was. It was a chorus. I don't know who said it first, I guess it really doesn't matter, but it was a chorus then after that.

My only point is that everybody is under the impression the New York Times got this close-G'itmo movement going, and now there's this effort to double the troops on the ground.

Make no mistake. I think the left would love to force the president to do this because that would be a tantamount admission things aren't working, and it would also subject more troops to harm's way, and that would open up the opportunity for the Democrats to bellyache and moan about that.

So I'm not sure if it's a trap or not. I don't think anybody in the White House would be fooled by it if it is, but I just find the way all this stuff makes its way into the marketplace of ideas, if you will, to be a little screwy, just a little suspicious.

Let me grab a phone call or two here. I don't want to start a new segment here, particularly the president last night at the fund-raiser, till we get back from the break at the bottom of the hour, so David in Crofton, Maryland. Hello, sir.

CALLER: As you often say, you were born to host and I was born to listen to you.

CALLER: Hopefully I'm one of those lucky callers that makes you look smart, but I just wanted to comment on Senator Sessions today at the Guantanamo hearings that Senator Specter is holding.

RUSH: Yeah. You know what, I have to admit, I didn't get to see it because we don't have C-SPAN 3 here and it was on C-SPAN 3. So you are more informed than I, what did Sessions say? We have about a minute here, if you could get to the point.

CALLER: Basically he was just talking about the fact that the whole tone of the session, of the hearings, is just ridiculous and that it's putting our military at risk around the world inflaming the extremists in the Arab world and just really putting them all at risk. And that the whole tone that somehow Guantanamo is the gulag as Amnesty International said, the gulag of our day, is just absolutely absurd, and I just really appreciated what he had to say because some of the Democrats were really making some of those outrageous statements.

RUSH: He's exactly right, and I must say that I made this point yesterday. If you don't believe me go to the website, it's one of the lead quotes.

All this self-criticism, all this self-analysis here and beating ourselves up and talking about how mean and rotten we are is doing nothing but giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

Mullah Omar sent a guy out to say bin Laden is still alive and well. If that's true, Mullah Omar and bin Laden are sitting over there in some cave in Pakistan laughing themselves silly over the likes of Patrick Leahy and Senator McCain and a whole bunch who are worried about this.

RUSH: Yes, yes, yes, we are back, quick research, it was Wesley Clark, Ashley Wilkes. Here's the quote. "However, Clark states in his newly published book Winning Modern Wars, Iraq Terrorism and the American Empire, that his solution to bringing peace to Iraq would be to double the number of US troops in Iraq to nearly 300,000 men." This from the website Military.com, November 19th, 2003.

This is less than six months after we went in there, Wesley Clark says we need to double the number of US troops in Iraq to nearly 300,000 men.

Now, keep in mind, Wesley Clark was running for president at this time, as were a whole bunch of other Democrats, and the move was on to be all patriotic. We just went into war and the Democrats don't want to be seen on the wrong side of that because the country is all revved up and ready to go and so forth. The weapons of mass destruction still a front page item and so the Democrats are trying to outdo Bush, the Democrats are saying, "Well, we would do it even better, why, we would be even more militaristic, why, we would even be more hawkish, why, we need to double the troops."

That started the chorus because all the other Democratic candidates except Dean, Dean probably didn't go along with this, who knows if he did, my guess is he didn't, but you know Kerry did, Kerry picked up on this, it was a central part of his campaign, and I remember talking about it because the Democrats were so opposed to this.

Remember, they were the friends of the French. They were opposed to the United States, the Democrats were, along with all of their allies, France and Germany and the others at the United Nations Security Council.

And I'm only making a point of this because that's Thomas Friedman's solution today on the op-ed pages of the New York Times, and what Friedman suggests eventually becomes Democrat policy, is the point.

RUSH: Gary in Springfield, Missouri. Welcome to the program. Nice to have you with us, sir.

CALLER: Thank you, Rush. Listen, I just wanted to say I think you're being totally unfair to Thomas Friedman suggesting that he's just a mouthpiece for the Democrats. In fact, I annoyed more than one Democratic liberal friend by e-mailing his columns the last couple years when he's defending Bush's war in Iraq.

RUSH: Yeah, Friedman has, but these are two separate things. I mean, I'm not denying that Friedman has not been supportive on occasion --

RUSH: No, there were times he wasn't. He did a mea culpa after the thing started. We'll have to look it up -- I might be confusing him with somebody else. I have to offer this as a caveat. But I distinctly remember him being one of the people that didn't think this was worth it and wasn't going to make it.

