Rush Limbaugh Program - July 26, 2010, Monday, Hour #2

All Episodes

Previous Next

July 26, 2010 - Rush Limbaugh Program

34:33

July 26, 2010, Monday, Hour #2

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	The views expressed by the host on this show make more sense than anything anybody else out there happens to be saying, and there's a reason for that.
	The views expressed by the host on this show are the result of a daily, relentless, and unstoppable pursuit of the truth.
	It's great to have you with us, folks.
	A telephone number if you'd want to join us, 800-282-2882, and the email address, lrushbow at EIBnet.com.
	You know what struck me?
	Did you watch any of the Sunday shows yesterday, Snerdley?
	Can you there was a there was a topic.
	There was a person suspiciously absent from the Sunday shows yesterday.
	At least, as far as I know, they didn't do much on Shirley Sherrod yesterday, did they?
	Well, they didn't have her on, but they didn't even talk about Shirley Sherrod.
	Now, why do you think, I mean, all week, I mean, it was intense, intense, and they want it.
	Why do they want it to go away?
	Why do they want this really?
	The race thing's hurting Obama, but they think playing the race card is going to help them.
	But I found it fascinating after building up the entire week about what a racist Breitbart was, or is, and, of course, the usual complaint that I, El Rushbo, your guiding light, am a racist.
	Here comes the perfect fora to take care of all of this, and not one of them goes there.
	Not one of them.
	What happened to this story?
	What happened to the partisan political operatives?
	They just dropped the ball on this.
	After demanding context, they got context.
	We got the whole speech of Shirley Sherrod.
	Somebody's got to figure out here why was she speaking to the NAA LCP anyway?
	This notion that she is a woman who was terribly wronged and has had an epiphany and is not motivated by race anymore, but simply motivated by equalizing between the haves and the have-nots.
	Why was she there in the first place?
	I mean, the NAA LCP is not known for having softies show up and speak to them.
	Yeah, I saw Maureen Dowd's column.
	Maureen Dowd's column is amazing.
	Yesterday, New York Times, Obama needs some real black people in there.
	Obama needs some genuine slave blood in his administration because there isn't anybody in there that really understands what's going on out there.
	Do I have it here?
	I think I have it near the Geithner tax cuts.
	Yeah, here it is.
	Maureen Dowd, you'll never believe what the White House is missing.
	The Obama White House is too white.
	Who is it that's saying all this?
	Certainly not us.
	You know, the Democrats, they're not just race baiters, they're race baiters and switchers.
	After they baited everybody with race last week, you would expect Shirley Sheridan to show up, or at least a story to be expounded upon on the Sunday shows, and it didn't happen.
	So what Maureen Dowd wants is more typical black people in the White House.
	He doesn't want the Obama type of black people, which is what?
	What kind of black person is Obama if he's not the right kind?
	He's the magic kind.
	It's not working.
	The Obama White House is too white.
	It has Obama raised in Hawaiian hood and Indonesia and Valerie Jarrett, who spent her early years in Iran.
	But unlike Bill Clinton, the first black president, who never needed help understanding southern black culture, Obama lacks advisors who are descended from the central African-American experience, ones who understand, quote-unquote, the slave thing, As a top black Democrat dryly puts it, which just another way of saying Obama is not down for the struggle.
	Maybe Obama needs to speak with more of a Negro dialect, you know, like Harry Reid once said that he's capable of doing.
	Laureen Dowd, the first black president, should expand beyond his campaign security blanket, the smug cordon of over-protective white guys surrounding him, a long political tradition underscored by Geraldine Ferraro.
	Otherwise, this administration will keep tripping over race rather than inspiring on race.
	The West Wing white guys who pushed to ditch Shirley Sherrod before Glenn Beck could pounce not only didn't bother to Google, they weren't familiar enough with civil rights history to recognize the name Sherrod.
	And they didn't return the calls and email of prominent blacks that tried to alert them that something was wrong out there.
	Charles Sherrod, Shirley's husband, stand by Soundbite 23.
	I mean, really stand by on Soundbite 23.
	I mean, folks, don't go anywhere.
	And wait for Soundbite 23.
	Charles Sherrod, the husband of Shirley Sherrod.
