Posted on 12/01/2009 5:01:10 PM PST by GOP_Lady
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
On Today's Show... |
December 1, 2009
|
|||||
|
||||||
|
Terms of Use | Privacy Statement | Copyright & Trademark Notice | Unsubscribe
The Rush Limbaugh Show® Premiere Radio Networks © All Rights Reserved, 2009. Premiere Radio Networks, Inc. 15260 Ventura Blvd. Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
|
||||||
To be added or removed from the "Rush In A Hurry" Ping List, FReepmail GOP_Lady.
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Okay, so we got the big speech tonight up at West Point. You know, normally these speeches take 15 minutes in the Oval Office and there's no applause because there's nobody there to applaud. We got probably 30 minutes tonight, maybe longer, in front of a bunch of cadets at the US Military Academy. I don't know if they're going to be given applause signs or whatever, but I don't know, folks. Rush Limbaugh, let's get that out of the way, although you know it. Telephone number, 800-282-2882, great to have you here. The e-mail address, ElRushbo@eibnet.com.
Another American tradition is being trashed tonight. The president, in his selfishness, is causing the Charlie Brown Christmas special to be preempted. ABC's airing of the Charlie Brown Christmas tonight is being preempted. And what is it with this president and schoolchildren? He's infiltrated classrooms out there, he's got his NEA minions brainwashing kids with chants of praise for Dear Leader, and now he's preempting their favorite Christmas special. It's not going to sit well with the kids. The only thing on the plus side, folks, is that Obama's ears are about as big as Snoopy's so maybe the kids won't notice. Maybe they'll think they are watching a cartoon. Many of us do.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
Ladies and gentlemen, the AP has an interesting story about the speech tonight. "This initial infusion is a recognition by the administration that something tangible needs to happen quickly." A hundred days later they say something tangible needs to happen quickly. This whole thing is a sad joke. And I, for one, will have to watch this because it is my job, man. We have a little preview of a rehearsal before the teleprompter.
(playing of Obama spoof)
I don't know if that's part of the rehearsal. They're leaking it at the White House exclusively to us here at the EIB Network. Not good news for the Democrats today. Rasmussen has a release coming up at one o'clock this afternoon. In November, 36% of American adults considered themselves Democrats. That's down from 37.8% a month ago, the lowest number of Democrats in nearly four years, since December 2005. This is to be released by Rasmussen Reports at one o'clock eastern today. The number of Democrats in America falls to a four-year low. I'll tell you, this Afghanistan speech tonight is not going to help him with the left. The Washington Post is doing their best nevertheless to buck him up.
Oh, the mantra of the day, by the way, is how inappropriate it is for Dick Cheney to speak out on the eve of Obama's big speech. I mean that's just hilarious. How outrageous that Cheney step on Obama's coming speech. How many times during a Bush speech on Iraq did we get a prequel from Democrats going out and making their own version of a speech or criticizing what they thought Bush was going to say, but now since it's the man-child, since it is the one, The Messiah, how inappropriate it is for the vice president to do so. He's only speaking out on behalf of his country and he claims that Obama is just projecting weakness. They see that the Afghanistan leaders see a president of the United States concerned with exiting, not winning, that the strategy is just political, this is a political calculation, which it is. Cheney is exactly right about this.
Now, the Washington Post today: "The Perils of Being Commander in Chief." It's by Dana Milbank. "First, the good news: President Obama will not be wearing a flight suit when he addresses the cadets at West Point on Tuesday night. Nor will he wear a bomber jacket with the presidential seal on the chest, nor even, the White House promises, a windbreaker with the word ARMY in big letters. 'You can count on no military garb,' assures Dan Pfeiffer, the White House communications director. Mission Accomplished? Not entirely. One of the common complaints of George W. Bush's presidency was his tendency to politicize the military and turn troops into props." So they take what Bush did not do and take what Obama is doing and turn it around and say that Bush did it. You know, I may have to start adding a little Kahlua to my coffee in the mornings in order to read some of the crap that's coming out of the State-Controlled Media.
Bush loved the military! Obama doesn't like the military! It's a nagging annoyance to him. The military is an inconvenience to him. He doesn't want to be doing this speech tonight. He doesn't want to even have to deal with this. He's probably shocked that it hasn't solved itself on its own because he was elected. He's probably shocked that Iran hasn't solved itself on its own because he was elected. George W. Bush loved the military. He revered it. It is simple as that. And I might add this, the military loved Bush. We've had calls on this program from current and retired military people, and if they are any indication, this military disdains President Obama. This whole Washington Post story is nothing but Bush-bashing, and there's some Palin-bashing thrown in for good measure.
Now, if Dana Milbank or any of you editors at the Washington Post, if you want to write an article about this speech tonight, how about something along the lines of Obama's dithering and how that has affected morale at the military? And shall we talk about props? Fake Greek columns, these cadets at West Point are just going to be the latest version of Greek columns at his acceptance speech at the Democrat National Committee. What about all those sick people who have died because we don't have national health care? How often does he make those stories up? This is just outrageous. "The proliferation began in 2002, when Bush went to West Point for a June 1 speech to the cadets..." not to the nation, by the way. "...detailing the doctrine of preemptive war. Had Sarah Palin watched that speech, she would have avoided four of the most damaging words of the 2008 presidential campaign, uttered when ABC News's Charlie Gibson asked whether she agreed with the Bush Doctrine: 'In what sense, Charlie?'"
Here you've got an incompetent commander-in-chief running around using the military as props because they are nothing more than an annoyance, an inconvenience, and to give this incompetent little guy cover, the State-Controlled Media now bashes Bush. At least he won't be showing up in a flight jacket? They do then quote Michael Moore at the end of the story: "With just one speech tomorrow night, you will turn a multitude of young people who were the backbone of your campaign into disillusioned cynics. You will teach them what they've always heard is true -- that all politicians are alike." See, the left is not happy. They want us out of there. They don't like war, period. They don't like the concept of American exceptionalism or victory. You know what? Obama might try to teach young people tonight who tune into this speech that America is worth honoring and protecting and that it takes really strong and brave, selfless people to do that, so that the bloated bigot, Michael Moore, can do his dumb-ass movies without getting shot, or Obama might look at the military as the ultimate in community service.
Why not a little reverence for them? Why not a little respect? Why not a little encouragement? Why not a thank-you? Instead of explaining and going on television about how tough all this is and what we're going to do here, and we've had the leaks already claim the real focus here is going to be on getting out. If you're an Afghanistan warlord and you watch this thing tonight and you hear Obama focus on getting out, what do you do? You get jazzed. You get all jazzed up. If you're the Taliban, if you're Mullah Omar watching this, what do you do? Not focus on winning. And there is this, ladies and gentlemen: "Hezbollah Blames the United States for All Terrorism." This is from CNN: "Hezbollah's chief on Monday announced the group's new 'manifesto,' which calls on all countries to 'liberate Jerusalem' and declares the United States a threat to the world. 'American terrorism is the source of every terrorism in the world,' Hassan Nasrallah said in a televised speech from an undisclosed location."
We have had Obama for less than a year now, the sea levels are no lower, and the terrorists still don't like us. In fact, they hate us even more. The United States is a great nation at risk in a dangerous world that has gotten more dangerous in the 11 months that Obama has been president, or ten-and-a-half. The Iranians are thumbing their nose at us. The ChiComs are thumbing their nose at us. The Russians are thumbing their nose at us. And Obama is focused on giving us health care that the vast majority of the American people now in poll after poll after poll do not want.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Okay, now, wait a minute. General McChrystal requested 40,000 troops, then last week the leak was 34,000 troops were going to be sent. Now and the number is 30,000 troops are going to be sent. The number keeps shrinking, as the days goes on. What's the number going to be by the time he reads the speech off the teleprompter tonight?
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Maurice Hinchey. He is a wacko from New York State. He's a member of Congress. And yesterday afternoon he was on MSNBC Live, and he was asked, "How much longer can we invest in this war in Afghanistan?"
HINCHEY: Look what happened with regard to our invasion into Afghanistan, how we apparently intentionally let Bin Laden get away. How we intentionally did not follow the Taliban and Al-Qaeda as they were escaping up into the northeast of Afghanistan over into the Pakistani border. That was done by the previous administration because they knew very well that [if] they would capture Al-Qaeda, there would be no justification for an invasion in Iraq.
