All Episodes
Previous Next
March 21, 2011 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:37
March 21, 2011, Monday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
It is hour number two on this Monday, the 21st 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, our first hour, 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 EIB chair.
Well, it's not the actual EIB chair.
It's the Texas version of one that we have down here in the Dallas-Fort Worth area, mere miles from George and Laura Bush.
Anyway, in our first hour, it 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 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 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.
We only have so many resources.
We only have so many troops.
We only have so much money.
And I know this full well.
And that's why my approval of this is conditional.
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 American troops in Libya for a decade.
Mission creep 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?
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 as conservatives, we need to follow the 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 going into Baghdad and going into Iraq, going into Afghanistan?
Well, 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 9-11 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 the luxury of mulling this over for a really long time.
I know people have said President Obama has dithered on this.
One person's dithering is another person's thoughtfulness.
Now, here's the thing, before your eyebrows actually leave your head, 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, checking the wind and hoping not to turn the thing into a total cluster.
If I thought that that's what they were doing, 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 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 Gaddafi 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 orders from British commanders either.
And this coalition does, and God bless the British, I like the British.
This doesn't really fit into that sort of that.
You remember Patton and the rivalry that George Patton had with Montgomery as the troops moved through Italy and it just chapped the living daylights out of Patton to take a back seat to a British military leader?
Well, this is a time for egos to be checked at the door, and it's not about who gets to 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 we go back to your calls here at 1-800-282-2882.
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, endgame, 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 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 and 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-weary.
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.
A president fond of straddling, hemming, and hawing may not really have the skill set to be that kind of commander-in-chief.
1-800-282-2882.
I mentioned that I'd tell us, let me give you my brief War Powers Act rant, and 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, the summer of 1973.
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, it 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 60 days with a further 30-day withdrawal period.
And that's all 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 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 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.
Boo, it's over here, it's over there.
I can't even find it.
Don't know what it is.
Its vagueness has allowed such a defense.
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've got to figure this out.
And what we have here is an interesting opportunity for a consistency check.
And speaking of human nature and our political natures as well, my object, 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 do so.
We'll see how gladly when I'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.
1-800-282-2882.
Rushlimbaugh.com, even on days when you get a fill-in guy like me, Mark Davis, in Texas.
Your calls 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?
Just great.
Thank you.
All right.
Well, thanks for taking my call.
The question or the comment that I had for you is 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 is the constitutional authority that President Obama has to do this strike?
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 that, you know, with the War Powers Act, he's authorized, you know, with the 60 days and then 30 days over that, and you say that he's the commander-in-chief.
But something of this great magnitude, and he touched on this even though he was away in Brazil, putting young men and women in harm's way.
But I think of something where you have so much turnover and turmoil in the Middle East and our inconsistencies in our policies with Bahrain and Yemen and Saudi Arabia versus Libya and Egypt that something of this magnitude,
I don't think it would be a stretch to go to Congress and ask them to authorize this attack 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 state.
It is.
It is.
If it looks like a war and walks like a war, it's a war.
Let me share something with you and tell me what you think.
I think my 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 gathering.
They don't have to talk to all 535 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 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 it was.
No, no, stop, stop, stop, stop.
Number one, we have time.
Number two, I'm intrigued.
Does your libertarianism, which I'm inclined to respect, probably is three-quarters, your libertarianism leads you to believe that was World War II wrong?
Well, at least with that war, we actually got a declaration of war.
You assembled both houses of Congress and addressed the nation.
All right.
Well, I want you to be precise.
So, your libertarianism is it the I mean, God bless Ron Paul.
He's a neighbor of mine down here, but it doesn't lead you to that kind of style of isolationism, does it?
Well, I don't, I wouldn't call it isolationism more like non-interventionism.
You call it what you want.
Yeah.
Okay, 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 Middle Eastern pop, you know, in our policy, I think that this would have been a great opportunity for Barack Obama to sit down with a White House address or 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 protests do we tolerate?
What kinds don't we?
And just lay it out there and just tell us what exactly are we going to do in the Middle East?
Because as you read all the different newspapers and things like that, and people are talking, what about Bahrain?
What about Yemen?
What about Saudi Arabia?
What about Egypt and Libya?
If the bar is met in Libya, where else, 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 theater of action.
Let me thank you, man.
I appreciate it very, very much.
What he's just described, though, while sounding sensible, is tricky.
Because if he's looking for a president to tell us, you know, whom we support, all right, well, okay, we support the anti-Qadhafi rebels.
Well, who are they?
And what exactly do they want?
They're not monolithic.
You know, 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're anti-Qadhafi, and that's pretty well it.
And that can get a little dicey.
Mark Davis in for Rush.
We'll continue in just a couple of moments.
Grab a line.
1-800-282-2882.
1-800-282-2882.
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 found a quote from the president on the unilateral use of military force, December 20th, 2007 from the 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 that answer.
The one thing that you look for with any pre- and post-election Barack Obama quote is: is there any screaming inconsistency between what the guy believed on the campaign trail 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 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 president could indeed, and that's kind of funny, then we get to the meaning, not of what 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 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.