	By the way, does she pronounce it Sherrod?
	I've heard it both ways, and I'm.
	Okay, well, we'll stick with Sherrod.
	Oh, yes.
	Charles Sherrod, Shirley's husband, was a freedom writer who, along with the civil rights hero John Lewis, was a key member of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee of the 60s.
	As Lewis, the longtime Georgia congressman, told the Atlanta urinal constipation, he knew immediately that something was amiss with the distorted video clip of Sherrod talking to the NAA LCP.
	He said, I have known these two individuals, the husband for more than 50 years, the wife for at least 35 or 40, and there's not a racist hair on their heads or any place else on their bodies.
	We may not have a nation of cowards on race, as Eric Holler contended, but we may have a West wing of cowards on race, writes Maureen Dowd.
	The president appears completely comfortable in his own skin, but it seems he feels that he and Michelle are such a huge change for the nation to absorb that he can be overly cautious about pushing for other societal change for blacks and gays.
	At some level, he acts like the election was enough.
	He shouldn't have to deal with race any further, but he does.
	His closest advisors are so terrified that Fox and a tea party will paint Obama as doing more for blacks that they tiptoe around and do less.
	Who knew that the first black president would make it even harder on black people? asked a top black Democrat official.
	Do you believe this?
	They actually think Obama's making it harder on black people.
	It's the same impulse that caused Obama campaign workers to refuse to let Muslim women with head scarves sit in camera range during a rally.
	Congressman James Clyburn of South Carolina, a black lawmaker, said, I don't think a single person was consulted before Shirley Sherrod was fired.
	I mean, come on.
	The president's getting hurt real bad, Clyburn told Maureen Dowd.
	He needs some black people around him.
	He needs some black people around him.
	The Obama White House is too white.
	Well, let's go to the audio soundbites.
	We're wondering why this subject just dropped like a hot potato before the highly quote-unquote, influentials UH Sunday shows.
	By the way, this organization that Charles Sharrod that was part of key member the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee OF the 60S that was, that was taken over at some point by Stokely Carmichael and then by H Rap Brown UH, whose members went on to form the OLD Black Panthers that was the organization Shirley Herrod's husband was was part of.
	In october 1961, Charles Sharrod became the first field secretary of the UH, OF THE UH, OF THE UH what the hell is it?
	The Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee FOR Southwest Georgia, which eventually was taken over by Stokely Carmichael and H Rap Brown became the Black Panthers.
	Here is Shirley Sharrod's husband in an unknown place in january.
	Now I must offer a disclaimer here for partisan political operatives monitoring the program.
	We do not know the all-important context.
	We do not know if Charles Sharrod avowed or disavowed racism before or after these remarks.
	We don't have the whole speech, we only have one minute and one second of the speech.
	So we don't know if this is out of context.
	We don't know.
	After you hear this, I want you to consider the possibility that at some other point in the speech he disavowed racism.
	Or sometime after these remarks in the speech he might have disavowed racism.
	We don't know.
	We don't have the whole speech, but here's what we do have.
	We must stop the white man and his uncle Tom from stealing our elections.
	We must not be afraid to vote black and we must not be afraid to turn a black out who votes against our interests.
	In a few days or weeks, the FCC will announce that we won a full-power community-owned radio station in Albany, Georgia, a result of years of work,
	tears that we've shed so many times when the TV and the newspaper comes out the day of an election or the day before an election and tear white folks all over wherever we were running somebody for an office.
	that blacks are going to take the office over, and thousands are coming to the polls.
	But we had no means of communicating with our people.
	So it's a blessing that finally we will have a radio station to cover thousands of people.
	Now again, we're trying to ascertain here the context of uh of these remarks, because the media is holding Charles Sharrod up as a paragon of virtue.
	Uh, and John Lewis said that there's not a hair of racism on his head or anywhere else on his body.
	It's the first time i've ever heard anybody say that there's not a shred of racism, any hair on his head or the rest of the body.
	What's Lewis thinking when he says that?
	You heard it, Charles Sharrod?
	We must stop the white man and his uncle Tom from stealing our election, and the only way we can do this is with black radio stations.
	Meanwhile, this is earlier this year, january.