RUSH: So the tin hat crowd is out. This is Maurice Hinchey. He is from New York. He's a big Democrat. By the way, he's one of the architects of Fairness Doctrine legislation. So he's basically saying that Bush intentionally let Bin Laden go, that Bush intentionally lost Bin Laden. In fact there was a story on Sunday -- and I don't recall if it was a news magazine or a Washington paper, but regardless it was part of State-Controlled Media. It was all about how... Oh, it was a Senate report, some Senate committee report from John Kerry. "We had Bin Laden in our grasp at Tora Bora. We had him and we didn't go for him. We didn't get him. It's Bush's fault," and that's what's going to happen tonight in this speech.
We're going to hear that not enough troops were sent to Afghanistan in the first place. All of this... I'll tell you why it has to happen: Obama is on risky ground. All presidents have to hold onto their base, they have to hold onto their base, they have to. Obama's got to hold onto his. His base is the kookiest fringe nutcases in this country. They believed all of the lies that he told about closing Guantanamo and sea levels falling and getting out of Afghanistan and getting out of Iraq. They believed all of that. If they would have listened to me, I coulda told them (and I did tell 'em), no Democrat is ever going to saddle defeat around their own necks. They're not going to do it. They're going to find some way to say they've won this, and they can't win it by simply getting out and claiming a moral victory.
So what Obama is going to do tonight to hold onto his base, is he's gonna send troops. He's gonna send not nearly the number that's been requested by the expert, General McChrystal. In doing so, he is going to blame Bush, and he's going to blame Cheney because those are the magic words. You heard those seminar callers yesterday on global warming. Everything with these people is blame Bush. So, Obama's gonna go out there and he's going to say, "Bush never, never did send the right amount of troops, the right amount of armaments. He never up-staffed this properly! I've gotta take care of it now because I did say it was a war of necessity." But he's going to dump on Bush. That's how he hopes to hold onto his base while doing something they dramatically thought he would not do.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: It was John Kerry who ordered up that report that was released recently and that said Bin Laden was allowed to escape, and Kerry has been claiming this for years. Now, listen to the second sound bite. Even a certifiable kook like David Shuster over at MSNBC cannot believe that Maurice Hinchey actually said that Bush purposely let Bin Laden get away so that we can attack Iraq. But John Kerry has been saying this for years.
SHUSTER: You're saying they deliberately let Osama Bin Laden get away? You think they deliberately let the head of Al-Qaeda get away --
HINCHEY: Yes, I do.
SHUSTER: -- right after the 9/11 attacks? You really believe that?
HINCHEY: Oh, there's no question about that.
SHUSTER: To suggest that they would deliberately let, deliberately let Osama Bin Laden get away so they could justify the war in Iraq, that will strike a lot of people as crazy.
HINCHEY: I don't think it will strike a lot of people as crazy. I think it will strike a lot of people as being very accurate, and all you have to do is look at the facts of that set of circumstances and you can say that that's exactly what happened. When we went in there, when our military went in there, we could have captured them, we could have captured most of the Taliban and we could have captured the Al-Qaeda, but we didn't and we didn't because of the need felt by the previous administration and the previous head of the military, that need to attack Iraq.
RUSH: Now, all of this is designed to give Obama cover for sending these troops in there tonight with his base. Everything with Obama's political. It always is with the left. It's not ever for the stated intentions that they claim. It's all political. Obama is running a risk of losing his base tonight. The only way to save him, they think, is to dump on Bush. So Kerry issues this report over the weekend that we had Bin Laden and we didn't do enough to get him and sends guys like Hinchey out here, "Oh, yeah, it was on purpose." Wall Street Journal editorial today: "President Obama unveils his new Afghanistan strategy today, and in the nick of time Senator John Kerry has arrived with a report claiming that none of this would be necessary if former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had only deployed more troops eight years ago. Yes, he really said more troops." And, by the way, we turned Tora Bora 2,000 degrees when Bin Laden was there. You can count me among those who think Bin Laden is dead, by the way. I have always thought it, just like I've always known that global warming is a man-made hoax. We turned that place 2,000 degrees. We bombed the hell out of Tora Bora.
"In a 43-page report issued yesterday by his Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Mr. Kerry says bin Laden and deputy Ayman al-Zawahiri were poised for capture at the Tora Bora cave complex in late 2001. But because of the 'unwillingness' of Mr. Rumsfeld and his generals 'to deploy the troops required to take advantage of solid intelligence and unique circumstances to kill or capture bin Laden,' the al-Qaeda leaders escaped. This in turn 'paved the way for exactly what we had hoped to avoid -- a protracted insurgency that has cost more lives than anyone estimates would have been lost in a full-blown assault on Tora Bora.' The timing of the report's release suggests that Mr. Kerry intends this as political cover for Mr. Obama and Democrats, and some in the press corps have even taken it seriously. But coming from Mr. Kerry, of all people, this criticism is nothing short of astonishing.
"In 2001, readers may recall, the Washington establishment that included Mr. Kerry was fretting about the danger in Afghanistan from committing too many troops. The New York Times made the 'quagmire' point explicitly in a famous page-one analysis, and Seymour Hersh fed the cliche at The New Yorker. On CNN with Larry King on Dec. 15, 2001, a viewer called in to say the US should 'smoke [bin Laden] out' of the Tora Bora caves. Mr. Kerry responded: 'For the moment what we are doing, I think, is having its impact and it is the best way to protect our troops and sort of minimalize the proximity, if you will. I think we have been doing this pretty effectively and we should continue to do it that way.' The Rumsfeld-General Tommy Franks troop strategy may have missed bin Laden, but it reflected domestic political doubts about an extended Afghan campaign. Remarkably, Mr. Kerry is now repeating those same doubts about Mr. Obama's troop decision, saying that the 'Afghans must do the heavy lifting' and that he supports additional troops only for 'limited purposes' and wants the US out within 'four to five years.' Adapting his legendary 2004 campaign locution, Mr. Kerry is now in favor of more troops after he was against them, but in any case not for very long."
Folks, this is rock solid truth. We are getting schizophrenic behavior from these people, and it's all because they are not real. They live in the Universe of Lies. They live in the Universe of Spin. Back in 2001, John Kerry did not want more troops. They didn't want a quagmire. The New York Times supported that. That's why we turned Tora Bora 2,000 degrees with a bombing attack, not troops. Now all of a sudden, the day before Obama's big speech, Kerry's committee in the Senate comes out and says, "Bush never sent enough troops and that's why we have to send in troops now. But we don't want them there for very long." So John Kerry is now in favor of more troops after he was against more troops, but in any case, not for very long. Then you got Hinchey going out, "Oh, yeah, they let him go on purpose." Don't doubt me. All of this is to give Obama cover with his base because making this commitment of new troop levels is angering the people on the left that he thinks he can't lose. While he's losing people in the middle, while he's losing Republicans, while he's losing independents, he wants to hold onto the kook fringe.
All presidents think it's necessary to hold onto their base. Yet they all campaign saying they have to win the independents, and he's losing them. He's losing them big time with health care; he's losing them big time with this; he's losing them big time with his general incompetence, it's perceived incompetence. When people finally wake up and realize all this is being done on purpose, they're going to be livid and outraged, and slowly more and more people are awakening to the idea that they were defrauded by the media and by the candidate during the 2008 Democrat presidential campaign. Now, this report, Democrats run Kerry's committee, they can issue a report, whatever Kerry wants it to say, but his hypocrisy here cannot be overstated. He is still the same flip-flopper that we came to know and loathe during the 2004 campaign. This is just another one of those things that Kerry was for before he was against. It was John Kerry who ordered up this report that said Bin Laden was allowed to escape. He's been claiming this for years but remember, in 2001 when we were supposedly unified as a nation. (imitating John Kerry) "We can't send any more troops in there, we don't want a Vietnam-like quagmire, everyone agrees with this, what we're doing right now is fine," he said to a caller on Larry King Alive.
I hate to sound like a broken record here, but the only hope that they have of not losing their base on this is to make this whole thing tonight a Bush bash. They're not going to mention Bush, they might mention Rumsfeld, but certainly the previous administration did not make a serious enough troop level commitment, blah, blah, blah, blah -- to give themselves cover because they're balancing things and they think that there is more hatred for Bush on the left than there is anger at this Obama policy. And all the Democrats are circling the wagons to see to it that that's the message that gets out.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Now, my friends, in the Real World (where you and I live) it was Bill Clinton who let Bin Laden go, before 9/11. It was Bill Clinton who had Bin Laden in the crosshairs. It was Bill Clinton and Richard Clarke who let Bin Laden go, in the Real World. This Dana Milbank article in the Washington Post? Do you think Bush might have been giving a lot of speeches to the military because we were (ahem) at war? Do you think there might have been a reason? To say that George W. Bush used the military as props, when that's precisely and exactly what is happening now? No greater contrast could there be between The Universe of Lies (The Four Corners of Deceit) and The Universe of Reality.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: First leak here: "Obama intends to end the Afghanistan war within three years, according to senior administration officials." What's the point of the speech if his people keep leaking the contents? Can we maybe do the Snoopy special, the Charlie Brown Christmas now? Why don't they just leak the speech and move on with the standard programming tonight so that little kids will not have to pretend they're watching Snoopy and his big ears when they look at Obama. But, folks, have you ever wondered why the cost of every Obama program is $900 billion or $898 billion? Have you ever noticed that every Obama program, be it health care or what have you, there's this magic number, it's only going to cost $900 billion.
