All Episodes
Previous Next
March 21, 2011 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:38
March 21, 2011, Monday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
It is hour number two on this Monday, the twenty first of March, and it's been a whole lot of Libya going on in our first hour, and I somehow foresee some more.
I'm going to lay down some more topical layers, some other things for us to talk about, but the Libya story has 15 different angles that we can attach ourselves to, and I think we've only done seven or eight of those, so it's the gift that keeps on giving in the talk show universe.
If you are just joining us, uh our first hour uh oh, Mark Davis from WBAP Dallas Fort Worth, by the way, if we haven't met, hello.
Always a pleasure to be in here in the uh the EIB uh chair.
Well, it's what's not the actual EIB chair, it's the the Texas version of one that we have down here in the Dallas Fort Worth area, mere miles from George and Laura Bush.
Anyway, uh in our first hour it uh was some general I like this, I don't like this reaction from callers, and into that mix I shared with you my willingness to be conditionally supportive.
That there are a number of things that throw a bit of a wet blanket over what would be my normal instinct to support uh the American military as a force for good around the world.
I mean, I support the American military no matter what, but I mean support the concept of using the American military uh as a force for good around the world.
We have done so in Kuwait, we have done so in the Balkans, we have done so in Iraq, we have done so in Afghanistan.
The idea is for us to do so in Libya, and who knows how many more nations to come.
Um we only have so many resources, we only have so many troops, we only have so much money.
Uh and I know this full well, and that's why my approval of this is conditional.
Uh this has got to work well and work well pretty quickly.
I don't know what quickly means.
I don't think it means days, but nor do I mean that I'm looking for Libyan troops for a day, you know, American troops in Libya for a decade.
Uh mission creep is uh is something that is heavy on my mind.
But I know what's heavy on your mind too, and that's is this even a good idea?
Is this even a good idea?
Uh if you're conservative, there are people whom you respect who are saying this is a good idea.
If you are conservative, there are people whom you respect who may well be saying that it's not.
And not that it's conservatives, we need to follow the l find somebody I admire and follow them like a sheep, not at all.
You ultimately have to consult your own views, consult your own standards, consult your own head, your own heart, your own compass on whether you think this is a good idea.
I've consulted mine and I'm good with it for now.
What keeps me from being as enthusiastic about this as I was uh you know, going into Baghdad and going into Iraq, going into Afghanistan?
Well, we had a we had a stinking year and a half to mull that over.
And you know, every once in a while I just like to make this point.
So if you will allow me to, I will, I'll say it, I'll be done, I'll move on.
Year and a half between nine eleven and Operation Iraqi freedom.
Year and a half.
Do you know how many weapons of mass destruction someone can hide in a year and a half?
Do you?
Okay, thank you.
Just needed to be said.
So we haven't had uh the luxury of um of uh mulling this over for a really long time.
I know people have said President Obama has dithered on this.
Uh one person's dithering is another person's thoughtfulness.
Now here's the thing, before you before your eyebrows actually leave your head, uh if I thought this was thoughtfulness, if I thought that this administration really was taking a cold hard, calculated look at a number of options and weighing the best instead of just moistening its finger and hoping, you know, ch checking the wind and hoping not to uh to turn the thing into a total cluster.
If I thought that that's what they were doing, I'd I'd be willing to give them a lot more elbow room for taking their sweet time.
But let's be clear.
The people who are saying that the administration uh dragged its feet, and there are a lot of people saying that, and I'm probably part of that chorus.
Well, I am part of that chorus, are the ones who saw Libya as a pretty easy call.
Not an uncomplicated call, but a pretty easy judgment call at the outset.
If Qaddafi is raining down terror and death on his own citizens, is that something we should do something about?
That's a pretty easy yes.
The British and French figured it out for God's sake.
So I'm good with it for now.
So what do we want it to be?
Now it's time to get into whether we lead or follow.
Whether any military operation around the world that contains the United States should be led by the United States.