	Meanwhile, blacks are being elected left and right in this country.
	he's very happy he got a black radio station but again we don't know uh if if uh we don't know the context he could have disavowed racism at some point in the speech prior to these comments he could have disavowed racism in some point in the speech after these comments so all we have is what we played um We must stop the white man and his uncle Tom from stealing our election.
	It might well be that the reason the partisan political operatives did not on their Sunday shows take this Shirley Sherrod story any further is that they didn't want any of this kind of stuff to eventually hit.
	All right, we're going to go to your phones when we come back.
	Sit tight, folks.
	The EIB network and El Rushboard kicking off a brand new week.
	Yeah, I know.
	It is typical.
	John Kerry, who, by the way, served in Vietnam, went on, bought a sailboat.
	He bought a 70-foot sailboat out there, and he docks it in Rhode Island to avoid paying taxes in Massachusetts.
	And it's foreign-made.
	It's a foreign-made yacht, did not buy American, and docks it in Rhode Island to avoid paying taxes.
	And the taxes are, I mean, he's going to save about a half million dollars in taxes on this thing by docking it in Rhode Island rather than in Massachusetts, which is where one of his wives, Nenny Holmes, is.
	And people are just upset about this.
	And why?
	I mean, this is typical.
	The hypocrisy on the left is documentable each and every day.
	I should volunteer to pay the tax.
	It's a patriotic thing to do.
	Democrats ought to move to where it is the most expensive for them to live in accordance with tax law.
	But that's just a classic illustration of the ruling class.
	All these laws are for everybody else, not for them.
	They're exempt from their own rules.
	They are exempt from their own regulations.
	Let's not forget that John Kerry, the haughty John Kerry, who, again, I remind you, served in Vietnam, had a Cayman's Island bank account to avoid taxes.
	And he's one of the biggest tax increasers in Washington.
	Okay, to the phones, we're going to start in San Antonio, Texas.
	This is Mark.
	It's great to have you with us, sir.
	Hello.
	Good afternoon, Rush.
	Lone Star Dittos from the great state.
	Thank you very much.
	You bet.
	Hope you had a great weekend.
	I did.
	I really did.
	Thanks.
	Good.
	It's really not surprising at all that the person who leaked the wiki leaks about the covert operations in Afghanistan, it's not surprising that they're so stunned that we actually engaged in covert operations because that means that there has to be secrecy on our part.
	And the thought process behind this administration is everything has to be in a legal framework.
	You have to deal with discovery, so everybody has all the same information.
	It's really not a surprise at all that they would be stunned that we're doing something in secret because they want to prosecute a court rate.
	Wait a second.
	You say it's not at all surprising that they would be stunned.
	Who do you mean they?
	I mean, whoever's critical of the fact that we actually had covert operations in Afghanistan.
	That they seem shocked that we're actually doing something in secret and not telling our enemies what it is we're going to be doing.
	That's the same thought process a lawyer has in a courtroom with discovery so that both sides have all the equal information.
	And it's critical of these people who want to prosecute this war in a courtroom and not on the battlefield.
	Right.
	I see your point.
	So the people who leaked this and gave it to WikiLeaks, and then WikiLeaks by extension, think it somehow it's just unfair that we should have covert operations.
	If we're going to have something in secret, we should tell the enemy because that's what's necessary to make it fair because that's what you have to do in court.
	You can't pull surprise witnesses or evidence out of your hat.
	You have to share it with either the defense or the prosecution, depending on who you are.
	Exactly right.
	You don't want to, it's against court procedure to hide evidence.
	Everybody has to have the same information, and this bunch wants to win this not on the battlefield, but they process everything through a legal framework.
	That's why they want to try Sheikh Khalid Muhammad, whatever his name is.
	They want to put him in a courtroom and not in a case.
	I understand.
	I understand what you're saying, that essentially we need to have discovery on the battlefield.
	Exactly.
	I know that's what you're saying.
	I frankly do not think that's what this is about.
	What I think this is about is what it's always been about with the American left, which is discrediting the U.S. military.
	This is nothing more than an attack on the U.S. military.
	And the very fact that there's not one mention of the Obama administration in any 91,000 pages?
	Is that what we've got?
	91,000 pages with more to come, and not one mention of the Obama administration.