From Obama's big health care address, September 9th, 2009: "Add it all up and the plan I'm proposing will cost around $900 billion over ten years, less than we have spent on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and less than the tax cuts for the wealthiest few Americans that Congress passed at the beginning of the previous administration." And there's a website called CostofWar.com. It's a lefty website and they claim that Afghanistan and Iraq combined have cost $937 billion since 2001, according to all the lefty websites. So that's the reason, you sell health care, but, hey, doesn't cost nearly as much as these wars, and those wars were truly a waste.
END TRANSCRIPT
On Friday with them at 2:30 we learn that 12 hours earlier -- Friday morning at 2:30 -- Tiger Woods is found lying on the street unconscious with lacerations on his face, his car having run over a fire hydrant and hit a tree. He's in and out of consciousness. Two windows of his SUV are bashed in, and the 911 caller says, "I don't see his wife, and I don't see him wearing shoes." What do you think happened here? Now, the two people that snuck into the White House and supposedly crashed it, this is not hard to understand. And the White House is giving us a huge bit of distraction with this which is why I'm getting out of the way here. This bunch is so much here, it's so simple if you just know some baseline facts. In the first place this woman wants to get on this Bravo show The Great Housewives of Washington DC, the real housewives or whatever it is.
Bravo is owned by what? N.B. C. Jeffrey Immelt is what? The CEO of what? N. B. C. Which owns Bravo. These two people just happen to go into a White House state dinner when their names are not on a list and they happen to get up and get their picture taken with Obama. And now the Bravo brand, the Bravo network, everybody knows what it is when only a few hundred thousand knew what it was beforehand. When you also know that Jeffrey Immelt is in bed with Obama on "green" technology and government grants to GE to promote that business, it all begins to make sense. Then when you find out that these two showed up on the Today show today saying they were invited, that somebody in a liaison post over at the Pentagon invited them and they've got proof -- and now their friends are saying, "Yeah, they were invited," and they've given the e-mails to the Secret Service.
And then when you find out that the same couple crashed a Congressional Black Caucus dinner back in September going into the busboy entrance. And then when you realize that nobody gets into the White House without somebody knowing it and approving it, it's very simple to understand what happened in both the Tiger Woods story and in this. Somebody wanted those people in there at the White House -- and they got there and they're getting all the attendant publicity -- and Obama is getting a giant distraction out of it as people focus on that and the Tiger Woods story while Obama's, you know, sneaking around with his other agenda while nobody's looking.
Except me. I just dealt with this in five minutes, where most cable networks are devoting a whole day to these two stories. It's not hard to figure out what happened in any or either of these cases. It's not. Snerdley, do you disagree with any of this? I've given you a logical time line with a baseline of information. Once you have that, then it all falls into place. It all makes perfect sense. Then when you add the latest tidbit, "no shoes, driving the SUV"? (snorts)
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: It's amazing how times change when certain leaders on our national stage change. Back during the Clinton-Lewinsky era it was, "Ah, everybody does that. Everybody has affairs, everybody has sex, it didn't distract him from his work," da-da-da-da. Now with Tiger Woods, oh, it's horrible to have affairs now. It's officially bad to have affairs. No more "everybody does it and if it doesn't affect his job it's none of our business, it's just sex. It's just sex." I love the sports media. The sports media is out there, "He doesn't owe anybody an explanation, but he ought to tell us anyway." That's basically to sum up what the sports media is saying, "Oh, yeah, he has a right to remain silent, but he should tell us something even though he doesn't have to. I mean, we're the media. We should have a statement from him here otherwise he's going to lose control of the story." It's just amazing.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: I was just watching MSNBC on Tiger Woods: Is he going to have problems with his endorsements here because of this episode? Then they ran a graphic that said he's the first athlete to earn $1 billion. And I said, "He's only got about $400 million of it. I mean, the rest of it went to taxes and so forth." It's not that big a deal. If I ever earned a billion dollars, I would be... (sigh) That would be $600 million in cumulative taxes he's going to pay on that billion dollars if in fact he's earned it. At any rate, I've been looking for a way, ladies and gentlemen... (Did he really say he's "only" got $400 million? Yeah, I said that.)
END TRANSCRIPT
| Read the Background Material... |
|
| • New York Times: Neighbors Says Woods's Injuries Were Consistent With a Crash • NBC: Salahis: 'We Were Invited, Not Crashers' |
Obama! Obama! Obama! Obama! Well, we don't have Bin Laden. That must mean he's dead. There must be nobody to capture. Listen to some excerpts here from Fouad Ajami's piece in the Wall Street Journal. By the way, if you don't know who Fouad Ajami is, you've probably seen him on television. He's "a professor at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies and a senior fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution ... the author of 'The Foreigner's Gift'" published in 2007. "'He talks too much,' a Saudi academic in Jeddah, who had once been smitten with Barack Obama, recently observed to me of America's 44th president. He has wearied of Mr. Obama and now does not bother with the Obama oratory. He is hardly alone, this academic.
"In the endless chatter of this region, and in the commentaries offered by the press, the theme is one of disappointment. In the Arab-Islamic world, Barack Obama has come down to earth. He has not made the world anew, history did not bend to his will, the Indians and Pakistanis have been told that the matter of Kashmir is theirs to resolve, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the same intractable clash of two irreconcilable nationalisms, and the theocrats in Iran have not 'unclenched their fist,' nor have they abandoned their nuclear quest. There is little Mr. Obama can do about this disenchantment. He can't journey to Turkey to tell its Islamist leaders and political class that a decade of anti-American scapegoating is all forgiven and was the product of American policies -- he has already done that.
"He can't journey to Cairo to tell the fabled 'Arab street' that the Iraq war was a wasted war of choice, and that America earned the malice that came its way from Arab lands -- he has already done that as well. He can't tell Muslims that America is not at war with Islam -- he, like his predecessor, has said that time and again. It was the norm for American liberalism during the Bush years to brandish the Pew Global Attitudes survey that told of America's decline in the eyes of foreign nations. Foreigners were saying what the liberals wanted said. Now those surveys of 2009 bring findings from the world of Islam that confirm that the animus toward America has not been radically changed by the ascendancy of Mr. Obama.
"In the Palestinian territories, 15% have a favorable view of the U.S. while 82% have an unfavorable view. The Obama speech in Ankara didn't seem to help in Turkey, where the favorables are 14% and those unreconciled, 69%. In Egypt, a country that's reaped nearly 40 years of American aid, things stayed roughly the same: 27% have a favorable view of the U.S. while 70% do not. In Pakistan, a place of great consequence for American power, our standing has deteriorated: The unfavorables rose from 63% in 2008 to 68% this year. Mr. Obama's election has not drained the swamps of anti-Americanism. That anti-Americanism is endemic to this region, an alibi and a scapegoat for nations, and their rulers, unwilling to break out of the grip of political autocracy and economic failure.
"It predated the presidency of George W. Bush and rages on during the Obama presidency." They hate us regardless of who is the president! "We had once taken to the foreign world that quintessential American difference -- the belief in liberty, a needed innocence to play off against the settled and complacent ways of older nations. The Obama approach is different." Obama is "Steeped in an overarching idea of American guilt..." Mr. Ajami knows not how right he is. Mr. Obama was born and raised on the notion that this country is unjust and immoral, that it discriminates, that it is unfair, that it is bigoted, that it is racist, that it has stolen the world's resources. It is the cause of poverty around the world. He believes all of this! It is easily understood when you see him running around the world apologizing for this country.
He is essentially thinking he's making friends by telling these people that hate us that he understands the hate and that their hate's justified. "Steeped in an overarching idea of American guilt Mr. Obama and his lieutenants offered nothing less than a doctrine, and a policy, of American penance. No one told Mr. Obama that [in] the Islamic world, where American power is engaged and so dangerously exposed, it is considered bad form, nay a great moral lapse, to speak ill of one's own tribe when in the midst, and in the lands, of others." So contrary to being exactly what they want to hear, it's something they do not condone. They, therefore, think Obama is weak. They think that Obama is not this great messiah that he portrayed himself to be and that even some in the Islamic world thought he was going to be.
