All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 4, 2009 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:44
December 4, 2009, Friday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
I'm only the fill-in, but I think I can pull the following off.
I think I can take the two big tablight stories of the week, summarize them in ten seconds, and make an incredibly important public policy point at the same time.
Here's what here it could, I'm only the fill-in, so it might not work, but I'm gonna give it my best shot.
Why didn't Tiger Woods want his wife to talk to the police in Florida?
The same reason Obama doesn't want Desiree Rogers talking to Congress about the crashers at the White House.
It's the exact same reason.
Tiger didn't want his wife talking because she'd be telling things that they didn't want anybody to know.
And Obama doesn't want Desiree Rogers, who's the social secretary at the White House, under oath, talking to Congress because she's the person who knows how those crashers got in.
It's the same story.
Whenever someone doesn't want someone else to talk, the answer is always the same.
It's because they know what that person's going to say.
All right.
How'd they do?
It wasn't 10 seconds.
Did I not tie those two stories together perfectly?
You want to get to the bottom of that crasher story, you gotta get Desiree Rogers.
In fact, I'm I'm gonna get to that later on.
Going to do that.
I want to talk about the uh where we are with regard to Afghanistan.
I've listened to Russia's take on this, and I'm about 95% in the same place.
I want to throw out my ideas here, but I also want to talk about how we've gotten to the point where the guy who got the Nobel Peace Prize four or five weeks later is escalating a war.
It's all weird stuff.
Everything's upside down right now.
The only Americans that are showing any support for this are Republicans, and that's tepid.
His own party is wandering around dazed.
The lefties who were dreaming of this new peaceful, peace-loving president, all those people that have that stupid coexist bumper sticker.
You guys have these out here?
The coexist bumper sticker, you don't know what that is.
Well, there are no cars here.
I'm in New York.
I get they're out of the cab, so therefore you wouldn't see them.
All the people who have the coexist bumper stickers, that's Obama's crowd.
And they turn on the television, and here he is, escalating a foreign war.
So we can kill terrorists.
This is the thing that they've been griping about for eight years with Bush, and now they see their guy doing it.
It's the whole world's upside down.
What a stress where we are.
Boston Globe.
Three years after Barack Obama strongly rebuked President Bush's surge of U.S. troops to Iraq, Obama dispatched top administration officials to Capitol Hill yesterday to defend a surge of his own.
In testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Defense Secretary Robert Gates referenced Iraq more than a dozen times, signaling that Bush's last ditch military push has been used as an inspiration, if not a blueprint, by President Obama's military advisors.
Wow.
Think where we are right now.
You've got the Obama administration trying to convince the country of the wisdom of his Afghanistan plan because it's just like what Bush did.
This is a good idea.
It's exactly what we did in Iraq.
The surge is brilliant public policy.
We're going to model our entire war plan on what George W. Bush did.
This is beautiful stuff.
Didn't this guy get himself elected president by running around for a year ripping on the surge and saying it wasn't going to work?
Didn't Harry Reed declare six weeks after the surge started that the war in Iraq was lost?
Didn't all of these lefties mock Bush?
Wasn't Cheney Cheney described as a warmongering idiot?
Wasn't this terrible?
Oh, it's not going to work.
It's not going to work.
It's so stupid.
It's just more warmongering.
He wants to keep his oil war going.
This surge, it just surged.
I don't know what that surges, surge and deaths.
That's what that's going to be.
Remember all this?
And now here we are, somehow, what day did this happen, by the way?
That the surge went from being idiotic and stupid and Bush was a moron to Bush being the military strategist of all time, the man upon whom President Obama is going to stake the credibility of his presidency on every senator that raised the question yesterday.
I'm not sure.
Well, no, don't I don't you understand?
It's so much like what we did in Iraq.
How do you know what's going to work?
It's exactly what we did in Iraq, and that worked.
How many times the gates have to tell us what we did in Iraq worked?
And the beauty of this, of course, is that the defense secretary himself, Gates, was Bush's defense secretary.
So all you lefties out there.
Do you want to come clean?
Do you want to start your 12-step program?
