All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 29, 2014 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:29
September 29, 2014, Monday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of The Rush 24-7 podcast.
Greetings, and it is Rush Limbaugh.
It is the EIB network and the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
And remember, as long as I'm here, I can barely hear the theme unless if it's still going, uh just have to it's over now.
Well, maybe that's why I don't hear it.
But I still think the mixed minus is a little bit low.
But we'll find out in uh in due course.
As I was saying, my friends, it doesn't really matter where I am, uh, where here is as long as I'm here and I am here, and it's an emergency trip of sorts.
Um I have a little bit of a problem with the the uh the old cochlear implant on the left side.
Nothing with the internal guts is wrong.
It's the thing I wear on the ear, it's become too sensitive to sound that cuts out when the sound gets very loud.
So I had a I had a schedule a uh an emergency appointment this week, and I decided, you know, some coming out.
We love it out here.
We'll just spend a whole week.
So we're gonna be here all week long.
Uh and the uh in the western part of the country here on the EIB Net.
Great to have you here as always.
Telephone number is 800-282-2882.
If you want to be on the program, the email address, El Rushbow at EIBNet.com.
Do you, folks, if it's funny, the number of people making fun of Obama on 60 minutes last night, Ron Fournier, who used to be the AP Bureau chief, uh, and is quoted so much, by the way, when he issues criticisms of Obama.
The reason why that makes news is because Fournier used to be one of the guys, I don't mean to insult him by saying this, but he used to be in the tank.
Uh he was he was like a lot of people were in 2008, just swept up in whatever messianic atmospherics we had with Obama.
Great, and this and that and the other thing.
And of course, uh, like most in the drive-by media, the uh the tendency is to align with fellow travelers on the left anyway.
So the reason why when Fournier deviates from slavish behavior, it makes news because he's he's uh he's he's I don't know, determined to be credible because of this.
Even though he's not saying anything any of you haven't heard from me or others, the fact that he is saying it is news precisely because of the uh indication it means he's losing favor with Obama, and he tweeted out after last night's 60 Minutes interview, the following summarized Obama's interview with Steve Croft, which was another softball fest, which is what Croft has become known for too.
And by the way, that's another thing that's showing up in the drive-by's.
Interestingly enough, Steve Croft, and this is not good for Steve Croft.
Steve Croft is beginning or has attracted now the reputation.
If you're Lib, if you're a Democrat in power and you want a softball interview, you get Croft to ask you the questions.
And it's guaranteed to be a PR puff piece.
And this is another thing that Fournier was reacting to last night.
And here's the way he tweeted his summary of Obama's appearance last night.
I mean, my, it's their fault.
I mean, my, it's their fault.
I mean my, it's their fault.
I mean, my, it's their fault.
I mean, my dot dot dot.
That was the assessment.
And of course, it's right on the money.
Nothing new.
The fact that Obama talks about himself and blames everybody else, of course, you and me, nothing new, but to have this noted by uh by former avid supporters supporters is uh well, I don't know.
It's it's it's fun and interesting at the same time.
But see, here's the bottom line, what does it all mean?
Real presidents, folks, try to fix problems.
And what Obama does is try to fix the blame.
And now he's doing it again.
He's by but blaming all the problems of ISIS on bad intel.
It's amazing.
And oh, by the way, when it comes to the economy, you know what?
Things are gangbusters out there.
I mean, we've got a roaring recovery.
You just don't feel it.
And therefore, it's your fault, because he's done his job.
He ended the recession in 2009, and he's got job creation humming, and he's got the recovery humming, and he've got this economy growing.
If you don't feel it, it's your problem.
And that's essentially what he said.
But how successful.
Remember when there were no weapons of mass destruction after the invasion of Iraq.
Well, there were, but another story.
General consensus was that there weren't any weapons of mass destruction.
And of course, the reason was bad intel, and it really was.
Every intelligence service that's worth its salt in the world confirmed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.
CIA, FBI, MI-5, MI-6.