But he's also written pieces that were supportive of the effort, particularly after the elections in January I noticed a distinct turnaround.

But look it, I'm not here to be critical of Friedman. I notice a pattern, that's all, and I'm simply telling you how I interpret the pattern. I could be wrong. And why is Tom Friedman, by the way, untouchable?

You know, that's like me saying, "It's rather unfair of people being critical of me out there." It's part of the game, you know, it's the league we're all in here.

But there's a pattern out here. The New York Times editorial op-ed page suggests we get out of G'itmo, bam, what are we talking about? We're talking about getting out of G'itmo.

I never heard anybody else talking about it till it came up and then David Broder talks about, "There needs to be a deal to stop the triggering of the nuclear option."

Bammo, what do we end up talking about, what do we end up getting? I'm just suggesting to you that I don't think that journalists are the only people that have these ideas and then they write them down and a bunch of politicians in Washington who are otherwise occupied all of a sudden say, ooh, good idea.

I know there's collaboration between politicians and journalists, both sides, both parties. Don't be naïve and suggest that that doesn't happen. We know it does.

But with the newspaper story going first, well, it provides everybody else cover.

One of the things we know about Washington is nobody wants to be first to do something in case it backfires. There's no fall-back position if it backfires.

But if some journalists suggest it and it doesn't go anywhere, so what, journalist writes another column the next day, no big deal.

And now all of a sudden double the troops, as though it's a new idea, when it's not. In fact, I actually think, we'll have to look this up. I think the guy who might have mentioned doubling troops first was the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, John Shalikashvili, he might have been the first to suggest it, then Wesley Clark.

I think Joe Biden and a bunch of other people dumped on it. Biden and McCain tried to claim it as their original idea when it all happened. But all of a sudden now it's back.

And all I'm saying is let's see now what happens if this becomes the new clamor in Washington to fix what's wrong with Iraq, because you have to understand there's a foundation for this claim. The foundation for this suggestion we understood double the troops is we are losing, we're not gaining ground, we are in terrible trouble, and of course that's a template that is right out of the mainstream press, that Iraq is going horribly, we're not accomplishing anything, we're losing lives, there weren't any weapons of mass destruction, we gotta get out of there, bammo, here comes the "let's double the troops."

Lets just see, we'll be patient here, see how long it takes, if it happens all, for this to become part of daily rhetoric inside the Beltway. Thanks for the call out there, Gare.

Read the Articles... (NY Times: Thomas Friedman: Just Shut It Down - 05.27.05) http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F30714F73B5D0C748EDDAC0894DD404482&n=Top%252fOpinion%252fEditorials%2520and%2520Op%252dEd%252fOp%252dEd%252fColumnists%252fThomas%2520L%2520Friedman

(NY Times: Thomas Friedman: Let's Talk About Iraq) http://www.nytimes.com/auth/login?URI=http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/15/opinion/15friedman.html&OQ=pagewantedQ3Dall&OP=2be83a61/68Q2At65dc.pdd|Q2B6Q2BuuP6ul6/P6d74v4dv6/PXp4Q2A5Q51kvoZ|Q51J

(Mullings: Gitmo, Gitless, Gitout - Rich Galen) http://mullings.com/06-15-05.htm

(Reuters: Guantanamo jailed gone back to 'battlefield'- U.S) http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=8799776&src=rss/topNews

Recently we have seen a marked increase in the number of posts on Free Republic pushing the same agenda Rush talks about above.

I agree with Rush that this appears to be an orchestrated effort. Their New York Times, DU, Moveon.org-style posts don't pass the smell test.

They are "losers".

Thanks for posting. I will bookmark in hopes of reading later.

Cartainly these groups are working as hard as possible to "stop the war." In other words, LOSE the war.

I remember the eight years of Democrats complaining about Iraq (and excusing Clinton's feckless, do-nothing policies) by blaming Bush 41 for not "finishing the job." That came after them warning him he'd be impeached if he went beyond the UN resolutions and went to Baghdad.

Democrats will say and do just about anything to trash this President and our country's policies. In another, less important context, it might be merely annoying or even amusing. Here it's dangerous.

Club G'itmo logo on front. "Your Tropical Retreat from the Stress of Jihad" emblazoned on back.

Club G'itmo logo on front "My Mullah went to Club G'itmo and All I Got Was This Lousy T-Shirt"

No, they are just SHOUTING EVEN LOUDER THAN BEFORE so it seems that they are winning. In some ways these are great times we are living in because we are seeing the dem party self destruct. The true positions of the dem party, the MSM and the lefist loonies are all out there for the public to see (from Koranflushgate to the hijaking of the 9/11 memorial to Durbin). No longer can they pretend to "oppose the war but support our troops." Durbin ended that scharade yesterday.

