All Episodes
Previous Next
May 14, 2009 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:49
May 14, 2009, Thursday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
All right, let me translate all of this for you.
It's very simple.
Pelosi's out there flailing around today with version 5.0 on torture and what she knew, when she knew it.
But you can't look at that as an isolated thing.
You got Pelosi flailing around on torture.
You got Obama doing a 180 on the interrogation photos.
And now you've got an Obama doing a 180 on detainees.
We may keep them indefinitely and we may not try them.
So Obama has employed the Bush policy.
Can I translate all this for you?
Very simple.
Dick Cheney gets results.
Greetings, my friends, and welcome to the Rush Limbaugh program.
This is the EIB Network and the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
The headlines tell the tale.
Pelosi says she's not complicit, version 5.0.
Wall Street Journal and the New York Times, Obama considers detaining terror suspects indefinitely without trial.
New York Times unease grows for Democrats over security.
This story is about the left losing its will on Afghanistan.
Jack Murth is saying, we're still waiting for a plan here from President Obama.
Chris Salizza, D.C. Post, the left rises up against Obama, coming to grips with Obama not being the liberal hero people thought that he was.
Of course, a little aside there, if this was such an overwhelmingly liberal nation, why is Obama making all of these changes from his campaign to governing?
I'm going to get into that as a program on polls because there are answers to this.
And then the next story, why doesn't Obama want us to see what's in the photos?
That's from McClatchy.
And then this, the L.A. Times, Democrats' bill would bar Guantanamo transfers to the United States.
Dick Cheney gets results.
And this is why the drive-by media is begging and demanding and making fun of Cheney's.
Shut up, Dick.
Shut up.
Go away.
Don't you understand you're hated?
Don't you understand you have no credibility, Dick?
Don't you understand you're destroying the Rebel Republican Party?
Go away, Dick.
They say the same thing to me.
Dick Cheney gets results.
This starts on Sunday.
Here we are at Thursday.
And the Bush policy on dealing with interrogations and dealing with photos of interrogations and dealing with detainees is still in place.
Dick Cheney gets results.
You want to hear a little bit of Nancy Pelosi flailing around today?
We have, let's say, one, two, three.
By the way, Bill Salmon had the greatest take.
Bill Salmon is the Washington bureau chief at Fox News.
And after Pelosi went out there with version 5.0 of her.
Oh, before I get to Salmon, folks, the fireworks have just begun here because she today said that the CIA is lying.
She came out and said the CIA is lying.
Now, when you do that, when the Speaker of the House says the CIA is lying, well, the fun hasn't even begun yet.
And I guarantee you, I stand by my theory of yesterday.
Obama has her right where he wants her now.
I don't think there's any love loss between Steny Hoyer and what's her face, Pelosi.
Nor is there any love loss between Pelosi and Rahm Emanuel.
So, and I think there's a couple stories in the New York Times.
There's a story in the New York Times today that is a result of Pelosi leaking.
I think there's a game going on behind the scenes, Pelosi saying, Hey, boys, you want to hang me out to dry?
Look what I can do to you.
I will, of course, explain all of this as the program unfolds before your very eyes and ears.
However, Bill Salmon's take on this.
After Pelosi spoke today, after a press conference, Bill Salmon said, The irony, the irony of all of this is that the Democrats, particularly, specifically the Speaker of the House, the Democrats that are now the ones on the heat getting the heat on defensive over torture.
Somehow, the Democrats, you put a bag of manure in front of them and they'll step in it.
And somehow they have taken what was a godsend for them.
Bush is responsible for everything.
And look who now is on defensive about torture, who knew about it and didn't say anything about it to stop it.
A Democrat and the Speaker of the House no less.
Now, this is why, ladies and gentlemen, I always encourage people never to give up, never to quit, because you never know what's going to happen day to day in politics.
Things can change on a dime.
And aside from me, it's very difficult to predict what is going to happen.
I know liberals like every square inch of my glorious naked body.