You name it, everybody said, and of course, Saddam was bragging about all he had because he's trying to be the kingpin of the Middle East.
And so he created a massive fabrication or lie, and everybody believed it.
And when this was pointed out, that excuse didn't fly, did it?
Bad Intel didn't fly.
Didn't get Bush off the hook.
It didn't mollify the Democrats.
Harry Reid, you name it, they weren't interested in bad intel.
It was just it was very helpful for them because they've been trying to make the case that the Iraq war was unnecessary, unjust, immoral, wasted time, blah, blah, blah.
Federalists, here's Obama.
Doing and taking the same tact that George W. Bush took, and never got Bush off the hook, even with Obama.
Obama didn't stand for Obama.
Bad intel, not good enough.
Presidents cannot rely on bad intel as excuses, Obama said.
And now Obama and the Democrats are taking the same tack.
So anyway.
The um show prep continued after I familiarized myself with all of that.
Last night, Obama and his appearance and said, We've got sound bites from it.
It was pretty pretty pathetic.
But then I read a piece by Andy McCarthy, writes it National Review Online.
The Kardashian group does not exist.
Corusc.
We have affectionately begun calling them the Kardashians here.
And I said, the Khorasan group does not exist.
I said, this sounds familiar.
Sounds really familiar.
And I remembered, oh yeah, it was I, your host, El Rushbo, who pointed out last Wednesday that the Corazon group didn't exist.
Andy's peace first.
For six years, President Obama has endeavored to will the country into accepting two pillars of his alternative national security reality.
First, he claims to have dealt decisively with the terror threat, rendering it a disparate series of ragtag JVs.
Second, he asserts that the threat is unrelated to Islam, which is innately peaceful, is moderate, and is opposed to the wanton violent extremists who purport to act in its name.
Now the president's been compelled to act against a jihad that has neither ended nor been decimated.
He goes on to talk about how there is no Corusc.
It was literally just made up.
Another poll quote pull quote here from uh from Andy McCarthy, a national review online.
This is on think is on Saturday, he said the president's been telling us for years that he handed Al-Qaeda by killing bin Laden.
He's been telling us for weeks the Islamic State, ISIS ISIL, is a regional nuisance that posed no threat to the U.S. Recent days, however, reality intruded on this fiction.
Suddenly tens of thousands of terrorists armed to the teeth were demolishing American trained armies, beheading American journalists and threatening American targets.
Now, Obama can't say it's Al-Qaeda because he wiped them out.
He can't say it's Al Qaeda because they've been on the run for long.
Can't say it's ISIS because they're the JV team.
He can't say it's Al Qaeda because he killed bin Laden.
GM's whatever.
GM's alive, O bin Laden's dead, whatever.
They had they had to make it up.
And I remember I want to take you back to this program last Wednesday.
When I first heard about this, I just want to review for you so that you can hear what you heard again me say on this program.
The regime has given this group a new name in order for Obama to be able to continue to say he wiped Al-Qaeda out.
And so you come up with a new name for Al-Qaeda, the Kardashians, whatever the Corusons, whatever they are, and either way, it's defeating.
I mean, if you wipe out Al Qaeda, how can they have a new group spring up?
If you wipe them out, you wipe them out.
If you get rid of a species, it's gone, right?
Until you discover it somewhere in the Himalayas.
So this new group essentially is just Al Qaeda renamed.
And the way the left is rationalizing all of this, uh, ladies and gentlemen, is that George W. Bush's war on terror was a dumb war, and Obama's is a smart war.
Well, they're not, yeah, well, depending on where you look, they're calling it a war, but they're still calling it an action, and they're saying that Obama's doing in a smart way, and it of course Bush was dumb, shouldn't have gone there in the first place.
But you know, back to this Corazon group.
They come out of nowhere, named by the administration just in the past couple of days, well, last week sometime.
Is there any doubt if if Obama hadn't been running around bragging about taking out Al Qaeda and wiping out Bin Laden and thus ending Al Qaeda?