I would say only the following, if not us, then whom?
You know, we all talked about how we don't want to be walking around having our troops wearing those little blue United Nations berets.
Well, you know, I don't really want to be taking um orders from British commanders either.
And this this coalition does and God bless the British, I like the British.
Uh this doesn't really fit into that sort of that you remember Patton and the rivalry that that George Patton had with uh with Montgomery as the as the troops moved through Italy, and it just chapped to live in daylights out of Patton to take a back seat to a British military leader.
Well, this is this is a time for egos to be checked at the door, and it's not about, you know, who gets to uh you know claim alpha male status in this, but just as a practical matter, who's the superpower here?
That would be us and only us.
So as you we go back to your calls here at one eight hundred two eight two two eight eight two.
What's the definition of leadership?
It involves when to get in, how to discuss the notion of getting out, because I'm fine with that.
In the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, all this talk of exit strategy, exit strategy, exit strategy, end game, exit strategy.
I've always said, guys, can we hang on for a little bit?
How about a victory strategy, please?
How about a success strategy?
We come out when we have succeeded or sufficiently succeeded that we feel that the Iraqis and the good people of Afghanistan can be left to cobble together their own futures.
In Libya, this seems uh a little more surgical.
It seems a little more precise.
It seems a little more short term.
And it should probably remain that way.
Because I don't believe for a minute that there is an American appetite for a lengthy deployment in Libya.
We're not even on board for a lengthy deployment in Iraq in Afghanistan, and those are working.
So we are a country that gets war weary in about five minutes.
But that is compounded now by the fact that we have a president who was born war weir.
Well, you know what, war weary, it was born war averse.
War weary, you tolerate war for a little bit, then you just get tired of it.
War averse is don't even go there.
Don't even go there.
In the weekly standard.
Bill Crystal writes.
The president didn't want this.
He's been so unhappy about the possibility, so fearful of such an eventuality that first he tied himself up in knots trying to do nothing.
Then he decided that if he had to act, it'd be good to boast that he was merely following the Arab League and subordinating American action to the UN Security Council.
After all, nothing, nothing could be worse than the perception that the United States was invading another Muslim country.
That is the strain of thought that hamstrings this president in what would otherwise be, I believe, purer commander in chief instincts.
And what should the commander in chief instincts be?
The commander in chief instincts should be to deploy the sons and daughters of the United States only when there is a sufficiently compelling interest to do so.
If that bar is not met, you don't do it.
If the bar is met, you do it boldly and unapologetically.
The president fond of straddling hemming and hawing may not really have the skill set to be that kind of commander in chief.
one eight hundred two eight two two eight eight two.
I mentioned that I'd uh still let you my brief war powers act rant.
And then um then we'll break and go back to your calls.
The war powers resolution is really its proper name.
Right there from the tail end of our involvement in Vietnam in the summer of nineteen seventy-three.
Talk about war weary.
It was a joint resolution of Congress that provided that the president can send U.S. armed forces into action with some pretty heavy conditions.
Well, first we have to be under attack or serious threat.
Under attack, uh would seem to be fairly easy to identify.
Serious threat, that's pretty subjective.
But if neither of those are met, then what you have to do, what you have to have, is authorization of Congress.
War Powers resolution requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than sixty days.
With a further thirty day withdrawal period, and that's all that um that it's authorized to that's all the president's authorized to do without congressional authorization or an actual declaration of war.
Is that even constitutional?
Who is the commander in chief of the armed forces?
Whether it's a president whose instincts I admired in that regard, like Bush, or a president who I don't even know has those instincts like Obama, the answer is the president is the commander in chief.
It is Congress that can declare war.
We're not declaring war on Libya.
We didn't declare war on Iraq or Afghanistan.
That is a bit of a rhetorical uh device that those of us who've supported those wars can use, but use properly, and that is that this war on terror does not involve declaring war on on any actual known country or known army.
That is the nature of terrorism.
That's what makes it like chasing Mercury across the floor of your science class.
