Posted on 06/29/2005 2:45:16 PM PDT by goldstategop
RUSH: It is time now to get started with the analysis of the president's speech ( text | video ) last night because it's exactly what I said it was going to be. It's uncanny. It is uncanny. Let's refresh your memory. Yesterday this is what I had to say.
RUSH ARCHIVE: It's fun to see the media just so excited. They think Bush is going to finally go out and do a mea culpa tonight. They think Bush is finally going to respond to their criticisms tonight. They think Bush is finally going to admit mistakes tonight. They think Bush may even resign tonight, folks! That's what they've been trying to pull off, and are they going to be disappointed.
RUSH: And not only are they disappointed, they're mad, and they're just silly. It was a gang-buster speech. Even CNN/USA Today/Gallup has a poll out today: 70% of the people now say "stay the course." The speech accomplished exactly what it was supposed to accomplish, and here you have the mainstream press and the Democratic Party. The Democrats do nothing but watch the polls, and they have to know today that their reaction is in the vast minority of the country's reaction today. We have a little montage of both the press and the Democrats and their reaction. They think that the president's connection to Iraq to 9/11 is a strategy, a tactic. Here's what we've got. We got Sheila Jackson Lee, Paul Begala, Paula Zahn, George Stephanopoulos, Nancy Pelosi, Wesley Clark -- also known affectionately here as Ashley Wilkes -- Democratic strategerist Victor Kamber, David Gergen, Jay Carney -- he's at TIME Magazine -- Charlie Rangel (laughs) Bob Costas makes our list? How did Bob Costas make our list? Bob Costas? -- Aaron Brown, Kiran Chetry, Dick Durbin, and John Kerry. That's who's coming up in this montage.
JACKSON LEE: The relating of the war in Iraq to the 9/11 tragedy, the horrific terrorist act, does not comport.
BEGALA: The message to American people: This is 9/11.
ZAHN: The president made six direct references to 9/11
STEPHY: The case he was making was most of all this war began on 9/11.
PELOSI: When he exploits the sacred sound of 9/11, there was no connection between 9/11 and the war.
CLARK: Saddam wasn't part of 9/11.
ZAHN: Do you think the president overreached references to 9/11?
KAMBER: His speech last night was once again trying to wrap himself around the -- the 9/11 tragedy.
GERGEN: I was troubled and offended by his coming back to 9/11.
CARNEY: Making the war on terror one broad event that began on September 11, 2001.
RUSH: It was!
RANGEL: Long before 9/11, Bush wanted to knock off Saddam Hussein.
COSTAS: No contact or connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda or 9/11 established.
BROWN: Was it apt for the president to go to 9/11 six times in the speech?
CHETRY: He did refer to 9/11 five times. Why is he once again making the link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11?
DURBIN: He did make six references to September 11th, drawing on the lessons of 9/11. VIETNAM VETERAN JOHN KERRY: In light of Karl Rove's comments the other day, I think a lot of Americans are very uneasy about the current way in which the president keeps talking in the same language.
RUSH: No. Nope. Nope. They're upset at you. They're upset at the media! It's amazing to me how all these people have the same reaction, and it's exactly what I told you it was going to be. They want to hear X; they want to hear Y; they want to hear Z -- and I told you they're not going to hear it. They're not going to hear mistakes. They're not going to hear, "We goofed this." They're going to hear exactly what they've heard before, and yet they've got this template in response. The lib media upset that Bush reminded me of 9/11 and that we're fighting the same people in Iraq who killed 3,000 of our fellow Americans, and they're upset the president didn't say that we're losing the war and it's hopeless. So because the anti-war Democrats have attacked Bush's speech, arguing he "wasn't specific enough" and he brought up 9/11, that's the media spin today -- and we're all supposed to react to the liberals rather than what the president said, right? Yes, folks, that's the mainstream press. It reacts to what liberal Democrats say. They don't react to what the president said. All of this, this montage, is exactly that: Nothing more than a reaction to what the critics are saying, and notice how the Democrats and the media so frequently seem to say and emphasize the same thing? How does that happen, I wonder? If there were no weapons of mass destruction and if Iraq was no threat, why did Congress -- including most Democrats -- authorize the president to go to war against Iraq in a joint resolution, a second joint resolution, that they demanded in the campaign of 2002, about the summertime, late summertime 2002.
They demanded it because they realized where the country was on this, and they wanted to get their names on that resolution so they could be perceived as pro-war. Now they want to pretend they didn't have anything to do with it; they want to pretend they weren't involved; they want to pretend that the president lied to them; they want to pretend that the president is making mistakes and not coming clean with the American people. Here's the thing. If Congress thinks this is a quagmire or if they think the war is being poorly run or if they think we should get out now or we should set a timetable to get out, why doesn't Congress simply cut off funding for the war and make funding conditional on any of these factors? Why don't some Democrats like Nancy Pelosi or Charlie Rangel stand up in the well of the House, the floor of the House and demand to cut off funding? Why don't they say this stuff on the floor of the House? Why don't they say this stuff as they try to advance legislation that would cut the rug out from under the president by taking the money from the war? And the answer to that is because everybody knows the liberals are full of crap on this -- and the liberals themselves know it.