And I, you know, they're going to get tripped up by this stuff because this country is not a liberal country, and the truth does not require a majority to win out.
Never forget that.
This may be a profundity of mine that you'll remember for the rest of your life.
The truth does not require a majority to prevail.
The truth is its own power.
The truth will out.
That's the reason for the phrase.
The truth will out.
You just have to be patient.
Sometimes you can't force it.
Sometimes people on your own side are full of, they're dunderheads.
And they're not willing to move the ball along as eagerly as you would like them to.
But the truth will out.
The truth does not require a majority to prevail.
Now, here's Pelosi.
After the press conference, after, and by the way, she forgot herself during this thing.
She had to consult her written statement.
She was nervous.
Those eyes are blinking left and right.
That had to be, sure, she gets a lot of exercise when she blinks.
You realize the muscle exertion required for Nancy Pelosi to blink.
So if she works out daily, she can skip it today because she had it during the press conference.
After the press conference, a reporter said, regardless of the individual who told you that these techniques are being used, and regardless of the venue in which you learned this fact, does not the foreknowledge of the use of these techniques make you complicit in their use?
No, this is a policy that was conceived and implemented by the Bush administration.
They notified Congress that they had legal opinions saying that this was legal, but they would let us know if they were planning to use them, is what they briefed us on.
It does not make me complicit.
No.
Well, this is a drive-by media question.
A whole lot of Republican media don't exist, number one, and two, they didn't get into this thing.
If you would have heard the question, it was a new castrati guy.
Does not this make you complicit in the youth of these techniques, Mr. Speaker?
No, no, it doesn't.
It doesn't.
There are two things.
There were two briefings, a September 2nd briefing, where the CIA said that they were going to use enhanced irrigation techniques.
Then there was a second briefing five months later.
At the second briefing, Pelosi is not the speaker.
She is the chairman of the Intel Committee, and she didn't go.
She didn't go.
But she said she was not briefed in the second meeting.
She was told what happened in the second meeting by Jane Harmon.
And when Jane Harmon wrote a letter objecting to all this, Pelosi said, Well, you know, I didn't have to do anything.
Jane Harmon, she's the chairman of the committee.
I didn't have to do anything.
Jane Harmon had taken care of it.
And then she also said, besides, I was fighting a war in Iraq at the time.
Now, my trusted and loyal audience, what the hell does that mean?
Does it mean when she was fighting a war in Iraq, does it mean she was opposing the war in Iraq or that she was engaged in the war in Iraq with the administration, trying to prevail over Saddam Hussein?
It's a what that's open to interpretation.
Here's the next question and answer.
Unidentified reporter says, but Mr. Sheehi, you say he did tell you and your staff did tell you.
So my statement is clear.
And let me read it again.
Let me read it again.
I'm sorry, I have to find the view.
Stop the tape here.
I was informed.
Now, recue this.
This is something that I know as a highly trained broadcast specialist, a renowned public speaker.
It's in your heart.
You don't need a statement.
If it's in your heart, and if you're telling the truth, you don't need to find your statement.
You don't need to read anything.
The reason you have a statement and the reason you read it is because you've got to be precise because you're on the edges.
You're on the edges.
Somebody telling you the truth.
Somebody tell you what they really believe.
I don't need to write it down.
Don't need a speech.
So here it is again.
But Mr. Sheehee, you say he did tell you, your staff did tell you.
So my statement is clear.
And let me read it again.
Let me read it again.
I'm sorry, I have to find the view.
I was informed that the Department of Justice opinions had concluded that the use of enhanced interrogations was legal.
The only mention of waterboarding was that the briefing, in the briefing, was that it was not being employed.
When my staff person, I'm sorry, I had the page is out of order.
Five months later, my staff person told me that there had been a briefing, informed me that there had been a briefing and that a letter had been sent.
I was not briefed on what was in that briefing.
I was just informed that the briefing had taken place.
That's just hard to believe.
She's chairman of the Intel Committee at the time.
This is the second briefing, the 1st of September, September 2002.
The second was five months later.