Bloom, it's over here, it's over there, can't even find it.
Don't know what it is.
Its vagueness has allowed such a defense.
It's not uh it it it's it's not typical.
And success in a war on terror does not take place with a signing ceremony aboard a battleship in which the terrorists gather and say we give up.
It's one of those we'll sort of know it when we kind of see it kind of successes.
And I sense that we're moving in that direction.
In Iraq and Afghanistan.
But this war powers resolution, we gotta figure this out.
And what we have here is an interesting opportunity for a consistency check.
And and and speaking of human nature and and and our political natures as well, uh my object I uh if I am going to serve my obligation to be objective, I have to give Barack Obama the same latitude to act as commander in chief that I did George W. Bush, and I gladly do so.
Well, I I do so.
We'll see how gladly when it when we'll see how it works out.
I willingly do so.
But I can't say that without suppressing the part of me that says that I trusted George W. Bush's commander in chief instincts, and I don't trust Barack Obama's.
But you know what that's called?
It's called my tough luck.
Elect a better president.
And we're working on that, by the way.
I long to have the inauguration in January of 2013 of a president whose commander in chief instincts I can trust again.
But in the meantime, he is the commander in chief, and this is his call.
All right.
1800-282-2882.
Rush Limbaugh.com, even on days when you get a fill-in guy like me, Mark Davis in Texas.
Your call's next on the EIB network.
It is the Rush Limbaugh Show for a Monday.
Rush is back tomorrow.
I'm Mark Davis from deep in the heart of Texas here at WBAP Dallas Fort Worth, glad to be here with you.
So if I'm going to be here with you, let's be here with you.
Let's take some calls.
Let us head to Charleston, South Carolina.
Charlie, Mark Davis in for Rush.
How are you, sir?
I'm doing well.
How are you, Mark?
Re just great.
Thank you.
All right.
Well, thanks for taking my call.
Uh the question or the comment that I have for you is um the thing that kind of troubles me and the fact that nobody is commenting on it is something that's not really surprising, whether on the left or the right, is what what is the constitutional authority that President Obama has to do this strike?
Um I know you kind of touched on this earlier with the War Powers Act, but he's the commander in chief.
I mean, I know um that you know, with the War Powers Act, he's authorized, you know, with the sixty days and then thirty days over that, and you say that he's the commander in chief, but something of you know this great magnitude, and he touched on this, even though he was away in Brazil,
um putting, you know, young men and women in harm's way, but you know, I think of something where you have so much turnover and turmoil in the Middle East and you know, our inconsistencies in our policies with Bahrain and Yemen and Saudi Arabia versus Libya um and Egypt that something of this magnitude,
yeah, I don't think it would be a stretch to go to Congress and ask them to authorize uh this attack on Lib on Libya, especially with Defense Secretary Gates saying before the attacks on Saturday that enforcing a no-fly zone would be akin to war on the war.
It is.
It it is it it very if if it well looks like a war and walks like a war, it's a war.
Um let me share something with you and tell me what you think.
I d uh I I think my um small treatise there on the War Powers Act makes clear that I do not believe that a president has to go and ask Congress for this.
But there is a basic courtesy and a basic sensibility in going to Congress, not just the Senate, but the actual House, and uh and and gathering they don't have to talk to all five hundred and thirty-five of them in joint session, get a select group of leaders and bring them over to the White House and say, guys, let me tell you what I'm about to do.
This is what President Bush did.
Let me tell you what I am about to do.
I'm not asking you, I am telling you, but I'm affording you the courtesy of telling you so that you're not blindsided.
I want to hear back from you.
If you want to argue with me about it, we can do that.
But I've figured this out, I'm commander in chief, and I'm going to do that.
I think this would make Congress feel a lot better if if Congress is sufficiently repelled by something that a sitting commander in chief wishes to do, Congress may defund it.
That's a pretty high bar of opposition, but that's I believe as it should be.