Again, "No one told Mr. Obama that [in] the Islamic world, where American power is engaged and so dangerously exposed, it is considered bad form, nay a great moral lapse, to speak ill of one's own [country] when in the midst, and in the [country], of others. The crowd may have applauded the cavalier way the new steward of American power referred to his predecessor, but in the privacy of their own language they doubtless wondered about his character and his fidelity. 'My brother and I against my cousin, my cousin and I against the stranger,' goes one of the Arab world's most honored maxims. The stranger who came into their midst and spoke badly of his own was destined to become an object of suspicion.
"Mr. Obama could not make up his mind: He was at one with 'the people' and with the rulers who held them in subjugation. The people of Iran who took to the streets this past summer were betrayed by this hapless diplomacy -- Mr. Obama was out to 'engage' the terrible rulers that millions of Iranians were determined to be rid of." The man is simply on the wrong side of history because his mind has been corrupted, polluted, and perverted by the anti-Americanism of the people who raised him and educated him. "We are beyond..." Mr. Ajami continues: "We are beyond stirring speeches. The novelty of the Obama approach, and the Obama persona, has worn off. There is a whole American diplomatic tradition to draw upon" and we are not doing it. That's setting the stage for this supposedly important speech tonight.
END TRANSCRIPT
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: PBS Charlie Rose Show: Some interesting sound bites from last night. First up he interviewed John Podesta, the former Clinton chief of staff who now runs some liberal, far-left radical think tank. And Charlie Rose said, "Some say the president cannot afford to lose on this one: Health care reform."
PODESTA: Politically, the stakes are enormous for the president. I think if he does lose -- uh, you know, if -- if the Senate cannot complete action -- I think there will be tremendous disappointment, particularly amongst Democrats in his own base. We saw that, uh, without question, uh, when President Clinton tried to get health care passed and was unable to do so -- and then the result was a disastrous election, midterm election in 1994. And I guess I wouldn't predict exactly the same thing but I think there will be enormous disappointment, uh, if he can't succeed in getting health care reform done.
RUSH: You know, these guys purposely misread the '94 results. It was it was because Clinton tried. It was because Clinton tried -- and Hillary, who was not likable. It's because they tried to take over one-sixth of the economy that they lost the election, plus some brilliance strategizing on the Republican side in nationalizing House races. Plus the public finally got fed up with 40 years of scandal and corruption with the Democrats running the place: The House Bank, the House Post Office -- and then, of course, there was the Rush Limbaugh factor. So there were a lot of factors here, but it wasn't that they didn't get it passed. It's that they tried for it. If they do get this passed, they are gonna pay a price like they can't believe. Now, this is funny. These people are still trying to figure out who exactly they put in the White House. They should stop reading and quoting each other and look at what he does. From Charlie Rose last night: Amontage of Charlie, Jeff Zeleny of the New York Times and Jake Tapper talking about President Obama.
ROSE: Maureen Dowd said he seems "static." Tom Friedman, has said there is "no narrative that has been articulated well." What's the overall impression?
ZELENY: There's a sense of weariness.
ROSE: John Harris wrote in Politico, "He thinks he 's playing with monopoly money."
ZELENY: There 's no question that spending is the biggest issue.
ROSE: "Too much Leonard Nimoy. His intellectuality has contributed to a growing critique that decisions are detached from rock bottom principles."
TAPPER: There is something to that. President Obama lives very much in his head.
ROSE: He's a "pushover." He is a "patsy with foreign governments."
ZELENY: Is he a patsy? Perhaps some people here might say that.
ROSE: At the end of this week we will know what about this president?
ZELENY: We will know if his persuasive abilities that we saw on the campaign... Does his powers of persuasion still exist to bring people along.
ROSE: What does he have to do, to get that?
RUSH: Do you believe this? Persuasive powers? Have you looked at the polls? Have you guys looked at your own polls? Persuasive powers? He's using the military, the cadets at the West Point Military Academy as props. What has he got to do? These guys are wringing their hands over what each other are writing and saying. "Maureen Dowd says this; Tom Friedman says that. What do you think of that? Well, The Politico said this. What do you think of that?" Why don't you watch him, instead of reading all your buddies here? This reminds me of Charlie Rose and Brokaw back in 2008, October 29th...
ROSE: I don't know what Barack Obama's worldview is.
BROKAW: No, I don't, either.
ROSE: I don't know how he really sees where China is.
BROKAW: We don't know a lot about Barack Obama and the universe of his thinking about foreign policy.
ROSE: I don't really know. And do we know anything about the people who are advising him?
BROKAW: Yeah, it's an interesting question.
ROSE: He is principally known through his autobiography and through very aspirational (sic) speeches.
BROKAW: Two of them! I don't know what books he's read.
ROSE: What do we know about the heroes of Barack Obama?
BROKAW: There's a lot about him we don't know.
RUSH: Remember that? We just crack up at that. I love that. I cram up every time. Now they're starting to go through it again. "Well, who is this guy? Does he still have the persuasive power? Yeah, he lives a lot in his head." Yeah, they're wringing their hands over what Maureen Dowd says or what Thomas Friedman said. That's why they are behind the curve.
END TRANSCRIPT
| Read the Background Material... |
| • Politico: 7 Stories Barack Obama Doesn't Want Told |
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Howard Dean, April the 5th, 2009, this just surfaced. He was in Paris and said this.
DEAN: Capitalism is always going to be with us because capitalism represents part of human nature. But the other part of human nature is communitarianism. The debate for the new generation is instead of capitalism or socialism, is we're going to have both and then which proportion of each should we have in order to make this all work.
RUSH: So he's essentially saying here that the argument between capitalism and socialism is over. This is what the Democrats really believe, and they're content with saying this across the pond. Can you imagine if the Democrats had said this at all during the 2008 presidential campaign? "Capitalism has seen its last days, socialism is where we're headed, communitarianism." The Universe of Lies. But when they think they are with friends, like western socialist democracies like Paris or France, then they firmly believe they're with friends and they can utter what they truly believe. (interruption) What's the angst in there, Snerdley? Communitarianism? Well, you know what a commune is? Okay, think of the original story of Thanksgiving. It's just like communism, commune, communitarianism. It is a word. Communitarian is somebody who believes in a commune, and so communitarianism is the belief in a commune, or communism. It means organizers! A communitarian is what Obama is. Organizers, community organizers. Community, commune, communism. Mao, Marx. It's all in there.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
Dan in Buffalo, New York. Great to have you on the EIB Network, sir. Hello.
CALLER: Oh, Rush, how are you?
RUSH: Good, sir.
CALLER: I hope I don't drop the ball. Twenty-year listener with a few gaps here and there. The topic I was talking about was, you know, there are times when you seem to really understand the left, and then there are times when you -- you make -- (unintelligible) that drives me crazy. Progressivism and liberalism are not the same thing. Progressivism is where the really hard line lefties are. And they use liberals. They hide behind liberals. You know, liberals have -- the distinction is blurred over the years, but they're still way different cores of mind-sets and people and outlooks and all this kind of thing. And I spent -- I've been around American life for 40 years, pretty steady, and I spent a good chunk of that as part of it, and --
RUSH: Now, as a leftist, you mean?
CALLER: Yeah, you know, I mean, well, from like 17, it was a weird thing, I was a good, responsible Humphrey liberal, I got sort of bent when I heard --
RUSH: Now, I'm glad you said that --
CALLER: What?
RUSH: -- because in today's definitions, Hubert Humphrey would be a conservative --
CALLER: Oh, sure, yeah, I tell people this stuff all the time. But here's the thing. I was involved in a few, you know, cause types of events in the sixties, but I was in high school, and after I heard Symington blowing off about the Vietnamese being behind the Vietcong, and this is all when the Vietcong were already no longer on the political map, the north had taken over the war in the south. But Stuart Symington gave me a really hard turn, and then I got recruited by the SDS kids at UB.
RUSH: SDS. That's who's running the country now, essentially.
CALLER: Well, I've been horrified to watch these people climbing the ladder. There's been a process --
RUSH: By the way, hang on. For those of you in Rio Linda, SDS is the Students for a Democrat[ic] Society. Just think of Abbie Hoffman, Tom Hayden, the Chicago Seven, Barack Obama. They're all from the sixties anti-war free speech so-called movement. Sorry to interrupt you there.