And Jane Harmon went in there.
She's chairman of the committee.
And all they told her was, hey, by the way, we had a meeting with the CIA.
Okay, don't worry.
Don't bother me.
I'm fighting a war in Iraq.
Nobody told her what was in the meeting.
Nobody briefed her as to what was said.
Sorry.
I think not even the Libs are going to buy this.
Not even her buddies are going to buy this.
Another unidentified reporter.
Madam Speaker, just to be clear, you're accusing the CIA of lying to you in September of 2002.
Misleading the Congress of the United States.
Misleading the Congress of the United States.
Yes, I am saying that they are misleading, that the CIA was misleading the Congress.
And at the same time, the administration was misleading the Congress on the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
To which I said, this intelligence does not support the imminent threat, to which the press asked the same question you just did now.
Are you accusing them of lying?
I said, I'm just stating a fact.
All right, so here she's trying to, she's trying to skate by on this by saying, hey, everybody knows they misled us on weapons of mass destruction.
She's just trying to couple that with the fact that she was misled on waterboarding.
But this is the one where the fireworks are going to begin.
Now, you know, you tell you George Tenet's out there somewhere.
Don't forget, George Tennett's out there.
He got a medal.
They gave him a medal when he retired.
He's out there somewhere.
And Porter Goss, Porter Goss is out there somewhere.
All these CIA people and the people inside, they're out there.
And the Speaker of the House has just said directly that they lied to her.
Folks.
What is this?
The 14th of May.
By tonight, maybe tomorrow, it's going to be 4th of July fireworks time all over the drive-by news cycle.
One more before we go to the break.
This is splitting hairs here on being, not being briefed, but being informed.
But then in the next sentence, you'll hear her say she wasn't informed after saying she was informed, not briefed.
Question in that press conference, we were all fairly trying to get at the broader question of whether you knew about waterboarding at all.
And the idea that we got from you was that you were never told that waterboarding was being used, but now we know that later in February, you were told.
It wasn't in that briefing, but you were told.
You were adamant that you didn't know waterboarding was being used, but you were told.
The point is, is that I wasn't briefed.
I was informed that someone else had been briefed about it.
I'm only speaking from my standard.
I got this.
I'm only speaking from my own experience.
And we were told that it was not being used.
Subsequently, the other members of the committee were informed.
And so were you.
No, I wasn't informed.
I was informed that a briefing had taken place.
Now, you have to look at what they briefed those members.
I was not briefed that.
I was only informed that they were briefed, but I did not get the briefing.
Okay, so she was informed before she wasn't informed after everybody else was briefed.
Remember all these past occasions where we've played audio soundbites in the Speaker of the House, and we've, you know, we've, we've, with great compassion, we have, we have asked, does this woman bright or is this pure political calculation?
Nancy Pelosi is so clumsy at this.
You know, liberals lie.
I mean, by definition, liberalism has to obscure what it really believes.
Obama and Bill Clinton make this look easy.
It's like I've always asked you people, don't try what I do at home.
The great make it look easy.
Once you try it, Pelosi thinks that she can pull off Obama and Clinton, but it's obvious that she can't.
It's a real talent to be able to lie.
It's a real talent to be able to throw blame elsewhere and have people love you and believe you.
It just didn't work today.
It didn't work for the Speaker of the House.
We will be back.
Dick Cheney gets results.
There's a headline in the Washington Post today, a story by Dan Balls, and a story.
I want to read the headline to you.
As Cheney seizes spotlight, many Republicans wince.
Really?
Looks to me like it's Pelosi and Obama who are the ones wincing.
This headline needs to be rewritten.
As Cheney seizes spotlight, many Democrats wince.
Let's get on with that news from the Wall Street Journal.
Obama considers detaining terror suspects indefinitely.
They're weighing plans to detain some terror suspects on U.S. soil indefinitely and without trial as part of a plan to retool military commission trials that were conducted for prisoners held at Club Gitmo.
The administration's internal deliberations on how to deal with Gitmo detainees are continuing as the White House wrestles with how to fulfill the president's promise to shutter the controversial prison.