Because when you boil it down, I just don't think the War Powers Act is constitutional.
Right.
And you know, I'm a libertarian, so I'm opposed to this military action in the first place, but assuming I was.
Oh, so stop, stop, stop stop.
Number one, we have time.
Number two, I'm intrigued.
Does your libertarianism, which I'm inclined to respect, I have probably three quarters your libertarianism leads you to believe that I I mean was World War II wrong.
Well, at least uh with that war we actually got a declaration of war, you assemble both houses of Congress and he's and addressed the nation.
All right.
I well want you to be precise.
So your your your libertarianism i is is it the i does it I mean, God bless Ron Paul.
He's uh he's he's a neighbor of mine down here, but it doesn't lead you to that kind of uh that style of isolationism, does it?
Well, I don't I wouldn't call it isolationism more like non-interventionism, but you call it what you want.
Yeah.
Okay, I didn't mean to b didn't mean to bog you down.
Keep going.
I was just curious.
Go ahead.
But in this case, you know, with so much inconsistencies in our in our Middle Eastern pop, you know, in our policy, I think that this would have been a great opportunity for uh Barack Obama to sit down, you know, with the White House address or you know, assemble both houses of Congress or what have you, address the American people and tell us what exactly is our strategy and who are we friends with, who are we aren't friends with, what kind of pro protest do we tolerate, what kind don't we?
And just and just lay it out there and just tell us what exactly are we gonna do in the Middle East, because you know, as you read all the different, you know, newspapers and things like that, and people are talking, you know, what about Bahrain?
What about Yemen?
What about Saudi Arabia?
What about you know Egypt and uh Libra?
If the bar is if the bar is met.
If if the bar is met in Libya, where else, you know, what kind of precedent have we set?
what you've just described is the kind of clarity and forthrightness that is always a good idea no matter who the president is and no matter where the uh the theater of action.
Uh let me thank you, man.
I appreciate it very, very much.
Um what he's just described, though, while sounding sensible, uh is tricky, because if he's looking for a president to uh to tell us, you know, whom whom we support, all right.
Well, okay, we support the anti-Gaddafi rebels.
Well, who are they?
And what exactly do they want?
They're not monolithic.
You know, I I think the Iranian resistance, we kind of know who those folks are in Libya or even Egypt.
We don't have a clue.
You know, we just we we're anti-Qaddafi, and that's pretty well it.
And that can get uh can get a little dicey.
Mark Davis in for rush.
We'll continue in just a couple moments, grab a line, one-eight hundred-282-2882, one-eight hundred-282-2882, back in a moment on the EIB network.
1-800-282-2882, about to go back to your calls.
I'll tell you what I want to do.
I I I found a um I found a quote from the president on the unilateral use of military force, December 20th, 2007 from the uh Boston Globe.
Question.
In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use of force authorization from Congress?
Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites, a situation that does not involve stopping an imminent threat?
The president's answer at that time, December 07.
The president does not have the power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.
As commander in chief, the president does have a duty to protect and defend the United States.
In instances of self-defense, the president would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent.
History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the legislative branch.
It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action.
Well, all right, there's not really much to quarrel with in uh in that answer.
The one thing that you look for uh with any pre and post-election Barack Obama quote is is there any screaming inconsistency between what the guy believed on the campaign trail, uh said at a campaign event, and has now done as commander in chief, you know, sort of the let's close Guantanamo category of things.
The first paragraph is is of interest.
The president does not have the power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.
The uh the president could indeed, and that's kind of funny, then we get to the meaning not of what is is, the meaning of what unilateral is.
Does that mean unilateral meaning just me, the president wants to do it and you the Congress don't?
Or does unilateral mean only America is involved of unaccompanied by other allies, and we actually do have some allies in here.
We've got the British, we got the French.
The military of Belgium is involved.
I know I'll be sleeping better at night.
God bless Belgium, no problem.
Uh we got Italians, we got Danes, we got all kinds of people.