They're just articulating a bunch of kookisms here because, A, it's who they are, and B, it's what they think their voters want to hear. We keep hearing Ted Kennedy. He gets a voice here. John Kerry, he keeps getting a voice. I'm going to tell you what I think. I think Bush's real problem here isn't the left or isn't the media, because the left and the media is always going to be against Bush. I think his real problem is his own party: the McCains, the Hagels, the Lindsey Grahams and others who end up being the useful idiots of the left. If the Republicans were united on this and outspoken and confrontational, we would be in a stronger position and speeches like this last night would not even be necessary. If they spent more time speaking with one voice about the mission and characterizing the enemy properly rather than join the left concerning our treatment of the terrorists and so forth, we would be in a stronger position today. You know, it is just amazing to watch all of this, and especially it's interesting to me because I predicted it. I was right on the money about how these people would react. They make me look like a genius each and every day when it does not take genius to understand who these people are to predict what they're going to do, and to react the way they do.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: (chuckle) I love this, folks. On the Today Show today, Senator John Kerry -- who, by the way, served in Vietnam -- Matt Lauer said, "Let me ask you about the president's connection, it seemed, between the events of 9/11 and the war in Iraq." (laughing) You know what's interesting about it? The president never linked Iraq to 9/11. He never linked Saddam to 9/11. He linked Iraq to the war on terror, and they understand this. You know they know this. They just can't stand for the American people to be told it, because it upsets their whole apple cart of defeating Bush. You people realize the Democrats are still rerunning the 2004 presidential campaign. That is all they've got. They're rerunning the 2004 presidential campaign. Well, here's Kerry's answer to the question.
VIETNAM VETERAN JOHN KERRY: No. Absolutely...not. Nor was anybody that I know of any Senate.
LAUER: And so when you hear the president say that now, your opinion?
VIETNAM VETERAN JOHN KERRY: Uh, he has completely, er-uh, morphed the rationale of weapons of mass destruction, first into a rationale of democratizing Iraq, and now into the hotbed of terror. It has become a hotbed of terror because American troops are there, and since our invasion -- and that's part of the problem. The presence of American troops is a magnet for jihadists, which is one of the reasons why the training of Iraqis, er-uh, should be put on a real wartime footing. It's time for the president to get it right. We don't need any American, uh, I think, to be reminded of the passion we feel about 9/11. Every American shares that.
RUSH: No they don't. You don't. And that's exactly why the president needs to remind it. We don't see the pictures of it enough, Senator. You're trying to make pretend it didn't happen. You and your party are trying to act as though 9/11 didn't happen and that Bush has engaged in some renegade action for oil, for Halliburton, or Dick Cheney. You people couldn't tell the truth if your lives depended on it. Let's go back to this one line by line. He said that, "The president has completely morphed the rationale of weapons of mass destruction, first into a rationale of democratizing Iraq and now into the hotbed of terror." The weapons of mass destruction. The reason the Democrats keep bringing this up is because it is one of their few hopes. I don't know if they think they're going to beat Bush again. He's not running. But they seem hell-bent on convincing people that "Bush lied." If I were the Democrats, I would forget Bush. He's not on the ballot again, and he don't have a vice president that seeks the ballot. So there's no great continuity to this administration as there was with Gore taking over for Clinton or George Bush 41 taking over for Reagan. This mystifies me politically. But they are hell-bent on this whole weapons-of-mass-destruction business. Can you give you a theory about weapons of mass destruction? How big is Aruba? Aruba is 184 square miles. I think Aruba is; I think I read that: 184 square miles. Now, we've got a woman that's been missing down there, Natalee Holloway. One-hundred-eighty-four square miles. They can't find her in one month.
One person within 184 square miles, and they can't find her. Maybe she was never there. Maybe Natalee Holloway was never there! Maybe this is all a stunt and a setup. Or maybe the people who say they saw her got it wrong. Maybe their sources are wrong. Maybe the people who said she was there lied. Maybe this is all some sort of scam. My point is, isn't that what they're saying about weapons of mass destruction? "Well, they were never there. They were never there." Well, people saw them. We know they were used. So how do you feel when I say, "Maybe Natalee Holloway was never even there"? They can't find her in a month, and it's only 184 square miles. We haven't been able to find weapons of mass destruction in a huge country, and they're not there? The Democrats simply cannot get off of this because that is their #1 way of trying to illustrate that Bush is lying to the American people. What the Democrats don't get is: the American people are way beyond weapons of mass destruction. The American people are not stupid. The American people understand it wasn't just the United States that thought there were WMDs there. The world was there. They know that the Security Council passed resolutions about them that Saddam ignored. That's not the point. This other comment about Kerry's, "Weeeeell, we've turned Iraaaaaq into a maaaaagnet for all these teeeeeeeeeeeeerrorists." You know, before Iraq was the magnet, senator, it was the World Trade Center that was the magnet for terrorists, and it's innocent Americans that worked there.