CALLER: No, that's all right. I was hanging out with a handful of kids who were organizing like rallies of tens of thousands in the streets, and the people in the street were liberals. They didn't know the hard line politics that were going on up at the top where I was sitting and this is the thing --
RUSH: Okay. I know what you're saying. You are saying that there is a distinction between the engine and the people in charge of the movement and the followers.
CALLER: Yeah, the liberals, especially at that time, did not have the hostility to their own culture and society that the hardliners did. And although a lot of that has been disseminated down into the liberals, there's still a different set of outlooks and a different core of people.
RUSH: Well, I will acknowledge that there are different variables involved, and there are several liberal people that call themselves Democrats, too, that really are duped, and it's a minority of leftists that despise the country. I don't believe the whole Democrat Party despises the country. But here's my point in saying that progressives and liberals are no different. I'm into simplification here. I'm not running a nuanced college course on definitions. I'm not a George Lakoff (rhymes with). Right now, based on existing reality, we are at greater risk than we have ever been, internally. Anybody who is voting for anybody else in the Democrat Party is a liberal or a progressive. The progressives call themselves that because liberal in politics is a dirty word. It's a harmful term. They come up with all other kinds of labels for themselves to hide who they really are. But who they really are, in the modern parlance, modern lexicon, is liberal.
If they are in the Democrat Party and voting for Democrats, if they don't know what they're doing or if they do know what they're doing doesn't matter, they're causing the problem. They are facilitating the problem. They are all leftists. Some may be further left than the liberals you say are not as far left as the progressives. But they're all voting Obama. They're all voting for Harry Reid. They have empowered Nancy Pelosi. They made Harry Reid. They empowered Howard Dean to become chairman of the Democrat Party, and he's out there saying that capitalism is dead, socialism is the order of the day, and so forth. So in my attempt to communicate to people who think they're independent or moderate who are not as ideological as I am, who I wish would become as ideological as I am -- the whole point of the global warming debate is to say these people who have been caught engaging in fraud are the same people that are running the United States of America proposing health care.
I don't want to get into distinctions here because it doesn't matter. We have an ideological chasm in this country, and the left, the far left, the kook fringe, whatever, the combination of the American left is the greatest threat that we have right now. And the only way that that threat's going to be understood is through a simple, understandable explanation of who those people are. So that's why I say, progressives? Just trying to cover up the fact they're leftists; they're socialists; they're Maoists; they're Marxists. They're all liberals, as far as I'm concerned. They're all leftists. I'm just trying to communicate that.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Okay, Snerdley, look at me. From the Oxford English dictionary: "Communitarian: A member of a community formed to put into practice communistic our socialistic theories." He didn't make up a word. Howard Dean did not make up a word. He intended to say communitarian. It's another way of saying socialism, another way of saying communism -- and, by the way, he's a leftist.
END TRANSCRIPT
| Read the Background Material... |
|
| • Breitbart: Howard Dean Declares Debate Between Capitalism and Socialism to Be Over |
Well, duh! Look, it's a pretty good story considering where it runs, but every news story that is happening this way, not just this troop story in Afghanistan. "And now that a decision will be announced Tuesday night, here is how the media told it: Obama, faced with a difficult and agonizing decision, was wisely taking his time and deliberatively listening to all of the arguments, pro and con, including dissenters on his staff, pushing the military for more details about goals, tactics, cost in dollars, exit strategies and timetables. In short, he was showing the public he was doing the job of managing a war in a serious, thoughtful and cautious way -- and by implication, a job that his predecessor, President George W. Bush, who carried on such deliberations in a less public fashion, failed to do.
"Overall, it was a common narrative -- Obama good, Bush bad -- that this White House has honed to a sharp edge since the Inauguration nearly 11 months ago. And it worked. In a Nov. 25 Page One Washington Post analysis under the headline, 'In His Slow Decision-Making, Obama Goes With Head, Not Gut,' Joel Achenbach wrote, 'Obama’s handling of the Afghanistan conundrum has been a spectacle of deliberation unlike anything seen in the White House in recent memory.' Continuing what could have been a spoon-fed Obama White House narrative, Achenbach quoted Lawrence Wilkerson, a chief of staff to former Secretary of State Colin Powell, saying, '[Obama’s] establishing his decision-making process as being diametrically the opposite of the previous administration,' going on to say the Bush-Cheney style was 'cowboy-like, typical Texas, typical Wyoming and extremely secretive.'" This is the guy who was chief of staff for Colin Powell, the ideal Republican presidential candidate, by the way, in the eyes of the same media.
"Clearly, the Obama White House was not blindsided by Woodward’s revelation of McChrystal’s report. In fact, it is very likely someone in the White House leaked it to the iconic Woodward to get the already-underway Obama reassessment into the public realm and begin orchestrating the story from their side. How do we know? There are clues: Obama himself, on Sept. 20, only hours before the Woodward report was published on The Washington Post’s website, made the rounds of five Sunday TV talk shows, and in each dropped cautioning hints that an Afghanistan reassessment was coming. Also, the day after the McChrystal report was made public, The New York Times ran a Page One story largely sourced to unnamed administration 'officials' revealing that a 'sweeping reassessment' and a possible 'strategy shift' had been under way since Sept. 13. The article described the meeting in detail and underscored that Vice President Joe Biden had taken on the role of dissenter in calling for a scaling back of US troops in Afghanistan.
"That narrative, picked up by the media at large and now considered conventional wisdom, was reinforced by a Newsweek cover story in early October framing Biden as 'An Inconvenient Truth Teller.' The story was sprinkled with quotes from unnamed White House sources describing in detail the internal debate taking place in White House strategy meetings. Biden himself most likely was one of the sources. In a post-Woodward, on-the-record interview with the Times, James Jones, the president’s national security adviser, polished the hearing-all-sides strategy by painting a picture for the public of Obama being open to dissenting views but still standing tall as commander in chief. ... Meanwhile, with American troop deaths in Afghanistan reaching their highest levels in October, and Obama seeking, as he underwent the reassessment, to avoid projecting an image of a president being callous to the needs of the military, the White House was careful to place him in public situations where he showed respect for the fallen. Many newspapers ran Page One photos of the president’s Oct. 29 middle-of-the-night visit to Dover Air Force Base."
I guess Mr. Benedetto here is confirming what everybody with an ounce of common sense knew, that that was a photo-op. You see, folks, in the Universe of Lies, everything is not real, everything is structured, everything is spin, because these are liberals. Liberals have to cover up who they really are. Obama is not deliberate. He is planning a way to get media support praising him as something new and fresh and smarter and more deliberative than that cowboy Bush and that cowboy Cheney. This is all about continuing the notion that the problems Obama faces are monumental but they all stem from the eight years of Bush-Cheney. This is to then provide cover for what Obama will do elsewhere in his agenda. My only point about this story is that the White House does not have to spin these guys. The White House does not have to tweak 'em. The White House does not have to spoon-feed them.
The State-Controlled Media is the State-Controlled Media. The State-Controlled Media is on his side. They don't have to be guided. They don't have to be tweaked or shown the way. They're on the same page. They already are prepared to write that Obama's special and greater and better than any president that has ever been, and add to it he's historic. They hated Bush with a purple passion. It's not hard to continue that narrative. But at least in the Politico in this one instance we have a former journalist and now a professor outlining how it's done. The point to take away from this, my friends, is, however, that none of this is honest. We were all set up. Everybody was set up to hear a story, not to learn facts. This speech tonight, to me, is practically irrelevant, because it's the culmination of a giant spin effort and it's designed to present Obama as someone who he isn't. He is not a big fan of the military. He has not spent hours agonizing over this. He did not consult dissenters. He did not go after and have a bunch of advice. He was not undecided. He just created an image to make it look like he is something he isn't. And this is happening in virtually every area of his presidency, make no mistake about it. They live in the Universe of Lies.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: And another thing, folks, to consider here about this Politico story and the media not being spun. Remember, they've got skin in this game. They created this image of this guy. They helped right along with it. He's gotta succeed so they can succeed. I mean, they're the ones that told us this guy is who he was and he went out and said so and they said so. That's why they have to continue with this mythology about him. They created it. The idea that they're just a bunch of innocent little babes in the woods being spun here is not true. They are soul mates. They're so the same page.
END TRANSCRIPT
| Read the Background Material... |
|
| • Politico: Media Follows White House Script - Richard Benedetto |
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Richard in Atlanta. We're going to start with you. It's great to have you with us today on the EIB Network.
CALLER: It is an awesome honor and privilege to speak with you, Mr. Limbaugh.
RUSH: Thank you, sir.