So it there is a the coalition of the willing that is gathering here, so it's not unilateral in that regard.
And and I want to give the president the ability to defend it in that way, because Lord knows I use that a lot when people would come out of the woodwork uh of the left and and talk about America doing things unilaterally in uh the war on terror.
Do I need to show you the list of countries that are on board with us for this?
It's not every country on the face of the globe, but it's a bunch.
So this notion that we did this unilaterally in the war on terror was always a lie.
And this is what what an interesting turnabout this is.
And I I I value the consistency check, because every single thing I used to defend President Bush's latitude In making these decisions.
I will use every single one of those same things to give President Obama that same latitude.
Doesn't mean I'll like his decisions.
Doesn't mean I'll enjoy him being commander in chief.
Doesn't mean I don't yearn to have him replaced, because I do.
But it it it my ability to recognize what a commander in chief can and cannot do uh must not be guided by what I think of that commander in chief.
And I wonder, I wonder.
A lot of the people uh, you know, raising these voices of hesitation.
Wait a minute, shouldn't the president run this by Congress five hundred and thirty-five times?
Well, okay, you can say that, if you said it about President Bush.
Now this is what's funny.
You know where some of the most you know where some uh of the most recognizable uh examples of uh consistency could be found there?
In the hard loony left.
Dennis Kucinich, Jerry Nadler, Sean Penn, Michael Moore, I'm sure what they that they would tell you today, we busted Bush for doing it, and we're busting Obama for doing it.
You know what, guys?
You're nuts, but you're consistent.
They loathe America as a force for good around the world more than they love Obama.
For them, at least on this point, it is about principle.
A twisted, misguided principle, perhaps, but principle nonetheless.
If you gave President Bush a certain amount of latitude, a certain amount of elbow room to say, hey, he's commander in chief, he gets to do stuff.
Well, you better be saying the same thing now.
Again, now that's the kind of thing that might lose you sleep at night, because this is a whole nother brand of commander in chief.
1800-282-288-2.
We're in New York City.
James, hi, Mark Davis in for Rush.
How are you?
Good.
How are you doing, Mark?
Great, thank you.
Uh, you know, I wanted to call about this whole thing.
This might really what I'm curious about is the motivation for England to all of a sudden, and and France to a degree, um, be interested in attacking Libya.
Because I mean if we go back over the last couple of years and we look at that terrorist that that England released back to Libya, and let's hope that one of those hundred and fourteen missiles was sent right to his home.
Yeah.
Um what is their motivation?
Because really, once we found out what was really going on with England, um, it found it we found out that they were kind of making behind the you know backdoor deals.
You know, we released this guy to you, you know, our companies will be able to go in and and have better access to your oil, um, setting up new deals with them.
So now all of a sudden we find out are we fighting a war for England and France's oil?
You know, are are we spending our money so that they can make sure that they, you know, have access to to Libya?
Well, in answering.
No, I understand.
And and here let me give you a little sort of a flow chart on uh on how to feel about it.
I'm not gonna tell you how to feel, but if these are the questions to to ask yourself.
What you're invoking is the notion, and this was all the rage in the summer of 2009, the British government uh decided it was in the overwhelming interests of the U.K. uh to make this uh Abdel Baset Al Mahmad Al-Magrahi, the Lockerby bomber eligible for return to Libya, and then Gordon Brown's government made the decision uh, you know, between Libyan BP, uh that this that it gave the image that the Locker B bomber was set free for oil.
Okay, so there's there's the way the narrative is that's believed by a lot of people.
Now, so here we are now in March of 2011.
The British are interested in military action in Libya, America is interested in military action in Libya, some other countries are as well.
Is there any other reason for the Brits, the French, for us to be involved militarily in Libya?
And that answer is of course there is.
If there were no other reason, if this made no sense, and I listen, you may be driving around going, well, it don't make no sense to me.
No, that just means you disagree with it.
If if no argument can be made for uh a multinational effort to topple Kadar, well, we I wish it were about toppling Qaddafi, but a humanitarian no-fly zone, something like that.