Without saying, you know, I was wrong about everything.
The Obama administration is now acknowledging that the surge policy was brilliant.
You took a war that was becoming a quagmire, Iraq, and turned it into a glorious success.
In fact, Iraq is so successful that we are being told that if everything works out perfectly, Afghanistan will be just like Iraq.
They're making Iraq right now sound like the Garden of Eden.
Utopia.
So we'll offer a platform here for all of you liberals who mocked and ridiculed President Bush and said the surge was terrible policy, and that the surge wasn't going to work, and the surge was only going to serve to further divide Iraq and further kill more American soldiers, to come clean and join with your president and acknowledge.
Not only did the surge work, we're going to model every single war we ever fight for all time after the surge.
This is going they're going, they're turning this surge into D-Day.
What turned World War II around when we finally invaded the European mainland and started pushing the Germans back?
It took two and a half years to do it, but then we did it.
And D-Day was considered the turning point of World War II.
Just as the surge is now being defined as the defining moment, the turning point of the war in Iraq.
Isn't this beautiful stuff?
The Obama administration trying to convince a reluctant country that the war in Afghanistan can be won because he's going to model his policy after that of President George W. Bush.
The beautiful thing about being a conservative is not only having the confidence of knowing you're right when you're expressing your opinions at the time you're expressing them, but of also being able to sit back and watch the inevitable.
And it happens on every single issue.
In which liberals come around to your point of view.
They never ever will say, you know, you guys were right.
They'll just grab the idea and act as though their total and adamant opposition to it never actually happened.
Surge worked.
Policy is going to be just like the surge.
So Greenpeace, Freedom Flotilla, all these organizations out there, they're now faced with either blasting a policy and saying it's idiotic and irresponsible, or supporting the president of the United States, whose policy is premised entirely on that, of President Bush.
There's a but at the end of all of this.
I don't think we can equate Iraq and Afghanistan.
It's just like Obama to finally come around and understand that if you want to win a war, you need to have enough troops to win the war, but then screw it up and do it wrong.
I'm not sold on this policy.
The difference between Bush's surge and Obama's surge is.
is that Obama's surge doesn't seem to be premised on winning the war in Afghanistan.
The whole point of his surge seems to be to figure out how to get out of Afghanistan.
We never had a timetable on the surge in Iraq.
The Democrats kept trying to put one on, but President Bush didn't do it.
He said we were going to stay in Iraq until we achieved our military goals.
Now, President Obama is saying, well, 19 months we're going to be pulling troops back out of Afghanistan.
What's the point in telling the enemy that?
What if we haven't achieved our goals in 19 months?
What are we going to do then?
If we haven't prevailed in 19 months, are we going to pull back or not?
And if the answer is we are going to pull back, then why not quit now?
If we're not going to fight the war for the purpose of winning, then don't fight it.
The problem with the timetable isn't merely that you're telling everyone how long you intend to fight.
The problem with the timetable is that it's making it very, very clear that the whole goal of Afghanistan is to get out of Afghanistan.
I have my own doubts about whether or not Afghanistan is the be all and end all.
I have disagreements with many of my fellow conservatives on this.
I'm not sure that keeping the Taliban from power in Afghanistan is the most important foreign policy goal of the United States right now.
But if it is, we've got to do this right.
If we're going to send troops in, they have to have a goal.
And here's a goal that Barack Obama will never utter.
Their goal has to be to go and kill as many Taliban as possible.
If the goal is to permanently get rid of the threat of the Taliban returning to power in Afghanistan, there's only one way to do that.
We have to get rid of Taliban.
Running them into Pakistan or running them into another country doesn't solve anything because the moment we leave, they can come back.
We have to kill them.
He can talk all he wants about the flowery words about helping build up the Afghan government, build up the Afghan security forces, protect the Afghan people.
But we're not accomplishing anything unless we go out and kill Taliban.
That's what the surge in Iraq was.
We looked aft we we went after Al Qaeda.
We went after the old remnants of the Bath Party.
We looked after we went after the insurgents that came in from Syria.