CALLER: I've been listening to you since 1990. I've been conservative my whole life. I have a 21-year-old lance corporal son in the Marine Corps. I am very, very distressed about our commander-in-chief. I have no confidence in him, and he has none, either. He was sent to Ramadi last year. He spent seven months in Iraq last year. In January he's set for another deployment, but he doesn't know whether he's going to Afghanistan or not. And we just have no confidence in this man. We have no confidence in his leadership abilities. We don't have to confidence in his decision-making. You know, I'm kind of at an end of my rope here with some of this conservative ideas and conservative implementation of this country -- and you have to excuse me. I'm very nervous. I've been listening to you for years, and it's an honor speaking to you.
RUSH: Well, I appreciate it. I'd be nervous speaking to me, too. (sigh) Thankfully, I don't talk to myself, that I know of. But if I did, I would be nervous. Well, you might be interested in knowing this. Your 21-year-old son is a Marine -- and another leak has just come out (I think it's the Washington Post; maybe it's the New York Times; I just saw it) -- and they're going to expedite the deployment. The first wave of Marines will arrive around Christmastime and this 30,000 deployment he hopes to have completed in six months.
CALLER: Yes, I read that on Drudge Report today.
RUSH: Yeah. It's on the Drudge Report?
CALLER: Yes. They were saying, an article detailing some of that. His deployment is set for January 18th. His deployment was already set about six months ago. But, you know, I just have no confidence in our leadership if he goes to Afghanistan.
RUSH: Why not?
CALLER: Why not? Look at the examples they have set for the last 11 months, even going back further. To me there's no difference anymore between a Republican and a Democrat. There are conservatives and liberals. But I see nothing that distinguishes the two parties from each other anymore.
RUSH: Well, wait, wait, wait.
CALLER: I'm very frustrated by that.
RUSH: Wait just a second, now.
CALLER: Sure.
RUSH: (sigh) That's a wave that's starting out there that we're going to have to try to nip in the bud. What you're saying, I think, is all politicians are the same, whether they're Republicans or Democrats. And I know the Republican Party has let a lot of people down by not advocating conservatism or implementing it as they campaigned on. But I don't think that there's a Republican out there that would propose any of the Obama agenda. I don't think there's a Republican out there that would have suggesting the way to get out of the recession is to do what Obama did. I mean, there are clear differences between liberals and even moderates Republicans. RINO Republicans are a different thing altogether. The problem politically here is the war within the Republican Party over who is going to dominate it and lead it. But when I hear you say that there's no difference in the two parties, you're being set up for this third party stuff. The guaranteed outcome of that is Democrat power in perpetuity. People are just sadly mistaken if they think a third party is the way to battle what's going on here with the Obama administration and his policies. Dave in Ludington, Michigan, great to have you on the program, sir. Hello.
CALLER: Hello, Mr. Limbaugh. Thanks for taking my call. I'm quite stunned I was able to get through.
RUSH: Well, I'm glad you did.
CALLER: Okay. Point I wanted to make -- you know, politics aside because I'm an independent philosophy and I really don't buy into either party's politics 100%. So let me just say, as an American, and what I studied, it seems to me the turning point of the entire Afghan war was dropping the ball at Tora Bora. And from what I've read -- and, you know, Woodward's book, Bush at War; some 60 Minutes material that I saw not too long ago -- suggests that for some crazy reason the Rangers were told to stand down when they had Bin Laden encircled and it was paramount to let the tribesmen take him out. Well, that whole thing stinks to me. I mean, it smells of a precut deal. I'm not making any accusations because I don't have that information to do so, but very much like the Tet Offensive in the Vietnam was like at turning point, nothing was ever the same since. And that's my point, I guess.
RUSH: You say you're an independent.
CALLER: Yes, sir.
RUSH: Sound just like John Kerry in his Senate report on Monday; and you sound just like Maurice Hinchey, a Democrat today.
CALLER: Well, believe me I don't put credence in what John Kerry really says about Vietnam.
RUSH: Well, you're just agreeing with him right down the line with what you've said here!
CALLER: Well, I know, but these are feelings I've had, you know, for couple of years now, and each --
RUSH: And look at the source.
CALLER: -- release of information I tended to feel it more.
RUSH: They're not feelings, they're thoughts -- and look at the source for your thoughts: The media. And whose side is the media always on? You're citing 60 Minutes, John? You're citing Bob Woodward? Do you know that we turned Tora Bora 2,000 degrees? I believe (or as some people say, "I feel") that Bin Laden's dead. I think we got him at Tora Bora. I don't know that there's any proof of it, and I think that if we did, we didn't want to say so. We didn't want to martyr him and so forth and create an even a bigger hero out of the guy. But it's interesting that you call today and call yourself an independent, parroting the very strategy that's about an articulated in the mainstream media by way of John Kerry and his Senate report. Now, the same guy, John Kerry, in 2001 said, "No, no, no! We shouldn't send more troops in there. We don't want a quagmire." See, you gotta be careful who you align yourself with here. Because when you align yourself with Democrats and claim to be an independent, you sort of make it hard to believe that you are an independent. Farris in Hartford, Connecticut. Welcome to the program, sir.
CALLER: It's always a high honor --
RUSH: Thank you, sir.
CALLER: -- to chat, and I wanted to follow your explanation of tonight's Obama speech at West Point and try to caution everyone about the glamorous trappings of the setting that he's going to have tonight. For him to be at West Point with the very disciplined response from the audience, you're going to have to keep a sharp eye (as always, but probably sharper than ever) on what he says rather than the setting that it's in and the cooperative response he gets from the military. I'm very concerned that he's going to word his way into a -- typically, a -- having-it-both-ways outcome.
RUSH: You're right, but there's no way he can get anything other than a respectful response. The commander-in-chief is going to the United States Military Academy. He ought to be making this speech from the Oval Office. He's turning all of this into nothing more than a giant act and using the US Military Academy and whatever people he has behind him purely as props.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: All right, folks. I'm detecting a trend here and it's time to let you in on what's going on. First, "The two parties, they're no different." That means we need to go third party. "There's no difference between the parties." Look, for one thing: The Republican Party, for all its faults, has always wanted to win when we deployed the military. Come on, folks! You gotta get real about this. The Republican Party, as bad as it is, is not the Democrat Party. We do have statists in our party. We do not have socialists and Marxists in our party that have any kind of power whatsoever. And none would ever get elected in our party. Now, snap out of this. Get real. Snap out of it! It's time to face this and fix it, not abandon it -- and a third party is giving up on things. With a third party, you're just creating another room to go in and shout. You're just creating a room to go vent, but you're not gonna get anything done with a third party.
It's one thing to say in hindsight that the wrong strategy was used vis-a-vis Bin Laden at Tora Bora, but to doubt Bush's will to capture, defeat, and kill those people behind 9/11 is absurd. I'm not sure Bush was a political trophy hunter, but for Bush to have Bin Laden's scalp would have been huge, and to pass that up on purpose is literally absurd. It's insane. And who's putting it out there? The Democrats! John Kerry is putting it out there. And it's all to give Obama cover because this is nothing more than an annoyance to him. This is nothing more than an inconvenience. Obama has said he's not comfortable with the concept of victory in Afghanistan. Andrea Mitchell (NBC News, Washington) interviewed National Security Council chief of staff Dennis McDonough this afternoon. She said to him, "I gotta ask you about former Vice President Cheney and what he told Politico. Quote: 'Here's a guy without much experience who campaigned against much of what we put in place who now travels the world apologizing. I think you're adversaries, especially when it's preceded by a deep bow, see that as a sign of weakness.' Your comments, sir?"
MCDONOUGH: The president's going to make very clear to the country that we're committed to this effort, which frankly over the course of eight years was adrift, and I think even if you can go back to as late as, uhh, the early 1990s when, uhh, then Vice President Cheney was the secretary of defense, we made a very, uhh, grave mistake when we walked away from Afghanistan and Pakistan -- and, frankly, may have created some of the challenges we face today. So while we'll make sure that we continue to read about what the vice president has to say on this we'll also continue to work to make sure that we can pick up the pieces that were left behind.
RUSH: So they're setting the stage here for Obama's speech. It's all about Bush and Cheney, incompetence, going back to the nineties and the first Gulf War. And listen. Do you hear this little egghead's voice? He's one of these Ivy League eggheads that pretends to have some knowledge of international affairs. We didn't walk away from anything over there. Now, you people who are falling prey to this, I'm disappointed so I'm going to have to tell you right up front. I'm disappointed in some of you. I know you're smarter than this. You're falling for this third-party stuff and it's a dangerous route. Ask yourself when one has ever succeeded in advancing conservatism. Can you name me a third party that has succeeded doing that? There hasn't been one that tried to do that, and there will not be one. The third party is simply a place for you to go and get in a room and with the other people that are all agitated and angry about stuff and start shouting.