Would we even have heard the name Corazon Group?
But because Obama's been running around bragging about taking out Al Qaeda, starting at the Democrat convention in 2012.
Okay, Al Qaeda hasn't gone away, so the regime has to give them a new name to make it look like it's a new group after Obama wiped out Al Qaeda.
But it's it's just it's Al Qaeda.
That's all it was.
And it was, it was it was known uh well, I instinctively figured this out last Wednesday, last Tuesday or Wednesday.
The Corazon The Corazon, by the way, is a region uh that that incorporates borders of uh Afghanistan, I think Afghanistan and Syria and uh I'm I believe Iraq, but they just made it up.
There is no Corusc.
It's Al Qaeda, and Obama didn't wipe them out.
He never came close to wiping them out.
But everything that that comes from this regime, folks, is is uh in terms of Obama's accomplishments and achievements, it's all PR.
It's all buzz.
And Obama even acknowledged that uh the U.S. underestimated the rise of ISIS and overestimated the ability of the Iraqi military to fend off the group in that interview that aired last night on 60 minutes.
The president was asked by softball asker extraordinaire Steve Croft about comments from James Clapper, the director of national security, who has said the U.S. not only underestimated ISIS, it also overestimated the ability and the will of the Iraq military to fight them.
And Obama said, yep, yep, that's true.
It's absolutely true.
Jim Clapper has acknowledged that I think they underestimated what had been taking place in Syria.
Uh and of course, you're not supposed to remember any of the things said previously.
Oh, yeah, JV team, uh, we've wiped out Al Qaeda.
All of this, folks, just adds up to uh another conclusion that is inarguable, and that is that everything we're doing here is political.
The reasons that we're taking on this group, the reasons that we're going into ISIS and trying to take them out, whatever it is that we're trying to do, it's all political because of poll numbers.
And that's why so there's no principled reason for this operation.
And there never has been.
Obama doesn't really left to his own devices.
If there weren't problems for Democrats re-election efforts, we wouldn't be doing this at all because Obama really doesn't think this is any big kind of a big problem.
It's over there.
And what happens over there, it's their business.
And in many ways, Obama thinks what happens over there is our fault in the first place, because our support for Israel.
I mean, he's part of the group that believes we've created all of this unrest over there with our superpower status and our arrogance and our bravado running around the world like we own it.
And so all of the problems in the world can be traced back one degree or another to the United States.
So if if there weren't any problems with election polls, and if there weren't any problems with Obama's approval numbers, and there weren't any problems in polling David Show's weak on foreign policy and national defense.
We wouldn't even be doing this.
So we are doing it.
They have to come up with reasons for it, and they're not principled strategic military reasons.
They're all political.
And when something is political, it's going to bend and shape and react to political events that are applying pressure on it externally or internally.
Whereas if it were a strict military operation, there wouldn't be any reason for, yeah, we don't know who Corazon.
It wouldn't make upper group, but it just said we got Al Qaeda's come back and we got to wipe them out.
But we couldn't because Obama had said that we'd wiped them out.
So it's unserious.
As far as they're concerned.
And the problem is it is really serious.
This is really serious stuff, and it's not being treated that way.
They're trying to make you think they're treating it seriously.
It's Jim Clapper guy.
He's got no business being where he is.
Jim Clapper, National Security Director, he said the Muslim Brotherhood was non-secular, nothing to worry about.
And so did McCain, by the way.
By the way, McCain, this is kind of funny.
McCain thinks that Roger Goodell blew it in that Friday press conference.
McCain said, this guy's got lousy PR.
This guy doesn't know how to do PR.
This guy, the first thing you learn in politics is you don't call a press conference unless you have something to say.
And he had nothing to say, so he shouldn't have called the press.
Is it just me, or is it kind of funny to listen to a Republican sound like an expert on PR?
I mean it doesn't.
I saw it and I kind of cracked up.
Maybe ironic's not the word, maybe maybe unbelievable is uh is the word.