Now, there's a lot of things happening here.
Obama campaign shut down Gitmo, released the pictures, apologized for America, and then all of a sudden gets into office, says, I'm going to close Gitmo January 2010, but they didn't figure out, they didn't know how.
They haven't come up with a way to do it.
And Eric Holder goes over to Germany and starts asking our allies, hey, we're going to get rid of some of these terrorists.
We're going to keep some ourselves.
How many would you take?
And our allies said, hell would you?
We're not taking any of them.
Well, Holder said, you wanted us to get rid of them to say you would love us again.
Well, yeah, but we don't want them here.
So they don't know what to do.
So now they're going to have to hold indefinitely without trial.
The American left is on fire today because this is the Bush policy.
This detained them without trial.
Terrorists, what is known is by the Obama people now, these are deadly people.
These are deadly, dangerous people.
And they just can't release them.
The rest of the world doesn't want them.
Now, this is the story that I think Pelosi leaked.
Rank and file Democrats growing uneasy over the Obama administration's national security policies.
I think this is Pelosi fighting back because she knows she's in the crosshairs now.
When Steny Horrier went out there, so yeah, we need to have hearings on Pelosi.
Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah.
The Democrat infighting is on display now.
This story is in the New York Times.
Congressional Democrats are voicing growing unease over the Obama administration's national security policies, including a seemingly open-ended commitment in Afghanistan and the Nettleson question of what to do with prisoners held at Club Gitmo.
David Obie said that he would give the White House a year to demonstrate progress in Afghanistan, just as he gave the Nixon administration a year to show progress in the Vietnam War inherited from the Johnson administration.
I read that this morning.
Well, actually, I read it last night.
I was up late doing show prep.
David Obie from Wisconsin has been in Congress since the Vietnam War.
He went, he was sworn in in 1969.
It's 2,000.
These people are there way too long.
And he's saying, just as I gave Johnson a year, I'm going to give the Messiah a year.
Get his acts straight in Afghanistan.
I'm going to send David Obie a note.
How much time did you give Lincoln on the Civil War?
So anyway, the wheels are starting to come off here a little bit because these were fundamental elements of Obama's identity during the campaign.
These are the fundamental elements that attracted the left and emboldened them.
Anti-American military embarrassed them, humiliate them, make them lose.
Terrorists are the good guys.
We shouldn't be capturing them.
We are the reason they are terrorists.
And now Obama not releasing the pictures.
Although that, folks, there's more to that than meets the eye too.
He could have done this with an executive order.
Instead, he's decided to oppose it at the Second Circuit.
And I'll guarantee you that his buddy Greg Craig is going to file a half-assed brief and that these pictures are going to come out in about a month.
More on that when we come back.
Welcome back.
It's Rush Limbaugh executing assigned host duties flawlessly.
Zero mistakes.
Back to this New York Times story.
Some liberal Democrats are expressing outright opposition to continuing the operations in Iraq or Afghanistan.
They're planning to vote against the spending bill to keep the operations going.
Jack Murtha, a quote in this New York Times story, we keep asking for a plan from the administration.
I think the Democrats are nervous just because they haven't seen a plan yet.
And the Murthy quote in this is, to me, a further indication that this story is a Pelosi leak fighting back against the administration.
Now, here's Chris Saliza.
The left rises up against Obama is the headline.
And here's one of the key pool quotes from Saliz's piece in the Washington Post.
To be clear, it's not immediately clear that liberals are abandoning the president in droves.
Rather, as happens with almost every president, elements of the base are coming to grips with the idea that Obama may not be the liberal hero that people thought he was when he was first elected.
And they're rising up over the photos.
They're rising up over detainees being held without trials.
They're rising up over expanding operations in Afghanistan.
Tad, not too Tad, Devine, a Democrat media consultant, says politically not reversing course could have had much worse consequences.
I think it's a right move, and that makes it a smart move politically.
So once again, the Democrats, they're talking about the photos here.