	Now, not to say there won't be in forthcoming releases, but it's awfully suspicious.
	And if you look at the New York Times and Der Spiegel and the Guardian and the way they're writing all this up, the U.S. is guilty of crimes, just like Mark says here.
	I mean, we made a point of pointing out, we did covert operations.
	We did covert special force operations.
	This is leaked.
	This is big news.
	You know, we're slinking around in secrecy.
	The effort here is really to discredit the U.S. and to get us out of Afghanistan.
	That's what the ultimate objective is, is to get us out of there.
	To either embarrass this regime so much that it can't go on, or for all I know, somebody in the regime's behind all this stuff being leaked.
	It's, I mean, it's very just curious.
	And then you have the regime supposedly expressing outrage when the leader of the regime, Barack Obama, once brought Daniel Ellsberg into Colombia to speak when he was a student there.
	And Ellsberg was a hero to the American left for divulging the Pentagon papers about the Vietnam War.
	Now, the WikiLeaks founder, whoever this little waif is, depending on the picture, you can't tell whether this guy's male or female.
	You really can't tell.
	The recent pictures, recent video, you can tell he's male, but a 10-mile-an-hour wind would blow the guy over.
	Julian A-S-S-A-N-G-E is his name.
	I don't know how he pronounces it.
	But this guy is not so lawyerly.
	He's a subversive.
	He was a member of a hacker group called International Subversives.
	Do you think this guy has our best interests at heart?
	Do you think this guy has the U.S. interest?
	This isn't, folks, a great illustration of the ruling class.
	The ruling class, the U.S. is guilty.
	We are evil.
	Our military has been the focus of evil in the modern world.
	It has spread our imperialism all over the world.
	And here's a chance to get back.
	And within the context of getting at Bush, too, as well.
	I mean, WikiLeaks, you know, I just, to sit here, they're trying to get away, I think, to make it tough to have any leniency on the rules of engagement.
	It's a big thing going on now.
	Rules of engagement being, they were very stringent.
	We couldn't pull the trigger if there was a civilian within 10,000 miles.
	And I think they're trying to take us back to that.
	I think Petraeus wants to relax those ridiculous rules.
	Now here come these leaks.
	And what's at the top of the list?
	Civilians being executed.
	They killed.
	It used to be back in the days when we fought wars to win them, that civilian deaths was the object.
	It was, folks, as hard as that may be to hear.
	And we're back.
	Rush Limbaugh.
	Great to have you here.
	Half my brain tied behind my back, just to make it fair.
	Let's talk about this rules of engagement business.
	General Jim Jones of the regime has been very vocal here about all he when he refers, as he has in his objection, of course, to what's been leaked, to the past strategy that these leaks represent, what he's saying is that those things aren't going to happen anymore because we got new rules of engagement.
	So what these leaks are about, all the covert secrecy and accidental civilian deaths.
	No, no, no, that's old stuff.
	That happened with Bush.
	Ain't going to happen anymore.
	We got new rules of engagement.
	That's what Jones is saying.
	So this might be a way, and this is why I think it's, wouldn't surprise me if somebody in the administration is responsible for making this stuff available.
	This might be a way for Obama to do an end run around Petraeus and keep these suicidal rules of engagement we now have on the books, which Petraeus wants to change.
	These rules of engagement Petraeus wants to change are what led to the discussions of creating a new medal, the medal of restraint.
	He has somebody a medal for not pulling the trigger.
	Ever heard of that?
	That's something that would only be awarded posthumously.
	It would have to be, because the person, the military person not pulling a trigger would obviously die.
	Obama might not feel that he has enough power to overrule Petraeus right now and changing the rules of engagement.
	So now how handy, how handy all of a sudden we get thousands upon thousands of pages of leaks about civilian casualties.
	Now, let me speak about that for just a second.
	I always must keep in mind that people of a certain age will be ignorant of the past because of the horrible state of our education system.
	Before the break, I said, you know, back in the days where we actually were serious about winning wars, civilian deaths was the object, one of many objects.
	And I'm sure that many of you say, yeah, Rush, what are you talking about?
	Did we ever really do that?
	It wasn't just us.
	Throughout the history of the world, this is why people talk about war crimes.