Anyway, you say that Al Qaeda's on the run.
Okay, that becomes the op that that reality can't change, except it isn't real.
You say Al Qaeda's on the run, they have to remain on the run.
That's tied to the president.
He said so.
He's the commander-in-chief.
Well, they're not on the run.
Okay, so what do you do?
You invent this new group.
Give them a new name.
Same group, call them the Corazon group.
And that's pure and simple why this is going on.
But the bottom line is it's the same bunch of people, same organization, same objectives.
They're not on the run.
They have not been pushed back.
They've not been dealt with.
None of that.
None of that was true.
And it's just a Democrats, if you remember shortly after 9-11, when we started get going with the uh the war in Afghanistan, and then we went to Iraq, and the Democrats all said that's not the place to go, you gotta go to Afghanistan.
This thing's not over to you, kill bin Laden.
You got to kill bin Laden, that's how you define victory.
A lot of us said, no, that isn't gonna matter.
Al Qaeda's still gonna be around.
But they actually believed it because they think killed killed bin Laden, and that meant the end of Al Qaeda politically, as far as they were concerned.
So they've got a mess on their hands because there's no principle, there's no real military strategy behind this, not listen to the generals' boots on the ground and all that.
So it's a comedy of errors, except it is very serious.
That's a problem.
Got to take quick time out here, folks.
Sit tight, back with much more right after this.
Do not go away.
And we're back, Rush Limbaugh on the left coast.
The Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies on the Move.
We're here in Los Angeles for the entire busy broadcast week.
This morning on uh CBS This morning, Holly Williams is the uh the foreign correspondent for CBS News, and she was reporting about the war against ISIS in Syria and the impact of U.S. air strikes there.
The fighters in Mahmouddin village told us that the U.S. led air strikes against ISIS in Syria have so far had very little impact on the ground.
Like many people in this part of the world, they would like to see more of them.
What?
Well, wait, wait, wait.
That's not that's not right.
Last week, John Kerry said that uh they were on the run.
John Kerry who served in Vietnam, by the way.
So they were on the run.
ISIS was on the run.
We had them on the run.
Yeah, here is uh Holly Williams at CBS just today.
U.S. led air strikes against ISIS at Syria have so far had very little impact on the ground.
Here, in fact, this is Kerry last week, uh, on Wednesday on CNN.
What we've done is we've stopped the onslaught.
That was what we were able to achieve with air power.
They were moving towards our bill.
Right, They were moving towards Baghdad.
That's right.
Baghdad could well have fallen.
But it didn't have fallen.
They couldn't have control of all of the oil fields.
No, no, no.
We've resecured the Mosul Dam.
We broke the siege at Sinjar Mountain.
So air power has been effective.
That was last Wednesday.
Just this morning at Holly Williams CBS air strikes against ISIS.
So far, very little impact on the ground, and like many people in that part of the world, they would like to see more of them.
It's going to be tough to get the truth from this bunch on all this, folks.
America's real anchor man, truth detector, and doctor of democracy, all combined here in one harmless, lovable little fuzzball bundle, Rush Limbaugh behind a golden EIB microphones serving humanity.
We got the Ditto Cam up and running today.
Well, hi.
Um it's rare that on the first day that works here in LA, but it's up and running.
Everything's cool.
I was sitting here during the break.
I mean, look at Obama getting shredded for throwing the Intel community under the bus over ISIS.
Uh Obama, the country better off.
People just don't feel it.
Bill Clinton, I know why U.S. incomes are stagnant, and wait till you hear why, in Clinton's opinion, incomes are stagnant.
But it you look at this, and I I I guess it's nothing new.
Is there anything, folks, in Obama's campaign or in the first term of the presidency that didn't turn out to be untrue?
What were his major claims?
Well, we've got Al Qaeda on the run.
We got bin Laden, Al-Qaeda's on the run.
ISIS JV team.
Come on, don't waste my time.
I've got better things to worry about, a bunch of ragtag leftovers.