They're looking at all of this within a political context.
And everybody says, what happened?
What happened to change Obama's mind?
I'll give you a couple possibilities in just a second, but I want to make an observation.
Saliz's piece here, the left rises up against Obama.
Elements of the base coming to grips with the idea Obama may not be the liberal hero that people thought he was when he was first elected.
If this was a 60% liberal nation, if all of this personal approval for Obama, this job approval, these 60% numbers, if all of it was based on liberalism and ideology, he wouldn't have a problem.
He could do whatever he wanted to do here.
I mean, we're being told that conservatism is dead, and this is more evidence that it is not.
And this is why I continue to implore people to start drawing contrasts between themselves, the Republican Party, and Barack Obama.
Now, as to these pictures, these 44 photos that the ACLU is just up in arms about and that Obama has decided not to release, there are a bunch of theories about this.
One is, well, Rush, you know, he can't release them because he's got this trip to Egypt coming up soon, and he doesn't want to inflame the people in that part of the world, and he doesn't want to make it any more dangerous for him when he goes over there.
The other theory is that somebody, some adult somewhere, got to him and said, Mr. President, you're not campaigning anymore.
You yourself, Mr. President, pointed out when the photos of Abu Ghraib were released, you yourself pointed out how horrible this made America look and how at risk, at greater risk, this put American soldiers on the battlefield.
And that's why you wanted to bring them home and so forth.
If you release these pictures, you are engaging in the same behavior you condemned.
That's another theory that's out there.
The political theory is, I got to do this.
I got to be seen as protecting the troops.
I mean, they're mine now.
Afghanistan and Iraq are mine.
And like I told you during the campaign, these people are not going to saddle themselves with defeat here, folks.
They're not going to lose this when they're in charge.
They're not going to lose in Iraq when they're in charge.
They're not going to lose Afghanistan when they're in charge.
Not on purpose.
They may lose it, but they're not going to do it on purpose.
They're not going to saddle themselves with defeat here.
But the third answer, the third possibility is the one that I like the best.
The miniature timeline of these photos is that the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeal, in the midst of a lawsuit, ruled that these 44 pictures must be released.
When that happened a short time ago, the Eric Holder-led Justice Department did not object.
And many people are asking, why the hell not?
Why did the Justice Department not object?
And the reason for that is, is that the top leadership of the Department of Justice is nothing but a bunch of radical leftist ideologues.
Holder didn't object.
And a lot of people start, why didn't these guys, you know, this is, they represent the United States of America.
Their client is the United States of America.
That's who the Justice Department represents.
They represent the government.
That's our client.
And they're not looking out for their best interest to have these pictures released.
So then Obama says he's thinking seriously about releasing the pictures.
And the left go, yay, dude, way to go.
Rado, rado, rado.
The adults in the country say, no, this is not good.
We're still on the battlefield and it's not going to help our efforts in Afghanistan.
And they point out to Obama, you own them now.
So what Obama did, and this is classic Obama.
Obama yesterday goes out.
Let me get the soundbite on this because it's later on in the roster.
Grab, let's see, eight and nine.
Let me see if we go into number 10.
No, just eight and nine.
Here's the first of two soundbites.
Yesterday afternoon press conference, Obama talking to reporters about a flip-flop on the photos.
The publication of these photos would not add any additional benefit to our understanding of what was carried out in the past by a small number of individuals.
In fact, the most direct consequence of releasing them, I believe, would be to further inflame anti-American opinion and to put our troops in greater danger.
Now, that's an interesting statement because the left, you know, his base has anti-American opinion.
They don't like this country.
Obama's militant base doesn't like this country, and they thought he was one of them.
And he may be, but his own political survival and instincts are going to trump that.
He owns Afghanistan.
His base wants anything that will inflame anti-American opinion out there.
They thought that's what he was about.
So he still has to placate these people.
Now, yesterday, instead of doing this flip-flop, here's the second soundbite, by the way.
Let me be clear.
I am concerned about how the release of these photos Would impact on the safety of our troops.