	War itself is a crime.
	It's a horrible thing, but it happens because there are bad guys in the world.
	War is always started by the bad guys.
	The good guys always have to defend themselves.
	And wars are always about one of two things, money or expanding and conquering territory.
	That's what's been amazing about the United States.
	We don't conquer anybody.
	We liberate, but we don't conquer new land.
	We've not been out to expand our empire.
	But let's use Germany and Japan as two recent examples.
	The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were explicitly bombings targeted at civilians who lived in those cities.
	Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not well-known and exclusive military headquarters for the Japanese.
	In World War II, the Germans had all these bombs on London.
	Now, they had military installations nearby in Hiroshima, Nagasaki.
	But we didn't surgically strike them, not with a nuke.
	I mean, there's no such thing as a surgical strike with a nuke.
	You think Hitler was just trying to kill military people bombing London?
	When we retaliated and bombed Dresden and Berlin, were we just trying to target the SS and the Nazis?
	No.
	We wanted the civilian population to demand that their government surrender.
	That's how you win wars.
	The other guys give up.
	The other guys surrender because they're losing too much.
	War is a terrible thing, which is why I have always resented the American left suggesting that the military is a bunch of warmongers who love it.
	Nobody loves it, but there are professionals who know what it takes to win them when they're necessary.
	Well, we don't do it anymore.
	The whole notion of surgical strikes, Afghanistan, people, why can't we win this and get out of there?
	Do you know what the rules of engagement are?
	Do you know how the terrorists fight wars?
	They dress up as civilians.
	They hide in mosques.
	They hide in private homes where there are women and children because they know our rules of engagement do not allow us to hit those targets.
	The Taliban kills civilians.
	Who died at the World Trade Center?
	Did Osama bin Laden target just the Pentagon?
	No!
	Osama bin Laden targeted the citadel of capitalism.
	And 3,000 innocent civilians died.
	And now here we are in retaliation with these handcuffing rules of engagement.
	And I'm here to tell you, no nation would have ever succeeded in winning a war had they been bound by them.
	This is the new reality of the day.
	The new reality of political correctness is that you must have surgical strikes.
	Our weapons are much more precise and accurate now.
	And we've got drones and missiles, and we can take out just the bad guys, and no innocence will die.
	So it's changed dramatically.
	Now, I don't want anybody to misunderstand.
	This is where people can easily take things out of context and promulgate them all over the world, the media, and have people misunderstand.
	None of this that I've said is with relish.
	I've said it with a passion to impress upon people the factual nature of it.
	But nobody likes it.
	Nobody likes war.
	And certainly not the people who lead them and prosecute them.
	But the great leaders who have won wars know what it takes in something that's horrible and distasteful.
	Remember, my father would never, my brother and I would constantly say, Daddy, how many Germans did you kill or how many Japanese did you?
	He wouldn't tell us.
	He wouldn't tell us.
	Would not talk about it.
	Now, my father and some of his friends were in the China-Burma theater of World War II.
	He flew P-51s, and they were not peace missions.
	But he wouldn't tell me.
	It's not something that people brag about in that sense.
	Being victorious and turning away aggressors and bad guys and people that want to take over your country, being victorious in a circumstance like that is worthy of celebration, but the actual act of what it takes.
	And that's not who we are.
	We are a defensive nation.
	We are reactionary.
	We defend or used to liberty and freedom around the world and stand up for anybody in the world who wanted it, support it.
	That's not so much the case anymore.
	But the attacks on the U.S. military, which have been institutional for decades, have taken a toll.
	And now we have these silly rules of engagement to the point that we have 91,000 pages of leaked documents, which supposedly Are the worst indictment of the U.S. military in history?
	And why?
	Because civilians have been accidentally killed.
	Used to happen on purpose.
	It used to be the objective.
	We're doing covert special forces operations as though that is a crime.
	The people leaking this stuff, the people interpreting it, are pointing fingers at the U.S. and talking about how evil we are and how mean we're doing secret operations, covert operations against the enemy, that innocent civilians are being killed.
	The purpose of war, and anybody in the military who's honest with you will tell you this: the purpose of war, the objective of war, is to kill people and break things.
	It really is no more complicated than that.