You can keep your insurance.
Remember that?
You like your insurance policy, you get to keep it.
You like your doctor, you get to keep your doctor.
Like the plan covered, you get to keep it all.
The economy's improving, no question about it.
You just don't know it.
And of course, all of its smoke and mirrors.
Look at this.
This is this is a story from Reuters.
U.S. led airstrikes hit grain silos and other targets in ISIS controlled territory in northern and eastern Syria overnight, killing civilians and wounding militants.
Killing wait a minute.
Well, uh uh k uh killing civilians and wounding militants.
So we're we're bombing food storage sites, and we're bombing food workers, and here even later in the peace, gas plants that provide electricity, probably for hospitals, who knows what else.
This is called collateral damage.
And that's not what we're supposed to be doing here.
We're supposed to be pinpricking things.
We're supposed to be surgically striking things out there.
U.S. led airstrikes hit green.
You know, yeah.
I don't know.
It's easy to say, but it needs to be pointed out.
If George W. Bush were president and we're hitting grain silos, and we are killing civilians and only wounding the bad guys, do you think that would be the lead item?
It's important to point these things out.
You can't just assume, I've learned this.
You can't assume people are gonna figure this out themselves.
It has to be pointed out.
So who's who's keeping count of the civilians killed so far?
Certainly somebody in the drive-by's is going to keep us a uh a body count of how many civilians killed here in our surgically striking areas.
The aircraft may have mistaken the grain silos in the northern Syrian town of Manbij for an Islamic state base, said the Britain based Syrian observatory for human rights.
There was no immediate comment from Washington.
Yeah, there will be, and they will blame faulty intel for it.
The strikes in Manbij appeared to have killed only civilians, not fighters, said Rami Abdul Rahman, who runs the observatory, which gathers information from sources of Syria.
Yeah, these were the workers in the silos.
They provide food for the people, he said.
Couldn't give a number of casualties.
It was not immediately possible to verify the uh information.
So we're bombing food and food workers.
Where is the outrage?
Okay, so Bill Clinton.
You know, the Clinton Global Initiative is timed to occur the same week in New York as the United Nations uh weeklong confab is.
And that's because the United Nations was bigger at first and attracted more women to town.
So Clinton timed the Clinton Global Initiative to coincide with the arrival of a whole lot of foreign women with their delegations.
Now it is said that the Clinton Global Initiative is actually outnumbering the occurrences of the week at the at the United Nations.
And during the week at the Clinton Global Initiative, Clinton said the American economy uh isn't feeling as secure as it should.
And he knows why.
Here's some statistics.
Median household income in 2013, $51,900, according to recent reports from census.
That's 8% lower than before the recession began in 2007.
So since 2000, let's just say 2008, the last year of Bush, and all of Obama's administration, median household income has fallen.
About eight percent.
And then Clinton said, and I'm gonna tell you why median income hasn't gone up for three reasons.
One is the labor markets, they're not tight enough out there.
That's the big problem.
And the second thing is we have not raised the minimum wage as we should.
I mean, if you want to get media real, you've got to raise that minimum wage out there.
And we just we have we have we haven't done it.
Second reason is that we haven't changed the job mix enough.
I mean, to raise immediate income and have more poor people working into it, uh a combination of jobs has to has to pay on average higher wages.
All right, well, that's true.
Does anybody know how that happens?
What leads to wage increases on the forget unions, because that's a that th those things happen independent of market forces in many in many occasions.
Not all, but in a lot.
The average ordinary Tom Dicker Harry, what is it that determines wage increases?
And there's there's any number of things.
It's not the minimum wage.
I'm just going to tell you right now, the minimum wage doesn't have any impact on median income whatsoever.
It's not even intended to.
The medium wage is a drag.
If you want to bring the medium wage into the conversation, the medium wage would be raising it would be well have having one in the first place would contribute to a decline in median income.
It's directly relatable to economic growth.
There isn't any.
I don't care what Obama says.