If if that were something without merit, then I I think there would be a strong compulsion to say, man, is there something going on here that is Lockerby related, that is Almagrahi related, that's BP related?
And there And I'm not saying there's not.
I can't prove a negative, but since there is at least a plausible rationale for what's going on, it might be a reason not to embrace that right now.
Right.
And I agree to a degree, Mark, but I I think this also goes back to the other idea that we are the last superpower in the world.
That they wouldn't be able to do this without us, and that we've been basically spending, you know, you know, how much of our, you know, uh, you know, taxes every year to defend Europe.
I mean, we've been doing it for the past fifty, sixty years.
What are they going to start, you know, carrying their own water here?
You know, I mean, they depend on us.
I mean, you know, it was kind of funny.
What was there 114 missile shot?
And, you know, just to make it look like there was a coalition, you know, England happened to shoot off two cruise missiles from a summary, you know.
But the the rest, the bulk of them were our missiles.
You know, how long are we going to have to carry their water?
What do we do?
Have you seen what submarine fuel is the same?
You're trying to be a superpower now.
You're the European Union, you know, you're trying to, you know, oppose us uh economically as a group.
When are you gonna step up to the plate and have your own military and be able to handle these things on your own?
I mean, literally, there's another and there's another.
It's okay, it's all right.
There's another list of countries people to look at.
That's a list of Arab countries and how enthusiastic are they gonna be as well.
James spectacular stuff, thank you very, very much.
In in his zeal, he also buried my horrible uh moment of uh of guest host comedy.
Have you seen the price of submarine fuel in England these days?
But um boom.
Uh he's got a good point.
Uh when it I those of us let me start four sentences at once.
Those of us who believe in America as a force for good around the world and believe in the American military as a tool to achieve those noble ends, we have a responsibility.
And that is to expect that others will help pull the wagon with us, will help shoulder the burden with us.
And if that doesn't happen, then we're kind of getting played here.
And that means that if the British and the French and all that I mean, it must probably commensurate to what their military budgets are.
I mean the military budget of of France and Britain to hold a candle to ours, we after all, are the superpower.
But that doesn't mean that we need to pick up the whole tab for the for the military meal, metaphorically speaking.
Now, uh in fact, let's break and come back and talk a little bit about our our Arab friends.
But I yes we do have some, but how many and how many of them run countries?
And if indeed there is an Arab world interest, a kind of a compelling uh uh you know, sort of the Arab Muslim nations uh neighboring Libya, neighboring Bahrain, neighboring Yemen, neighboring Egypt, who thought, oh, this is great, uh let's let's have this uh reform spread throughout our part of the world.
Okay.
Then m could you maybe pony up a little bit and help us um write the check for what it takes to liberate so many of your Muslim brethren.
Is that asking too much?
Well, I'm asking you, and you may answer back at 1800-282-2882.
Mark Davis in for Rush and back in a moment.
Monday, March twenty-first, Rush Limbaugh Show.
Rush will be back for the Tuesday, March 22nd Rush Limbaugh Show, and that's what really matters.
Meanwhile, I'm Mark Davis from WBAP Dallas Fort Worth saying, Hey, how are you?
And getting right back to your calls 1 800-282-2882, and always check in at rushlimbaugh.com.
We are in Shenandoah, Pennsylvania.
Teresa, hi, Mark Davis in for Rush, how are you?
I'm good.
How are you?
Very well, thanks.
Okay.
Um the comment that I called about is I personally, if I were the president, would have acted unilaterally when the ambassador said that it was Gaddafi who personally ordered the Lockerby Scott uh bombing.
I would have done exactly what Reagan did to Gaddafi when he found out that he was responsible for the death of the soldiers in Germany.
Having said that, we need some clearer cut policy that doesn't make Vietnam look like a care cut policy.
And what we have right now is more convoluted than we have in Vietnam, which as far as I'm concerned, is why we lost that war.