What is amazing to me is that the dems think Gitmo and Abu Ghrahib is a winning issue. Most Americans could care a less or have any sympathy for how our own convicts are treated much less the detainees. This is an absolutely LOSING issue for the dems because it shows how utterly weak they are on national security issues. It killed them during the last election. Now they have taken it a step further so that it looks like they are wholesale siding with our enemies against the U.S. just to get Bush. Whoa!!! That is going to prove disastorous for them.

What amazes me and what I can't understand is that as long as the topic is on national security and Iraq, the dems are playing right into the Republican's hands. Just a few weeks ago the topic was on immigration and social security, issues where there are vulnerabilities. It is the dems who went and changed the subject. They just can't help being who they are, namely, blame America firsters of a largely lost and demented generation.

The dems are sneaky.....they care NOTHING about the security of this country. All they care about is power for themselves. They are selfish traitorous monsters......

the dems are playing right into the Republican's hands.

no they aren't. The Reps are too wimpy to fight back like street fighters. It is treasonous what the Durbin and the leftists are doing to this Republic. Bush should be responding in a way to destroy the left. They are no less an enemy than the terrorists. The wimpy Reps in Congress will just try to "speak nice" about the opposition. You are absolutely wrong to say the demos are self-destructing. The know they are still powerful and they never give up on seeking power. 08 is Hillary's to loose. I can't see any Rep that will approach the evil left with a Warrior mindset. Spending is out of control (left's dream); regulations are never reduced. There is little happening in this country to give indications that Liberty will gain ground. The Reps in Congress will help bring Bush's agenda crashing to the ground. We Freepers see the truth much more clearly than any in Congress and most of the Bush admin.

My husband and I both wrote Durbin yesterday. His comments comparing us to Hitler, PolPot, etc. regarding Gitmo got on our last nerves. I seriously think that there needs to be a HUGE backlash from conservatives everywhere about these slimey Dem tactics. The uproar needs to be loud, long and relentless. We need to yell so loudly about it that even the ostrich people pull their heads out and pay attention. To be a Democrat today is treasonous, plain & simple.

"The dems are sneaky.....they care NOTHING about the security of this country. All they care about is power for themselves. They are selfish traitorous monsters......" ~ Fawn

You got it!

Rush: "I'm gonna tell you something folks; if we are hit again --- if we are hit again --- we need to hold these people in our country who are undermining our efforts, responsible.

It aint gonna be the FBI's fault next time. It isn't gonna be the CIA's fault next time. It isn't gonna be some bureaucracy's fault next time.

It's gonna be the fault of politicians, left-wing groups, and the like, who have names and identities and spend their every waking moment trying to obstruct our ability to secure intelligence information for our own national security.

Want some names? Leahy, Biden, Durben, Boxer, Kennedy, Reid, Newsweek, Time, the New York Times, Amnesty International -- if we get hit again - these are the names of the people and organizations we need to look at when we're trying to find out why and how it happened. ..." http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1422623/posts

Rush asks those named above to lay off for at LEAST 90 days:

Limbaugh Calls for 90-Day Iraq Ceasefire
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1423018/posts

"My husband and I both wrote Durbin yesterday. His comments comparing us to Hitler, PolPot, etc. regarding Gitmo got on our last nerves. I seriously think that there needs to be a HUGE backlash from conservatives everywhere about these slimey Dem tactics. The uproar needs to be loud, long and relentless. We need to yell so loudly about it that even the ostrich people pull their heads out and pay attention. To be a Democrat today is treasonous, plain & simple."

Bears repeating! bttt

"Actually, those operatives are probably Brown Shirted Internet Activists paid by George $oreA$$."

You got it! They BS people on here and try to steer them to their supposedly "pro-military" web sites and web blogs under the guise of "caring" about the military.

They know who they are and so do I. I can smell snakes and RATS a mile away. (And that includes some of the "nice" ones on here trying to undermine our Constitution by pushing the Marxist / Darwin agenda in the public schools, too).

Thanks. I'm also disappointed in the ho-hum reaction about the Dems remarks from the Bush administration. I'm beginning to wonder what it takes for them to finally say, "Enough is enough"! The President's bully pulpit is gathering dust and I'm getting mad at him as well....

"The President's bully pulpit is gathering dust and I'm getting mad at him as well...."

He took the gloves off big time, yesterday. I hope he keeps it up. I wish he'd send his bull-dog Dick Cheney out there every day and take these America-bashing traitors on every time they even DARE to open their mouths.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.