The economy is growing and you just don't feel it.
Thank you.
You know it's not growing precisely because you don't feel it.
You know, it used to be, and I've never forgotten this phenomenon.
It used to be that you could convince people in good economic times that we were heading for a recession.
We saw it happen.
The drive-by media, the Democrat Party spent four years, 2009, all the way through 2000, or I'm sorry, 2000 uh 2005 through 2009, trying to convince the American people that we were headed for a recession.
It was all part of a get Bush angle, and it was tied into what a mess the Iraq war was.
Now, at the time they started, trying to convince people the economy was in the tank.
You know what the unemployment rate was?
It was 4.7%.
That is statistical zero.
As Obama likes to say.
All economists agree, but on this they do.
At 4.7% unemployment is statistically full employment, because there are going to be reasons and vagaries why people are unemployed.
But you're you're never going to get everybody who wants a job in a job.
That's that can't equal full.
4.7 unemployment is damn good.
And that's what it was.
It was near the best.
And they started trying to convince people that we were headed into a recession.
They would use gasoline prices to do it any number of things, but they didn't even offer specifics.
They just said it every day, just reported.
Economists are worried, X, Y, and Z reasons, we're soon to be heading into a bubble, a recession.
And so I remember there was an interview with a guy in a neighborhood, some average American town, and he said, Yeah, I'm doing fine.
I don't see any recession, but apparently a lot of people in town are hurting.
You can convince people in good economic times that it is bad or getting bad.
Because people are naturally pessimistic.
They don't have to work hard at it.
It's just, it's it's a fascinating aspect of human nature.
It takes effort to be positive.
It takes effort to be uplifted and positive, enthusiastic, and oftentimes people can't do it on their own.
They need help.
Most people aren't self-starters.
But when it comes to being pessimistic, that's easy.
So you can talk people into that.
But when things are bad, it is really difficult to convince them things are good when they're not.
And that's what Obama is trying to do.
60 minutes last night, oh yeah, look at the numbers.
Oh man, we're roaring back here.
I mean, things are really going great.
The economy is you just don't feel it.
So what he's essentially telling you is you're too stupid to know how great the economy's going.
The bottom line is you can't convince people of something innately positive like this unless they see it, feel it, or experience it.
Maybe in a couple of extreme examples, could you find somebody not doing well?
Oh, it must be going great.
I guess I'm not doing too well, but the whole town must be really kicking butt, except when you drive through town, nobody kicking butt.
You can't see it.
And that's evidence of to know.
So that's that's the really difficult thing to do.
And here comes Clinton coming along, undercutting Obama.
Obama says economy's going gangbusters.
Here's Clinton claiming he's got the explanation for why it isn't going gangbusters because median income is falling.
And his basic answer is the labor markets are too tight, whatever he means by that, and uh minimum wage, which he's just making a pure political statement.
Wages, on average, are not going to increase unless the economy grows.
But there are other factors besides that.
I think you know, there's a there's a great piece.
I have it here in the stack.
It's a long piece about uh it's a theory, it's an opinion piece that forces are aligned to actually keep the middle class poor, to prevent middle class expansion and growth.
And if I have time to work it in today, we're kind of esoteric and a little bit in depth, but it nevertheless is uh interesting in in a couple of ways.
Now, there you know the income tax is a great way to prevent the accrual of wealth.
In fact, it's the number one weapon against creating wealth is the income tax.
And as you know, the more you earn, the higher your rate, the more you will pay.
The more you earn, the more is taken from you.
And then the more you earn and the more is taken from you, the more you hear you're not paying your fair share.
The more you hear that you are selfish and greedy when you want to keep a little bit more of what you're earning.
Uh so the tax code is is one of the reasons why median income is not up.
But overall, it's the economy.
There isn't any growth anywhere.
Numbers of people laid off, numbers of people not working.
There's nothing out there that would suggest real wage growth makes sense.
Unless you have a boss that's got a big heart and simply wants to give you a raise that's nothing to do with market forces, and there are those people, but they're not abundant.