That's all you're gonna end up accomplishing -- and this business that we ran away from Bin Laden at Tora Bora? I have Tommy Franks' op-ed October 19th, 2004, New York Times: "President Bush and Senator John Kerry have very different views of the war on terrorism, and those differences ought to be debated in this presidential campaign. But the debate should focus on facts, not distortions of history. On more than one occasion, Senator Kerry has referred to the fight at Tora Bora in Afghanistan during late 2001 as a missed opportunity for America. He claims that our forces had Osama bin Laden cornered and allowed him to escape. How did it happen? According to Mr. Kerry, we 'outsourced' the job to Afghan warlords," and we just had a caller who claims to be an "independent" saying that he read about this in Bob Woodward's book and saw it on 60 Minutes and so it must be true.
Well, here's the commanding officer writing about it in the New York Times: "As commander of the allied forces in the Middle East, I was responsible for the operation at Tora Bora, and I can tell you that the senator's understanding of events doesn't square with reality." The Senator's understanding of events? If I may commentate here, he makes it up as he goes. There's no understanding of events. These people live in the Universe of Lies! "First, take Mr. Kerry's contention that we 'had an opportunity to capture or kill Osama bin Laden' and that 'we had him surrounded.' We don't know to this day whether Mr. bin Laden was at Tora Bora in December 2001. Some intelligence sources said he was; others indicated he was in Pakistan at the time; still others suggested he was in Kashmir.
"Tora Bora was teeming with Taliban and Qaeda operatives, many of whom were killed or captured, but Mr. bin Laden was never within our grasp. Second, we did not 'outsource' military action. We did rely heavily on Afghans because they knew Tora Bora, a mountainous, geographically difficult region on the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan. It is where Afghan mujahedeen holed up for years, keeping alive their resistance to the Soviet Union. Killing and capturing Taliban and Qaeda fighters was best done by the Afghan fighters who already knew the caves and tunnels. Third, the Afghans weren't left to do the job alone. Special forces from the United States and several other countries were there, providing tactical leadership and calling in air strikes.
"Pakistani troops also provided significant help -- as many as 100,000 sealed the border and rounded up hundreds of Qaeda and Taliban fighters." Who the hell do people think ended up in all these prisons? "Contrary to Senator Kerry, President Bush never 'took his eye off the ball' when it came to Osama bin Laden. The war on terrorism has a global focus. It cannot be divided into separate and unrelated wars, one in Afghanistan and another in Iraq. Both are part of the same effort to capture and kill terrorists before they are able to strike America again, potentially with weapons of mass destruction. Terrorist cells are operating in some 60 countries, and the United States, in coordination with dozens of allies, is waging this war on many fronts." Anyway the piece goes on and we'll link to it at RushLimbaugh.com. It's Tommy Franks writing in the New York Times, an op-ed, October 19th of 2004.
Already today -- and I don't believe that go was independent. I believe we're getting scammed here by seminar callers from the left, the Universe of Lies, and they're just following the rule. You know, Politico had the story, we just shared it with you about how all this is orchestrated and how it happens. And now they got their army out calling out this show and others like it, and they're doing it because they have to cover up for somebody who hasn't a care in the world how this actually ends up. The president of the United States is doing this speech tonight as a photo-op. He's doing it as a political necessity. He's also doing it so he won't lose his base, and he's doing it to keep his face by bashing Bush and Cheney again. It's nothing more complicated than that. It's no more complicated to understand than asking how the hell two crashers got into the White House.
They're not crashers. Somebody let 'em in. Nobody gets in that place -- nobody gets in that place -- if somebody doesn't want them there. Nobody! And look at who's being thrown under the bus on this. The Secret Service is being thrown under the bus on this. There can be no way. They're even now saying that a White House office person was not at the checkpoint. If that's true, why, that's just... I just don't believe it! I just don't believe it. And I know they've got the Secret Service by the shorts because the Secret Service can't go public and say a word about this. So if they say, "Yeah, the White House staffer was not there. It can't be us that let 'em in..." Be vigilant, folks. Be vigilant. We're being scammed. We're being spun. The Universe of Lies has us surrounded. We're in a little bubble here called The Universe of Reality.
The Universe of Lies is all around us. We're just one little bubble in it. We're trying to stay pure and not be corrupted by it. Now, to Obama and his paid hacks on TV today: Tell me -- I want to know -- how many people has Barack Obama liberated? You say he's such a great president, that he has such a command of all there foreign policy issues and military issues. How many people has Barack Obama liberated from bondage? Reagan liberated eastern Europe. Reagan liberated Latin America. Bush 43 liberated 50 million Muslims. Obama hasn't liberated anyone, and he won't. Barack Obama likes Fidel Castro. He likes Hugo Chavez. He likes the dictators in the Middle East. He bows down to them; he kisses up to them.
Obama has yet to be challenged as Reagan or Bush or most presidents have been challenged, not yet, anyway. So he and his paid hacks try to diminish those who preceded him in order to try to build Obama up because there is no substance to build up. Obama's poll numbers are plummeting. The things that he is accomplishing are things the American people now realize they didn't vote for and do not want. They realize that he's unpopular, but they don't care about that. Because right now they don't think there's anything we can do to stop it, because we don't have the votes of opposition in either the House or Senate to stop anything. And you couple that with the arrogance and the conceit -- not only of Obama, but of Rahm Emanuel and all the people around him. You have a leadership that is impervious. They don't even view this as a republic or as a democracy. It's their country now. They've gotten hold of it.
They do realize that it would be best if the American people continued to have wonderful thoughts of Obama, so they try to spin all of this stuff to cover up the fact he really doesn't care about this. This is just a little annoyance! Afghanistan is just a little annoyance. His focus is on getting out of there. His focus is not on winning. His focus is not on protecting the American people. Contrary to what everybody thinks a commander-in-chief does, because that's just the way Americans have been raised. We grow up and we have faith in the traditions and institutions that protect us and defend us. I'll have more on that, by the way, because this swine flu... We may reach a tripping point here -- and there are several opportunities to reach a tipping point. The swine flu thing may be one of them where people start to join me in instinctively not trusting government.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: While I have your attention, third party. This third-party stuff has got to stop, folks, unless you are for a third party for the Democrats. I'm all for Ralph Nader running again. I'd love for Howard Dean to get fed up or some other Democrat to get fed up with Obama and I'd love for a third party of Democrats and liberals to establish itself. I want all kinds of liberals to line and up run in third parties. That's how we weaken their side. As for our side, the focus must be to take back the Republican Party. That's the way you win. You can draw attention to yourself by denouncing both parties at the same time, and you can think that you're relating to a whole lot of people or being disabused and forgotten about, but you do a grave disservice in doing so because you're never going to win anything. You're going to guarantee Democrat victory in perpetuity. We need a strong conservative movement that takes back the Republican Party and then we have a strong Republican Party. It's hard work but it is happening.
There is a conservative ascendancy here. Why in the world waste what is happening here with this new conservative ascendance and weaken it and split it up by forming a third party? So far, not a single Republican is going to vote for government-run health care. If the parties were the same the vote would be unanimous, would it not? If the parties were the same, all the Republicans would be on board for this, in the House and the Senate, and they're not. I think one Republican in the House voted for-government-run health care. When cap and trade came up, eight Republicans voted for it. The rest voted against it. In the Senate, all but a couple of Republicans voted against the stimulus bill. If the parties were the same, sweeping majorities, health care would already be the law of the land if the Republican Party was the same as the Democrat Party. There wouldn't have been any tea parties. We wouldn't be having to mess around with all these various bills and CBO scores. But, folks, it's all out in front of your face. It's right in the middle of your face, right in front of your eyes. The parties are not the same. We need more of this, and you don't get more of this by insisting that there's no difference between the parties.
Now, I'm the first to tell you, and I'm the first to agree that the Republican Party has screwed up and it needs to continue to find its legs, and with our help, it will have no choice but to become a traditional conservative party. We don't have Marxists in our party. We don't have Maoists leading the charge in our party. Those people have found a home in Obama's party and government but not in the Republican Party. The problem is that there are people trying to confuse the issue. They're saying, "Well, the Republicans spent too much and they did this and they gave us new entitlements, they spend just like the Democrats, they all spend, they all spend the same." I get that. I fought them on those things. I was deeply upset and opposed to a lot of this spending. I had emissaries from the White House sent down here to try to get my mind right on these things. But they are not, as a matter of ideology, the Republicans are not seeking the destruction of capitalism and the private sector. They are not trying to hollow out the military. They are not undermining our intelligence services and so forth.