We found them in the neighborhoods of Baghdad and the other cities, blew those neighborhoods up, killed them, got the survivors to run out into the desert where we killed them.
Iraq settled down because we killed most of the bad guys.
I don't see anything in the policy of President Obama in Afghanistan that this is going to be a killing process.
He's talking about all the wrong things, and he's then setting a deadline that he gets to run away.
If he's so determined to run away from Afghanistan, he should run away now.
This reminds me of Nixon in Vietnam.
Nixon came in in 1969 and didn't do anything to win the Vietnam War and bailed out four years later, costing a lot of Americans their lives and accomplishing nothing in that four-year interim.
If the president isn't willing to fight to win and isn't willing to commit open-ended to staying in Afghanistan until we achieve our goals, then he should bail out now.
There's no point in fighting a war if we aren't going to fight it until we win it.
If we're going to quit, quit now and don't get anyone else killed.
1 800 282 2882 is the telephone number.
My name is Mark Bellings sitting in for Rush Limbaugh.
I'm Mark Belling sitting in for Rush Limbaugh.
Let's go to uh Erie, Pennsylvania.
Laura, Laura, it's your turn on EIB.
Hi there, Mark.
Merry Christmas and happy holidays to all the listeners.
Um, I just wanted to comment on this Afghanistan speech.
Uh, my husband and I are retired military, and you know, for all of those that are gonna go over and all the families, we just wish them the best in this.
But the the sentence that kind of bothered me in this speech was he prefaced it one sentence by saying, This is in our national interest, we must do this.
And then the very next sentence is, but there will be a timetable.
And like you were just saying, yeah, I mean, if it's in our national interest, why is there a time table?
Well, that's the whole problem with the timetable and why eighteen or nineteen months, why not twenty-three or why not eleven?
Where did this magically come from?
It's just silly.
And the reason he did it is because this is not a military plan.
This isn't a war plan.
This plan has nothing to do with prevailing in Afghanistan.
This is a political plan.
He realizes that his base on the left and the Democratic Party doesn't want us to be fighting in Afghanistan at all.
Even though they all talked about Afghanistan as being the good war when they're opposing the Iraq war in 07 and 08, they don't want to fight the war.
So he throws them a bone by saying, Well, okay, we're gonna surge and I'm gonna send more troops in, but it'll only be for a little while.
So he tries to please the people on the left and pe please the people on the right.
The difference between that and the way President Bush ran the war in Iraq, since Iraq is now apparently the model for the Obama administration, is that President Bush sta waged his entire he didn't care about his political popularity.
He went out as an extremely unpopular president, and the Iraq war was very unpopular right up until about the point that he won it.
He wasn't worried about appeasing the left or the right.
He did what in the end he felt was right.
He further accepted that the policy that they had in Iraq post the invasion, post Saddam, wasn't working and needed to be changed.
That was not a political calculation.
The political calculation would have been to simply leave after we knocked off Saddam.
Instead, Bush did what he felt was the right way to win the war.
The Obama plan here is totally political.
Throw a timeline out so that the left isn't upset, and send a surge in so that those individuals who believe that we have to be tough on terror aren't upset.
There's nothing in this that indicates a coherent policy at all.
And that's what bothers me about it.
I don't like the notion of comparing everything to Vietnam and making Vietnam the analogy for all wars, but there's a Vietnam quality to this.
We are fighting a political war rather than a military war, and we're allowing public opinion to guide our decisions on the war, not what our military goals are.
And also, Mark, you know, to send that many more, if you're if you don't care whether it's victory or not in 18 months, it's just gonna make 30,000 more uh, you know, of our honorable men and women feel, you know, like they are not doing their job.
And and and their morale will go down.
It's just sad.
It's it's just a very sad you know thing for all of us that we're military members.
And I I just want to say again, God bless everyone that served and everyone through this holiday season.
Well, how would you like to be the soldiers being sent over there?
Boy, this really inspires them.
Not we're going to go over there and we're going to prevail.
Not we're going to knock off the forces of evil that are denying freedom in Afghanistan.
We're going to go there because we have to.