	George Patton said it: there's nothing heroic about dying for your country.
	The objective is to make the other guy die for his.
	And George Patton was raked over the calls for things like that that he said way back in the 40s.
	George Patton had to happen to have a, I mean, back then, Omar Bradley and Ice now, they didn't want to deal with the directness of Patton in many ways.
	Purpose of war is to kill people and break things.
	Now, we're handcuffing ourselves.
	And to the point now, we've got 91,000 pages worth of crap that basically say we're accidentally killing civilians and running covert operations.
	As though this is somehow an indictment, U.S. has become satanic and is evil and is the problem in the world.
	Oh, and I might add all of it happened in the Bush years.
	None of it so far can be documented to have occurred since Obama was immaculated.
	Greetings and welcome back.
	Great to have you here, Rush Limbaugh, the EIB network.
	Geneva Conventions 1863 condemned the bombardment of cities occupied by civilians.
	1863 didn't stop Lincoln.
	You ever heard of Atlanta and General Sherman?
	Lincoln ignored, and Lincoln is one of Obama's heroes, this way I'm using Lincoln.
	Abraham Lincoln ignored all of these restrictions on his behavior.
	The bombardment of Atlanta destroyed 90% of the city, after which the remaining civilian residents were forced to depopulate the city just as winter was approaching.
	And the Georgia countryside had been stripped of food by the Federal Army.
	And in his memoirs, Sherman boasted his army destroyed more than $100 million in private property and carried home $20 million more during his march to the sea.
	That was the Civil War.
	Lincoln was a Republican.
	Of course, I know what you're saying.
	Yeah, Lincoln was a Republican.
	What do you expect he did?
	You imagine the Civil War being fought under Afghanistan rules of engagement.
	But Rush, but Rush, it sounds so barbaric.
	It sounds so brutal.
	It is.
	That's the whole point.
	But there's, you know, war is what it is.
	And the way to win them is what it is.
	How many of you, all throughout Iraq, how many of you in this audience said, why don't we just do what it takes to win?
	We're the United States of America for crying out loud.
	Is the projection of our power?
	Why don't we just level a place and start over?
	Why don't we do it's what we used to do?
	And you instinctively knew that's what it might take.
	Why weren't we doing that?
	Why are we working around with all these different political things in the ground?
	We'll just win this thing and get the hell out of there.
	That's because instinctively you know what it takes, and instinctively you know what the capabilities of the United States are.
	And thus, instinctively, you know when we're tiptoeing through the tulips and we're tiptoeing through the tulips in Afghanistan because of rules of engagement.
	And Obama doesn't want Petraeus to be able to relax these.
	I think Obama wants out of there.
	I don't think the idea that Afghanistan is being waged with victory as an objective, even Obama himself has said he's uncomfortable with the whole concept of victory because he, when he hears that, when he sees victory, envisions it, he sees the poor old Japanese being frog marched out of the USS Missouri and having to surrender to Douglas MacArthur.
	And it was humiliating.
	And we don't want to humiliate people.
	We want to get along with them, especially the Muslim world.
	We want to reach out.
	That's why we will support the early release of the Lockerbie bomber.
	If this regime will mislead people on support of the Lockerbie bomber's early release, then this regime is certainly capable of misleading on the WikiLeaks.
	Now, to show you what being on the cutting edge of societal evolution is, the New York Times is ecstatic over this.
	They are honored and thrilled to have been chosen by this little waif that runs WikiLeaks to be the recipient, the proud recipient of these documents, which are nothing more than raw, the equivalent of raw FBI reports.
	They're mostly raw field reports.
	They're about as accurate.
	They're probably far less accurate than raw police or FBI reports, which are not ever allowed into court or used as evidence.
	That's what we have here.
	New York Times is all proud.
	We documented this in parody some years, years ago.
	Listen to this, folks.
	In 1862, General Sherman wrote his wife that his purpose in the Civil War would be extermination, not of soldiers alone.
	That would be the least of the trouble, he said, but the people of the South.
	That's what he wrote to his wife in 1862 was his objective.
	I'm just saying, you can tell it's horrible.
	There's no question it's horrible.
	That's why war is horrible, but that's how they're won.
	That's why you hope you never have to fight them.

▲