We got Italians.
We got Danes.
We got all kinds of people.
So there is a coalition of the willing that is gathering here.
So it's not unilateral in that regard.
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 of the left and talk about America doing things unilaterally in 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 an interesting turnabout this is.
And 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 my ability to recognize what a commander-in-chief can and cannot do must not be guided by what I think of that commander-in-chief.
And I wonder.
I wonder.
A lot of the people raising these voices of hesitation.
Wait a minute.
Shouldn't the president run this by Congress 535 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 of the most recognizable examples of consistency could be found there?
In the hard, loony left.
Dennis Kucinich, Jerry Nadler, Sean Penn, Michael Moore, I'm sure 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, that's the kind of thing that might lose you sleep at night because this is a whole nother brand of commander-in-chief.
1-800-282-2882.
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.
You know, I wanted to call him about this whole thing because really what I'm curious about is the motivation for England to all of a sudden, and France to a degree, be interested in attacking Libya.
Because if we go back over the last couple of years and we look at that terrorist that England released back to Libya, and let's hope that one of those 114 missiles was sent right to his home.
Yeah.
What is their motivation?
Because really, once we found out what was really going on with England, we found out that they were kind of making behind the backdoor deals.
We released this guy to you.
Our companies will be able to go in and have better access to your oil, 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?
Are we spending our money so that they can make sure that they, you know, have access to Libya?
Well, I'm just kind of curious what...
No, I understand it.
And here, let me give you a little sort of a flow chart on how to feel about it.
I'm not going to tell you how to feel, but these are the questions to ask yourself.
What you're invoking is the notion, and this was all the rage in the summer of 2009.
The British government decided it was in the overwhelming interests of the UK to make this Abdel Based al-Mohmed al-Megrahi, the Lockerbie bomber, eligible for return to Libya.
And then Gordon Brown's government made the decision between Libya and BP, it gave the image that the Lockerbie bomber was set free for oil.
Okay, so 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 listen, you may be driving around going, well, it don't make no sense to me.
That just means you disagree with it.
If no argument can be made for a multinational effort to topple Qaddafi, well, I wish it were about toppling Gaddafi, but a humanitarian, no-fly zone, something like that.
If that were something without merit, then I think there would be a strong compulsion to say, man, is there something going on here that is Lockerbie related, that is Al-Megrahi-related, that's BP-related?
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 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, how much of our, you know, taxes every year to defend Europe.
I mean, we've been doing it for the past 50, 60 years.
When are they going to start 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 missiles 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 submarine.
But the rest, the bulk of them, were our missiles.
You know, how long are we going to have to carry their water?
Have you seen what submarine fuel?
You're trying to be a superpower now.
You're the European Union.
You know, you're trying to, you know, oppose us economically as a group.
When are you going to step up to the plate and have your own military and be able to handle these things on your own?
I mean, literally.
And there's another.
It's okay.
It's all right.
And he stays on a roll.
There's another list of countries people to look at.
That's a list of Arab countries and how enthusiastic are they going to be as well.
Jabe's spectacular stuff.
Thank you very, very much.
In his zeal, he also buried my horrible moment of guest host comedy.
Have you seen the price of submarine fuel in England these days?
Ba-doom, boom.
He's got a good point.
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, I mean, it's probably commensurate to what their military budgets are.
I mean, the military budget of France and Britain to an older 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 military meal, metaphorically speaking.
Now, in fact, let's break and come back and talk a little bit about our Arab friends.
But 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, you know, sort of the Arab Muslim nations neighboring Libya, neighboring Bahrain, neighboring Yemen, neighboring Egypt, who thought, oh, this is great.
Let's have this reform spread throughout our part of the world.
Okay.
Then could you maybe pony up a little bit and help us 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 1-800-282-2882.
Mark Davis in for Rush and back in a moment.
Monday, March 21st, 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.
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 Lockerbie Scott 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.
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 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.
Completely true.
And that's not ego.
It's not hubris.
It's not narcissism.
We're the superpower.
And with that comes some practical hierarchies that you're totally right about.
You're also right about there could have been a time.
I mean, you know, for God's sake, Reagan was president after all.
And I think it could have been a justified strike to flat out take him out while Reagan was still president.
You know, 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 Gaddafi ordered the bombing on Lockerbie, personally.
But for, well, okay, but if we did it now, it wouldn't be for Lockerbie.
I mean, I haven't forgotten Lockerbie.
I remember the holiday season of 1988.
I remember seeing that maid of the seas, that 747 cabin laying on its side and then the Scottish landscape.
I mean, I remember that like it was yesterday.
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'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, Theresa.
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.
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, 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 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.
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, 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'll tell you what, let's do.
Gee, I kind of said I was going to talk about other stuff.
It was sort of other angles of Libya last past hour.
So let's keep everything going that we got going.
But the Japan earthquake and 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.
I'll tell you what the heck I'm talking about next.
Mark Davis in for us.
▲
Export Selection