Everything about that presentation was a speech of reluctance.
I hate the fact that we have to do this, but it's in our national interest to do it.
But you know what?
Don't worry because we won't be doing it for very long.
He acts like somebody who's been given a penance by the priest after confession, say fifteen Hail Marys, okay.
After 15 Ale Marys, I get to leave the church.
That's not what this is supposed to be.
We're fighting a war here.
If President Lincoln had said after the Fort Sumter, after the first shots are fired at Fort Sumter, you know, we're not going to allow the Southerners to split away from the Union.
We're going to go to war with them until March of 1863.
Guess what?
We wouldn't have won the war.
If President Roosevelt, after the Japanese hit Pearl Harbor, told the nation, we're going to fight back, we're going to prevail.
Until early 1943, we wouldn't have won the war.
Remember Winston Churchill's speech during the Blitz of London?
London was being bombed away into nothing.
And he got up and he said, We're going to fight, we're going to fight here, and we're going to fight there, and we will never give up.
We will never give up.
Obama just told America, as he tried to rally support for a war.
We're going to give up in 19 months.
Hope we win it by then.
What kind of a war policy is that?
See you wonder why I'm skeptical about the whole thing, and I question whether or not it's that huge of a priority anyway.
I don't know that the Taliban is the greatest threat in the world, Al Qaeda's the greatest threat in the world.
The Taliban in Afghanistan may or may not be something that we need to deal with.
But if we are going to deal with it, if it's going to be a national priority if we're gonna put all of this money and risk all of these lives, fighting a bloody war in that terrible country, then we ought to be fighting it to win it, not fighting it for the purpose of seeing how quickly we can run home.
My name is Mark Belling sitting in for Rush Limbaugh.
Mentioned at the top of the hour that Defense Secretary Gates, and for that matter, everybody else who's trying to rally support for the president's surge in Afghanistan, keeps comparing this to Iraq.
In Gates' testimony yesterday, he keeps saying that all of the timelines that are in place were timelines based on what happened in Iraq.
Quoting from news account, Gates said Afghanistan's most peaceful areas could be handed over as soon as July of 2011.
Well, at the very same time we could have extraordinarily heavy combat going on in other provinces around the country, which is exactly what we saw in Iraq.
Later he said that once security is re-established, Afghans themselves could seek a speedy U.S. departure, just as Iraqis did.
Left unsaid was the fact that Obama and many of his current advisors opposed Bush's surge in Iraq.
Now, I want to you to drop an image that at first would seem very, very unpleasant.
I want you to imagine right now Keith Olberman.
I know.
Now imagine Keith Olbermann sitting around there in the MSNBC newsroom wherever he sits around, listening to the defense secretary, a Barack Obama, his hope and change guy, begging the country to just understand this can work.
We're doing it just like Bush did in Iraq.
It's going to work just the way it did for President Bush.
These lefties have to be having internal connections right now.
They're trying to convince everyone that they can be as good at running a war as President Bush.
If so, I've got some advice for them.
Dick Cheney's not really doing much of anything right now.
Bring him in as a consultant.
Let's bring Cheney back.
And once we get things going, let's hand out a few contracts over there to Halliburton.
You want to run the war our way.
Bring in President Bush.
He'll tell you how to do it.
The whole team's still available.
As long as you're going to copy the Iraq war plan.
Bayville, North Carolina.
Michael, it's your turn on the Rush Limbaugh program.
Oh, how do you do, Mr. Belling?
I'm great, thank you.
I thought it was kind of interesting that these Democrats, when uh President Obama was sending the troops over, he gave a timeline for the withdrawal of these troops.
Then you have an individual like Martha and a few others that are complaining that you cannot have a timeline.
It won't work, it's silly, blah, blah, blah.
You go back to President Bush, and that's all they were complaining about.
No benchmarks, no time line.
Yeah.
I know all of a sudden you've got guys like Mertha who don't want a timeline.
You know, they act as though the surge in Iraq occurred in 1647.
It happened two and three years ago for crying out loud.
What we don't remember these things?
They were the people that demanded that we then have the timelines.