The Republican Party has lost its way because of one issue: Abortion. The Ivy League Republican-in-name-only so-called moderate Republicans who are truly liberal Republicans do not like the social issue of abortion and other social issues like family values and morality and all that having a role in the party platform. It's as simple as that. They didn't like it when Reagan ran the show and was winning big landslides. But they are not Marxists. They are not Maoists. They do not hate the US military. They are not apologizing for the United States of America around the world. Snap out of this! There's no difference between the two parties. The Republican Party right now has lost its way. This conservative ascendency can help it find its way. The Democrat Party has found its way, and it's the radical left way, and that's who they are now, and they have to be stopped. And they will not be stopped if a third party ends up being the result of this little internecine war in the Republican Party. They will be in power, the Democrats will be in perpetuity if a third party emerges out of our party.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Look, the truth is, folks, that most of us know that the two parties are not the same. We're hearing a lot from the same people, or thinking that surrounded the Ross Perot effort or the Reform Party effort, more generally. It seems that some people are trying to tap into this group and then claim it represents most conservatives, Libertarians, Republicans, when in fact it doesn't. Now, we always had populist movements in this country on the left and the right. But we are not populists, we're constitutionalists, we are conservatives. And when a majority of us are in control of the Republican Party, the Republican Party wins. But it's not gonna win if there's a third party.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Back to Andrea Mitchell, NBC News, Washington. She interviewed National Security Council chief of staff Dennis McDonough, works for Obama. He's out there setting the stage for Obama's West Point speech tonight by trashing Bush and Cheney. She said, "Jack Murtha is just back from Afghanistan, and he says, 'I'm still very nervous about this whole thing. If you had ten years it might work. If you had five years you could make a difference. But you don't have that long.' He also mentioned to Politico how do we define victory. How can you make it work and how do you define victory at the White House?"
MCDONOUGH: The bottom line is how we define good enough here is to make sure that there's not a safe haven for Al-Qaeda to go back to and use to plot against our interests, our allies and even against the homeland here in the United States. So we're very focused on exactly that.
RUSH: What kind of leaders won't define victory? We're kind of focused on, we decided good enough here to make sure that there's not a safe haven for Al-Qaeda to go to. That's what's good enough. There's a story I have here, it's the Wall Street Journal combined with another story. The number of private sector people who are in the Obama cabinet is lower than any administration in decades. It's just striking. And this guy's obviously one of these eggheads from the Ivy League. Here it is. And the Wall Street Journal has a companion story to it: "White House Business Leaders Split on How to Create Jobs." By the way, the big jobs summit is coming up on Thursday. "The Obama administration and US business leaders will meet at the White House this week." Now, remember, Obama said this is not about job creation. The jobs summit is not about job creation. Afghanistan is not about victory.
Anyway, "The Obama administration and U.S. business leaders will meet at the White House this week to ponder ways to boost employment. Their ideas, though, don't overlap much. Businesses of all sizes are brimming with proposals they say would spur economic growth. The most commonly voiced are tax cuts and boosting access to credit. The White House, for its part, wants to discuss job growth in the clean-tech sector and shifting some stimulus spending to infrastructure projects," which I thought that was the original purpose, infrastructure projects. I thought that's what it was all about. See, the stimulus is just a slush fund which I'm going to put in perspective here in just a second for you. TARP is just a slush fund, and this is how they intend to get past any poll problems on Election Day for Democrats.
"A 10.2% jobless rate, the worst since 1982, is emerging as the administration's biggest domestic challenge, a threat to the weak economic recovery and Democrats' hold on Congress. But many of the nostrums floated by business would increase spending or reduce tax receipts, unpalatable moves for the White House as the nation's huge deficit becomes a political liability." One way you could close the deficit and reduce it is to lower taxes. That happens to work every time it's tried. At any rate, there's a chart here from J.P. Morgan research. "It examines the prior private sector experience of the cabinet officials since 1900 that one might expect a president to turn to in seeking advice about helping the economy. It includes secretaries of State, Commerce, Treasury, Agriculture, Interior, Labor, Transportation, Energy, and Housing & Urban Development, and excludes Postmaster General, Navy, War, Health, Education & Welfare, Veterans Affairs, and Homeland Security -- 432 cabinet members in all."
The percentage of cabinet appointments in the Obama administration who have private sector experience is 8%. Under George W. Bush, it was 55%. Under Clinton, about 37%. Under George H. W. Bush, about 52%. Under Reagan, 58%. Eisenhower, 59%. Kennedy, about 30%. LBJ, about 46%. Nixon, 53%. Carter, about 30. Obama, 8%. "When one considers that public sector employment has ranged since the 1950s at between 15 percent and 19 percent of the population, the makeup of the current cabinet -- over 90 percent of its prior experience was in the public sector -- is remarkable." Only 8% of the 432 cabinet members in the Obama administration have any kind of private sector experience. So this is what I meant earlier when I said that the Democrat Party has found its way, and they're using it, they're on their way, this is a bunch of people who have had disdain for the private sector, they blame it for all of the ills and the immorality and the discrimination and the inequality and the unfairness, and they look at themselves as the only people who can bring fairness, equality, nondiscrimination, and all of that, because they know better. They're smart people. They're the good people. They know much better than we do, and we're seeing what happens when you have people who have no respect for, no love for, and no experience in the private sector.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
Now, even the liberals in Congress and even some in the State-Controlled Media were shocked when they learned that Mary Landrieu was bribed with $300 million for her "yes" vote on Obamacare. But even that is chump change. The liberals have much, much street money to buy votes now. And that more than anything threatens our democracy. Look at it this way. The stimulus that did not stimulate has enough money in it to give $1 billion (billion with a B) to every Democrat Senator, every Democrat member of the House, every governor $1 billion each and not spend half the stimulus money. If you add TARP into it, maybe just a little over half. Now, we hear so much about the dangers of "money in politics." I have news for you. It's not the five or $10 million a lobbyist tosses around. It's the hundreds of billions the liberals use to buy votes, to buy influence.
They're buying Congress, buying the auto industry, buying the banking industry, and soon the health care industry. The liberals are looting Fort Knox and hardly anybody seems to care. Well, I do, and I know you do, too. A lot of people on the left don't care but the polling data indicates that Americans are getting fed up with this. Seventy one percent are very angry. Yeah, that was $300 million to Landrieu but she could have gotten a billion. And there are ways for Obama to give that money to these people. There are ways for that money to get to them, under supposedly and in supposedly official ways that can be used for reelection campaigns. This is their ace-in-the-hole against plummeting poll numbers.
END TRANSCRIPT
| Read the Background Material... |
| • NewsMax: CBO: Just 25% of Stimulus Money Spent • New York Post Harry's Bayou Buyout: Mary's No Cheap Date |
CARVILLE: Well, uh-uh-uh-unfortunately I hope I'm wrong, but not very much. And I hope that talk radio and the pollution lobby are right that global warming is not a problem and 940 peer-reviewed, scientific articles are wrong. That's about all we can hope for, because right now I have to tell you that the pollution lobby, uh, and talk radio is winning this battle, and -- and -- and the will in the United States to do some of this is not what I think it should be but that's the reality of the political situation as -- as I see it right now. The pollution lobby is winning! They've spend hundreds of millions of dollars, and they're winning!
RUSH: The pollution lobby! The pollution lobby! James, join us in reality once in a while. The whole thing's a fraud and a hoax, and even you have to know it now.
END TRANSCRIPT
| Read the Background Material... |
|
| • Climate Depot: Continuously Updated 'ClimateGate' News Round Up • NewsBusters: Stein Raises ClimateGate on CNN; Carville Retorts, 'Pollution Lobby Is Winning |
Yep...first thing.
The Chameleon has spoken.
‘Obama to Blame Bush and Cheney in Speech’
It’s waaaay too late for any such weak-kneed, spineless crap.
Harry Truman famously placed a sign on his desk which read, ‘The buck stops here.’
Apparently, our current Chief Exec feels that the buck should, by contrast, NEVER be passed to him.
This is chickensh1t on a cosmic scale, and it’s becoming the one true hallmark of the entire current administration.
It truly stinks to have a cowardly, incompetent president - who is, moreover, constitutionally unqualified for the office - crapping all over the United States, while, at the same time, transforming this once-proud nation into an international laughingstock.
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.