I have made it very clear to all who are within the chain of command, however, of the United States Armed Forces that the abuse of detainees in our custody is prohibited and will not be tolerated.
Yada, Okay, so what he did, he instructed the Justice Department to appeal the Second Circuit Court of Appeals decision to release the photos.
He didn't have to go to the Justice Department.
He could have issued an executive order.
This is key.
This is important to understand.
The fact that he opposes the release of the photos means nothing.
Because all they have to do at the Justice Department, let me tell you how these things work.
His legal counsel is Greg Craig, a lawyer representing Fidel Castro and the father down there in Cuba in the Elian Gonzalez story.
All they have to do is write a pitiful brief.
All they have to do is instruct the Justice Department lawyers or even Greg Craig himself in their appeal to write a half-assed brief.
When you write a half-assed brief, an incompetent brief, or one without passion, you're sending a signal to the judges that you don't care how they rule.
So we'll see.
If they file a half-assed brief on this and send a signal to the judges on the Second Circuit to go ahead and, or to the Supreme Court, to uphold the Second Circuit, then the pictures will come out.
I don't know how soon the appeal will be heard, but the bottom line here is that opposing the release, this is what's incredible.
He said, I'm opposed.
He's acting like an innocent bystander here.
He's acting like members of Congress after the subprime crisis.
Whoa, what happened?
Well, we're not going to let this happen again.
We're going to get by whoever's responsible for this.
We're going to nail them to the wall.
Obama's acting like, I oppose the release of the pictures.
I'm doing what I can.
He could prevent this with an executive order.
The statute in this case permits it, but he's not doing executive order.
He's letting the Justice Department object and appeal all the way to the Supreme Court.
If they file a half-assed brief, the judges look at the government's brief and say, they really don't care about this.
Okay, we'll side with the Second Circuit.
And the pictures can come out.
So therefore, just because he opposes the release of the pictures does not mean they will not be released.
So he's going to, I think, get two birds with one stone here.
And when the pictures come out, when the court rules against the government, he's going to go on and tell them, I tried everything I could, whatever teleprompter says him to say, that he's going to have it both ways.
His buddies on the left are going to get what they want, the pictures released, and he's going to be able to say, I stood up and opposed it.
When the truth is, an executive order will take care of this hook line and slinker once and for all right now.
But he's not going that route.
Your guiding light, a man, a legend, a way of life.
Learn it.
Love it.
Live it.
One more audio soundbite vis-a-vis Nancy Pelosi.
This is last night on Hannibal's show on Fox.
He had Carl Rove on.
Questioned Stenny Hoyer yesterday was reportedly saying, yes, we're going to have this truth commission.
What did they know?
When did they know it?
Pelosi and torture and so forth.
And everybody interpreted that to mean, what did Nancy Pelosi know?
When does she know it?
Is there a little infighting going on for power in the Democrat House?
Are these Democrats now willing to say, you know, Nancy Pelosi knew about these techniques?
She was complicit in them.
She remained silent.
She, in fact, encouraged their use.
Are they now willing to say she's an accomplice and has to be investigated and prosecuted?
If not, then we can all conclude that this is nothing but political showmanship and an attempt to smear the previous administration.
If they can't be consistent with Nancy Pelosi's lies, then we can dismiss them as being serious claims.
That is an excellent point because if we're going to go after and try to destroy Bush and Cheney on this whole torture business and Pelosi knew about it and didn't say anything and didn't stop it, and they don't go after Pelosi, then they're finished.
Dick Cheney gets results.
To the phones we go.
We're going to start where?
San Francisco, this is Dave.
You're up first.
It's great to have you here.
Hello.
Thank you, Rush.
I appreciate you taking the call first.
And like I told us in early, there are still a few of us left out here in the Western leftist coast.
But my comment is pretty straightforward.
I want to draw a parallel between Nancy Pelosi basically saying I didn't get the briefing.
I can't believe that some staffer then didn't take a recorded, you know, written down.
They got to have a report on these briefings.