The reason we were able to prevail in Iraq was the insurgents who were coming in across the border from Syria, the Al Qaeda reinforcements, and the Bath Party loyalists thought they could wait us out.
That was Saddam's grand plan before he got hung.
The Americans can't take it.
The Americans won't last.
The Americans can't stomach a long fight.
We just have to wait them out.
Yeah, we'll get knocked off, but then we're gonna take potshots and pot shots and pot shots, And the Americans will quit, they will run.
President Bush made it very clear by the surge.
We aren't going anywhere until we win.
We're gonna kill all you guys.
And gradually we did.
And we built confidence in the new government in Iraq that things could be peaceful there.
By the way, Iraq violence is on the way up too.
It's not a coincidence that Afghanistan started becoming problematic, and violence in Iraq is picked up, and it all started to turn around in January of 2009.
The difference is that we now have a president that our enemies think doesn't have the stomach for the fight and will cut and run, which is precisely what's wrong with a timetable.
But you for identifying that John Mertha isn't exactly consistent.
You deserve credit for that, Michael, but it's not the biggest revelation in the world.
To uh Newville, Indiana, and Joe O'Joey are on the EIB network.
Hey, thanks for taking my call.
I do appreciate it.
Thank you.
I'm sitting here, my head is spinning.
I'm ex-military, twelve years, United States Army, I'm a proud American, and I believe if the country goes to war, then it's the obligatory duty of our government to eliminate the enemy whatever it means necessary.
With that being said, we are not going to win in Afghanistan.
Hannibal could not win in Afghanistan.
The Russian Army could not win in Afghanistan.
The United States military cannot.
And that's not a slight on the United States military.
We're the finest in the world.
These are just my opinions and they're humble of why we're not going to be able to win.
Number one, they are a tribal third world country.
Rocks in the hut.
The key the key is tribal, and I'm gonna I'm gonna let you make the other two points.
When we say tribal, they are not a nation like Iraq where Iraq had a strong central government.
Saddam and the Bath Party ran everything other than maybe some of the things that were going on in the Kurdish areas, but there was a strong central government, and each of the cities had individual governments that were supported from the central government.
There always has been, and these hamlets, I mean, some cases as small as thirty people, others five hundred, six hundred people, they're all run by chiefs.
They're all independent of one another.
They don't answer to the central government.
They're all different.
It is a very, very different kind of dynamic.
You're right about that.
Go on to your second point.
And I couldn't have said it any better.
I guess that's why you have the talk show.
I didn't mean to overwhelm your point, but I think that that's all right.
It's a key thing for people to understand that when we talk about a tribal nature, we're not just saying that these people are barbarian.
It's that it is not a form of government that is easy to centralize and take control of because each of these chiefs has different agendas, and nobody feels as though they're part of a large overall nation.
They're far more loyal to the chief and the tribe that they're a part of.
Anyway, go on to your second point.
Absolutely.
Thank you.
The second the second thing is the government that we have over there is a completely corrupt government.
Kazai and his brother is a big drug lord.
They won't do anything about the millions of poppy feels all over the place.
It it's just corrupt government, so we don't have anything to work with.
And the third point, and this is the this is what breaks my heart.
This has nothing to do with Democrat or Republican.
This has to do with loving your country.
What are we saying when the commander in chief turns around?
The only reason he's sending these troops is so that he can turn around and in sixteen months say I told you so, and he's gonna pull them out.
And our boys are gonna lose arms and legs and lives with a weak president that I personally believe has a disdain for America, and also has no absolute what are they gonna do?
Send these Marines in there with little um little cards that say you have the right to remain silent, anything can be said against you.
It's it's it's a tragedy what's happening in this country, and I am ashamed of our government.
They this these people in power have no common sense.
These people go into Wall Street from uh i into into uh Washington Avenue, Washington Square, and they lose common sense and they lose such with average Americans.
Well, except you're the the difference here is that Barack Obama never had any common sense.
We're having a war run by a guy who for all of his life made fun of people who felt that war at times is necessary.