Quick time out, my friend, sit tight, much more right after this.
You know, back during the uh Israeli war with Hamas and Hezbollah.
Seems like every day there were condemnations of the Israelis for killing civilians, for targeting schools and targeting hospitals, and all those mean Israelis, those heartless, cruel bloodthirsty Israelis.
And Obama would join the fray.
And Obama would condemn Netanyahu and demand that Israel clean up his act.
I wonder, since we're bombing food and grain silos in Syria with reports that we're killing innocent civilians.
I wonder if Netanyahu will admonish Obama to stop this.
And uh suggest the United States is uh needs to clean up his act.
Don't target innocent civilians like this.
I know he won't on making a point in and of itself.
To the phones we go, we're gonna start in Atlanta.
This is Frank.
Great to have you on the program.
Frank, greetings and hello, sir.
Yeah, hello, Rush.
Besides the fiction with the Corazon group, the other one that Obama's running is this idea about boots on the ground.
He doesn't want to put soldiers in their troops in there, but he knows he's gonna have to.
So he's got the defense secretary and the generals claiming that we're gonna probably need them.
We're gonna need them.
This will give him a fake leaf of cover.
And also, if there are casualties, he'll blame it on the military because they said they wanted Wait a minute.
How does it give him how how does Hegel Martin Dempsey, other military people saying, hey, we're not gonna be able to do this without boots on the ground?
How does that give Obama cover when he eventually puts boots on the ground?
Because he figures he'll get a drumping from Republicans in Congress, plus many military people and some people in the press, and it'll say uh reluctantly have had to put uh military in on the ground.
And he'll try to blame the military for any casualties that way.
Well decisions on the military, just like on just a second.
The military from the get go has been publicly saying that this is a waste of time without boots on the ground.
They're not they're not being silent about that.
They've been very upfront about it.
And Tesla, if if if Obama eventually has to put boots on the ground according to your theory, how in the world does the military take the hit for that when it's been something they've been suggesting?
In other words, why won't Obama take the hit for not having done it in the first place?
He'll claim that it was the military's decision and it was their bad decisions that caused this.
And any casualties are their responsibility.
It was the military's decision not to put boots on the ground.
No, it was a military the military is saying we're probably gonna need boots.
Obama has been saying all along that he doesn't want to put military at ground troops.
Right.
So when he puts boots on the ground, how the military's been right about it from the get go.
How can they then get blamed for it?
Well, they've been right about it, but they'll be blamed for any casualties, and Obama will be the reluctant warrior.
I didn't want to put him in, but I was forced by the military.
Right.
Well, okay.
Now I can see a version of that, but I have to tell you, Frank, if Obama tries that, that's gonna make him look pretty weak.
Well, you know, I didn't want to put these boots on the ground over there.
This is after the first set of casualties come in.
First casualty reports.
We're in the future.
We're speaking hypothetically here, folks, according to Frank's theory.
So Obama finally caves, puts boots on the ground because he finally figures out we can't win without doing that.
And then the casualties come in.
And Frank's theory is that Obama's gonna say, well, yeah, this is why I didn't want to do it.
Because I knew this is gonna happen.
The military made me do it.
The military forced me to put these boots on the ground, so the military's to blame for the casualties.
But he's the commander in chief.
He either makes himself look weak by acquiescing to them.
I don't doubt that he'll try to find somebody else to blame Frank.
Don't misunderstand.
But I'm not so sure that it's gonna be automatically reported in a way that uh Obama would would like.
This is it's not as though the military has been silent uh on this.
Again, all of this, however, just once again illustrates the practically purely political nature of all of this.
Get this, folks.
The faculty at George Washington University made a lot of donations to Obama when he was seeking office.
And they are very, very unhappy about Obamacare.
It is really affecting them in a bad way.
However, they are not blaming Obama.
They are blaming the university itself.
That's how these things work.
Details coming up.
Sit tight.
▲
Export Selection