She should have read that.
And the parallel is they're saying they passed the stimulus bill, but they never did.
They didn't read that.
And now she's saying, I did this other thing and I agreed to all this and I let it go by myself.
Well, but when I went just to the stimulus bill, she wrote that, so she didn't need to read it.
And that's so true.
It's exactly my point.
Either it's a bold-faced lie or she did, in fact, read it.
Well, nobody's believing that she did not know what was briefed.
Jane Harmon sent a letter.
Now, Jane Harmon and Pelosi don't get along, and they haven't for a long time.
I mean, it's Queen Bee syndrome.
It's the Queen Bee syndrome.
And by the way, I want to warn all of you, lurking in the background, invisible in all of this, is Mrs. Clinton.
Keep in mind, Mrs. Clinton is there, and Pelosi may be in the process of self-destructing.
And Obama, who knows in four years what his fate is going to be.
Pelosi whacked Harmon.
She was supposed to chair the Intel Committee, and Harmon didn't get it.
Queen Bee syndrome.
So, but you're right.
Common sense.
She's the chairman of the committee.
She is a control freak.
She knows everything going on on her committee and in her caucus.
And on this one instance, well, there was a briefing, but I wasn't told.
I didn't know.
I was busy.
I was fighting the Iraq war at the time.
But don't confuse it with a stimulus because she wrote that.
She knows every syllable in the stimulus.
Yvonne in Tampa, Florida.
You're next on the EIB network.
Hi.
Thanks, Rush.
I just had a question.
Do you think it's possible that President Obama came into office with a liberal mindset that he was fed for years in the academia, no real-world experience, and he comes in with an agenda, and then all of a sudden he's confronted with the real world.
Well, let me answer evil.
There are two answers to this.
Let me answer this as David Brooks, David Frum, or others might answer it.
We have to give Obama credit.
This was a brilliant.
When he does the right thing, we have to give him credit.
This is the absolute right thing to do.
And we've known all along that Obama was not the liberal crazo that everybody thought.
He's a moderate centrist governing from the center.
And therefore, Obama, this is a wonderful and great thing to do.
We've got to lead the charge.
Obama did the right thing.
That's the pseudo-intellectual conservative view.
The truth is, he's incompetent.
He is every bit the radical leftist he's always been.
This isn't changing his mind about anything.
What is happening, if anything, is that the import of his job, You know, he's got a very fine line to walk.
I was just talking about this.
His base loves anything that inflames anti-American opinion.
During the campaign, he inflamed anti-American opinion.
As a senator, he voted to inflame anti-American opinion.
In his early days as president, he ran around the world apologizing, inflaming, and encouraging anti-American opinion.
But now, I'm telling you, somebody got to him because look at it.
He followed his instincts.
His instincts were to release the pictures.
His instincts were to let the terrorists go in the United States on the street.
Somebody somewhere said, wait a minute, for your own self-preservation, you can't release these pictures.
You're in the Senate.
You're on the presidential campaign talking about how all this torture has ruined our image.
Well, you're America now, pal.
If you release the pictures, it's going to hurt you politically.
Don't mistake a political calculation.
Karl Rose said the other night that this bunch spends two hours a night in the White House going over the day's polling results to figure out what to do and where to be and what language to put on the teleprompter for the Messiah to repeat.
Two hours a night.
So what has happened is somebody said, you can't, it's going to harm you.
Remember, everything's about him.
These pictures are going to harm you.
You want to harm America.
There are ways to do that.
You're taking care of that domestically.
If you want to harm America, just keep doing your domestic policy and save your butt with these pictures.
And don't release these prisoners.
The Germans wouldn't take them.
The French, the Spain, Spanish.
It's just.
No, answer your question.
He's not learning the truth.
He's having to set himself aside in one area, and it's got to be painful.
I'm sure Michelle's giving him grief up there in the residence like you can't believe.
Nancy Pelosi fighting for her career today in Washington.
She is being waterboarded, finding out what it's like.
▲
Export Selection