This is some what he's doing here is something he's looked down his nose at his entire life and that's not an exaggeration.
He opposed the surge in Iraq.
He mocked it, he ridiculed it.
He's now doing something that he fundamentally doesn't believe in, which is why he's setting up timetables.
It's not just so that the troops can come home, it's so that he can come home.
The timetable is so that he doesn't have to Lead a war past sixteen or seventeen months.
This is not anything that's part of any core philosophy of his.
He's a president who's running a war that he wishes that he wasn't going to run.
As for the other points that you make, I think they're all pretty good about whether or not you can prevail in Afghanistan.
I do think this, without regard to winning, I think you can manage Afghanistan to the point that our national interests are served.
From my perspective, the key in Afghanistan is we do not want it to be a haven for Al Qaeda.
I think you can do that without eliminating the Taliban threat.
The Taliban isn't Al Qaeda.
The Taliban were the people that allowed Al Qaeda to come in.
Al Qaeda right now seems to be determined to take control of Somalia.
Somalia is the new Afghanistan.
Somalia is also a nation that has been through civil war for 20 years.
There's a terrible Muslim terrorism component to it.
Twenty-two people were killed yesterday.
It was a savage attack on medical students who were graduating to become doctors.
They were killed in a suicide attack in Somalia.
It looks like Al Qaeda wants to make Somalia the new base of operations for attacking the West.
My own belief is that our policy with regard to terrorism needs to be more of a flexible one in which we have rapid strikes and go after Al Qaeda wherever they choose to set up rather than get involved in intense nation building in a country like Afghanistan.
While the administration is determined to compare everything that they're doing in Afghanistan to what happened in Iraq, which as I said is kind of funny.
Afghanistan and Iraq aren't the same countries.
Afghanistan had whether Iraq had far more strategic importance because of where it is, because of its oil, because of the fact that it's a large country that had a fairly strong military.
If the problem is terrorism and the problem is Al Qaeda, I don't know that we're doing the right thing by sending 35,000 more troops into Afghanistan, particularly when you pick up the paper and you see that Al Qaeda is going strong right now in Somalia.
Maybe we ought to be trying to strike them there and let them know that wherever they cause trouble, that's where we're going to hit them, as opposed to putting all of our cards in the Afghan basket.
The problem with trying to persuade President Obama of any of this is that he's got his fingers at his ears.
He's fighting this war, but that he doesn't want to fight, that his defense secretary is telling him that he has to fight.
He knows his lefty base is going to be upset about it, so he comes up with a proposal that has nothing to do with military strategy.
It has nothing to do with geopolitics.
It doesn't even have really anything to do with Afghanistan.
It's aimed at making everyone happy.
And in the end, it probably isn't going to work because he's going to screw it up because he's not committed to it in the first place.
I'm Mark Belling sitting in for Rush Limbaugh.
I'm Mark Belling sitting in for Rush.
There's no way I leave today without telling the story about off-track betting in New York City.
I know that none of you think that that can possibly be relevant to anything.
In fact, it's relevant to everything.
Remind me of that.
Don't let me forget that.
Gotta do that.
George Will on Afghanistan, and George Will's a guy he wants out.
He writes, having vowed to finish the job, Obama revealed at Tuesday that he thinks the job in Afghanistan is to get out of Afghanistan.
This is an unserious policy.
Obama's surge will bring to 51,000 his Afghanistan escalation since March.
Supposedly this will buy time for Afghan forces to become adequate.
But it is not intended to buy much time.
Although the war is in its 98th month, Obama's mission accomplished banner will be unfurled 19 months from now.
When Afghanistan's security forces supposedly will be self-sufficient, he must know this will not happen.
The president's party will not support his new policy.
His budget will not accommodate it.
Our overstretched and worn down military will be hard pressed to execute it, and Americans' patients will not be commensurate with Afghanistan's limitless demands for it.
This will not end well.
A case can be made for a serious, meaning larger and more protracted surge.
A better case can be made for a radically reduced investment of resources and prestige in that forlorn country.
Obama has not made a convincing case for his tentative surgelet.
George Orwell said that the quickest way to end a war is to lose it.