There There is no foreign policy here.
There is no leadership.
There is no you know, there's nothing.
There's no direction, there's nothing.
And we certainly should never ever put any other commander than a United States commander in charge of our armed forces.
That's completely true.
And then that's not ego, it's not hubris, it's not narcissism.
Uh we're the superpower, and with that comes some practical hierarchies that that you're you're totally right about.
You're also right about there could there could have been a time.
I mean, you know, for God's sake, Reagan was president after all, uh, and I think it could have been a justified strike to flat out take him out while Reagan was still president.
You know, but maybe Obama had Obama had that opportunity three weeks ago when this whole thing started, and the ambassador I don't remember which ambassador it was, said that he could personally testify that Qaddafi ordered the bombing on Lockerby personally.
But for well, I okay, but if we did it now, it wouldn't be for Lockerby.
I I I mean, I I haven't forgotten Lockerby.
I remember the holiday season of 1988.
I I remember seeing that the the that that that made of the seas that that 747 cabin laying on its side and then the Scottish landscape.
I I mean I remember that like it was yesterday.
Uh if we do something now, it needs to be about now.
And for some reason, everybody is contorting themselves in so many different directions to say, oh, it's not about regime change.
It's not about toppling Qaddafi.
Well, why the hell not?
Yeah.
Well, that that's like Vietnam wasn't about defeating the North Vietnamese.
That's why we didn't defeat the North Vietnamese.
Well that's that well, that's Teresa.
If you're going to fight a war, you have to fight to win.
Precisely right.
And let me thank you for that.
I got to hit a break here in a second.
Uh a word about Vietnam.
A sentence or two about Vietnam.
Vietnam was not convoluted.
Vietnam was not complex.
We were fighting communism in Southeast Asia.
This war is complex.
No other countries, no other uniforms, no specific, oh, well, we're we're fighting this country.
Well, not really.
Well, we're fighting people who wear this uniform.
Well, no, not really.
I mean, Vietnam was tough.
There was a lot of guerrilla warfare.
A lot of you didn't know who was who.
I understand that.
The actual fighting of the war was complex.
Every war has its certain complexities.
But the concept of Vietnam, simple as pie.
Fighting communism in Southeast Asia.
As the 60s turned into the 70s, the reason Vietnam became difficult for America is we lost the political will to win.
It was too hard.
It took too long.
We didn't have the spine or the guts as a country to tell our leaders, go win that thing.
Go do this right.
We didn't have the will.
So you know, there's complexity, and then there is once again, that's a return returning theme, recurring theme today.
When America becomes war weary.
And the answer is pretty darn soon.
TikTok, TikTok.
Oh, we're not done yet.
Time to move on.
You know, pull the troops home.
Nope.
Well, that's great.
That's great.
So North Vietnam is communist today, feeling good about that.
And with regard to the war on terror.
We uh not so you get 9-11.
Year and a half later, spring of 03, Operation Iraqi Freedom.
How long did that last before everybody went to their natural corners?
What about six months?
Maybe a year, maybe.
We get war weary very fast in America.
And the bad news is we're up against people who never get war weary.
We're up against people who, if the human lifespan were 500 years, they'd be there every day with a knife in their hand, ready to saw off our heads if we meet them in the street.
They don't get war weary.
We do.
We need to look very hard in the mirror.
And look at changing that.
Mark Davis in Farush back in a moment.
It is the Rush Limbaugh show.
Mark Davis filling in, but only for today.
Rush is back tomorrow, and you and I are back together in our very, very next hour.
And I'd say what let's do.
I kind of said I was going to talk about other stuff.
It was sort of other angles of Libya last uh this past hour.
So let's let's keep everything going that we got going.
But the Japan earthquake in tsunami has me thinking about nuclear power.
There's not one thing that's happened in Japan that makes me less enthusiastic about greater nuclear power in America.
Tell you what the heck I'm talking about next.
Mark Davison for Rush.
▲
Export Selection