It was the Pentagon that was a magnet for terrorists, and it was a field in Pennsylvania that was a magnet for terrorists. In 1993 the World Trade Center was a magnet for terrorists. Innocent Americans are the magnet for terrorists. So now the terrorists are not in Iraq specifically because we're there. The terrorists are in Iraq because of what is happening in Iraq: a duly elected government by free people threatens the whole existence of terror networks in that region, if it grows and expands. You talk about misrepresentation of the policy, you talk about lying to the American people, you talk about misleading the American people? I'm telling you, folks: that honor today goes to the American left and the Democratic Party. They're the ones who won't level with the American people. They are the ones who will not get straight and admit to the rest of this country that they understand the peril that we face. They want to pretend it didn't happen. The reason they get so angry when 9/11 is brought up is because they know that they haven't acted in a way to make people comfortable that if it happened again, the Democrats could deal with it, or if they were in power, that the Democrats could do everything to keep it from happening again. They know people have no confidence in them when it comes to national security, because they're a bunch of pacifists, and so they don't want people to remember 9/11.
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
Rush is becoming more of a waterboy for the WH, and I find myself more often changing the station.
They're worse than girly-men pacifists...they're willing to give aid and comfort to our enemy by encouraging division in our nation, and a weakening of resolve to finish the job in the war on terror.
Luckily, the Rats in my state, NY, had the Gay Pride parade to paint on their game faces and strut what's left of their stuff to the nation. Bunch of sissified gray-haired old queens and bull-dykes- it's what they've become.
All he did was predict acturately what Bush would say...and furthermore I heard Rush say several times that what needs to be done is to basically wage a proper war...and take out the terrorists once and for all, wherever they are.
Rush departs from the Bush Adm on several areas...namely spending, borders, culture and the conduct of the war.
Some of the 'rats blame Rush for ALL their troubles...and they are not too far off IMO.
When the Democrats get around to offering something constructive, I might listen to them. Until then, I'm happy to ignore them.
I certainly don't understand your statement that Rush is carrying water for the WH---in what way?? by supporting the war on terror? by wanting conservative judges? by saying the Demos are just playing politics and are concerned about power? should he be supporting what the MSM and the Demos are saying? Please explain....
People need to view the UNCUT version of the World Trade Center, I'm talking all the video.
People need to remember the Terror of 9/11, teach their kids and stay the course against all the Terrorists, wherever they may be found, lets get Iraq DONE.
Your remarks sound very much like something you might hear on a liberal website, have you ever considered 'changing websites'?
Unfortunately, my friend, you should not let Rush Limbaugh cloud your judgement or understanding of facts and real events. 911 happened!!! That's fact!!! Innocent people jumped from the burning towers to their deaths because they did not want to be scorched to death by burning aviation jet fuel. If you don't think that 911 and the war in Iraq are tied together, you are smoking reefer. But, go ahead and follow the Democrat party line. You'll either end up roasted or without your head. Please don't complain when that happens as it surely will. Osama bin Laden just loves fools like you and the Democrat Party. Makes life easy for him!!! America and folks like you are going down because you can't see the deadly peril as it really is. My God have mercy on your foolish soul!!! Fact is: GW Bush stands between the terrorists and you. Remove GW Bush and your head will be rolling shortly!!! After that, you have a care in the world!!!
Liberals have not yet realized that they are fast becoming akin to the "DoDo Bird".
Where are the uncut vids of WTC? How can we view them? My wife says she never knew people were jumping out of the windows after I told her 100's of people jumped! That is my wife, I can't imagine what lefty lib next door doesn't know.
I always cut the "11" box out of the month of september in my office.
bump
You must have stopped listening to Rush long ago, because he has, since 911, been for waging war on the terrorists in a way that only the United States could, if only Bush would give the order...... and for the admin to give up any hint of political correctness.
I have said on numerous occasions on this forum that the mohammidans better get down on their knees and thank allah that B.O. is not in charge for if I was, the whole mid east would be under control by now. I have not a politically correct bone in my body, and I don't give a rat's ass what liberals or anybody else thinks of me. I'd turn on America's war machine. There would be nobody to guard at Gitmo....or Abu Grab.
Another sleeper troll surfaces..
So you are part of the NUKE EM NOW crowd?
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.