But Obama's half-hearted embrace of a half-baked non-strategy, briefly fainting toward the Taliban while lunging for the exit ramp, makes a protracted loss probable.
That's my problem with this, and I'm breaking company with a lot of my conservative friends here.
I have serious doubts that this surge is going to work.
Because the president isn't committed to it, and because I just see him advertising that he intends to bail out sixty ones.
Well, we tried.
What's that going to sell the t tell the terrorist world?
We've already accomplished a lot in Afghanistan now.
The Taliban is a shell of what it once was, and Al Qaeda's essentially gone.
Most of the Al Qaeda operatives who had been in Afghanistan have run away to Pakistan or are dead.
To say that we're going to crush the Taliban and make that a major priority, but only crush them for 18 months is a total non-strategy.
The administration today is running around suggesting that this timetable isn't really firm, that it's flexible since they're getting so much grief from both the right and the left on it.
So all of a sudden, the speech he gave on Tuesday is being modified on Friday.
All because you've got a president who's making a war plan that I think he himself doesn't buy into.
By the way, in his address Tuesday night, the president said that we know the terrorists are seeking nuclear weapons, and that if they get their hands on them, they will use them.
That's what Barack Obama said.
Isn't that exactly what President Bush said about going to war in Iraq?
Which Barack Obama and the Democrats so ridiculed.
For the last eight years, I've been listening to people, liberals, argue that Bush was hyping the terror threat as an excuse to make war.
Yet Obama was giving a speech Tuesday night that was right out of the Bush playbook.
It was President Bush's rhetoric.
The one thing we can say with certainty that has happened this week is that President Bush's decision to fight in Iraq and fight with a surge has been vindicated since President Bush's decision,
his language, his rhetoric has now been co-opted by Barack Obama, the man who only a year and a half ago was ridiculing it.
I'm Mark Belling sitting in for Rush.
I'm Mark Belling sitting in for Rush.
Tomorrow, the University of Florida plays the University of Alabama, both unbeaten.
The winner goes to the BCS championship game.
Urban Meyer is the coach of Florida.
Can you imagine him telling his team right before they go on the field?
Guys, we're gonna fight very, very hard.
National championship is at stake.
You're gonna go out there and play for exactly three hours and seven minutes.
Coach, what if the game lasts three hours and twenty-four minutes?
You'd think Urban Meyer was an idiot.
If he told his team to go out and play hard for a period of time rather than until the game is over.
Well, a football coach would be an idiot for thinking that way.
What would you say about a commander-in-chief?
To Orange County, California and Lisa Lisa, it's your turn on the Russian Limbaugh program with Mark Belling.
Hi, Mark.
My point quickly is Eric Holder was explaining that the reason colleague Sheikh Mohammed and his co-conspirators are being tried in federal court is because unlike those that are being tried in the military tribunal, the folks in the military tribunal attacked the USS Cole, which is a military target.
Well, Obama in his speech at the West Point reminded us of 9-11 and why we're fighting this war in the first place.
And he said that on 9-11, civilian and military targets were attacked.
So he needs to get with his attorney general and decide whether or not uh Eric Holder's reason for finding holes in the things that these people are saying is so easy.
The whole lot you're raising the Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.
I mean, it's ridiculous to say that we're going to try people on civilian court when they attack us here.
In other words, we're going to give them a preferable venue when they attack us here as opposed to overseas.
You're also right that Obama in his presentation said that the attack on 9 11 was both military and civilian.
They're off the playbook right now.
What President you we know what the playbook is.
The terrorism threat is overstated.
All I have to do is go down and meet with everyone and extend a hand to the Islamic world and the terrorism would end.
Bush's warmongering policy was that's where the that's what they thought would happen, and it's what their supporters believe in.
What President Obama is doing right now is scrambling.
He's like the quarterback whose past protection is break is breaking down.
He's scrambling, he's running around and making it up as he goes up goes along.
He never dreamed he'd be pushing for a surge in Afghanistan because he never believed it.
We have a president of the United States who right now is running blind.
▲
Export Selection