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, just have to, it's over now.
Well, maybe that's why I don't hear it.
But I still think the mix minus is a little bit low.
But we'll find out in due course.
As I was saying, my friends, it doesn't really matter where I am, where here is, as long as I'm here, and I am here.
And it's an emergency trip of sorts.
I have a little bit of a problem with 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.
It cuts out when the sound gets very loud.
So I had to schedule an emergency appointment this week.
And I decided, yes, I'm coming out.
We love it out here.
We'll just spend the whole week.
So we're going to be here all week long in the western part of the country here on the EIB network.
Great to have you here.
As always, telephone number is 800-282-2882.
If you want to be on the program, the email address, LRushbo at EIBNet.com.
You, folks, 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 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.
He was like a lot of people were in 2008, just swept up in whatever messianic atmospherics we had with Obama.
Great, and this is that and the other thing.
And of course, like most in the drive-by media, 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, 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 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-bys.
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 a 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 me, my, it's their fault.
I me, my, it's their fault.
I me, my, dot, dot, dot.
That's 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, to you and me, nothing new.
But to have this noted by former avid supporters is, well, I don't know.
It's fun and interesting at the same time.
But see, 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 blaming all the problems of ISIS on bad intel.
It's amazing.
And 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, MI5, MI6.
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.
Fed right issue.
Here's Obama doing and taking the same tack 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 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 pathetic.
But then I read a piece by Andy McCarthy, writes at National Review Online, as a headline, the Kardashian group does not exist.
Corazon group, 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 piece 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 Corazon group.
It was literally just made up.
Another pull quote here from Andy McCarthy, a National Review Online, this is on Think Is On Saturday.
That 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. In 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.
He 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, bin Laden's dead, whatever.
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 Corazons, 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, 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, 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 it in a smart way.
And 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 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 just, it's Al-Qaeda.
That's all it was.
And it was known, well, I instinctively figured this out last Wednesday, last Tuesday or Wednesday.
The Corazon.
The Khorazon, by the way, is a region that incorporates borders of Afghanistan and Syria and I believe Iraq.
But they just made it up.
There is no Khorasan group.
It's Al-Qaeda.
And Obama didn't wipe him out.
He never came close to wiping him out.
But everything that comes from this regime, folks, is in terms of Obama's accomplishments and achievements, it's all PR.
It's all buzz.
And Obama even acknowledged that 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 OSCER 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.
And of course, you're not supposed to remember any of the things said previously.
Oh, yeah, JV team, we've wiped out al-Qaeda.
All of this, folks, just adds up to 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 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 data to show he's weak on foreign policy and national defense, we wouldn't even be doing this.
So what we are doing is 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 it.
Yeah, we don't know who Corazon, it wouldn't make up a group.
It would have 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.
This 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 is not the word.
Maybe unbelievable is the word.
Anyway, you say that Al-Qaeda's on the run.
Okay, that becomes the opposite.
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 the Democrats, if you remember shortly after 9-11, when we started get-going with the war in Afghanistan, and then we went to Iraq and the Democrats all said, that's not the place to go.
You got to go to Afghanistan.
This thing's not over.
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 going to matter.
Al-Qaeda is still going to be around.
But they actually believed it because they 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 listening 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 CBS this morning, Holly Williams is the foreign correspondent for CBS News, and she was reporting about the war against ISIS in Syria and the impact of U.S. airstrikes there.
The fighters in Mahmoudin village told us that the U.S.-led airstrikes 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?
Oh, wait, wait, wait.
That's not right.
Last week, John Kerry said that 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.
Now, here is Holly Williams at CBS just today.
U.S.-led airstrikes against ISIS at Syria have so far had very little impact on the ground.
In fact, this is Kerry last week 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 Arvil.
They were moving towards Baghdad.
That's right.
Baghdad could well have fallen.
But it did.
They could have had control of all of the oil fields.
We 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 airstrikes 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 the golden EIB microphone serving humanity.
We got the Ditto Cam up and running today.
Well, hi.
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.
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 you look at this, and I guess it's nothing new.
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 it's smoke and mirrors.
Look at this.
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.
Uh...
K-Ka... K-Ka...
Killing civilians and wounding militants?
So we're bombing food storage sites and we're bombing food workers and here even later in the piece, 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 great.
I 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 going to figure this out themselves.
It has to be pointed out.
So who's keeping count of the civilians killed so far?
Certainly somebody in the drive-bys is going to give us 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 in Syria.
Yeah, these were the workers in the silos.
They provide food for the people, he said.
Couldn't give a number casualties.
It was not immediately possible to verify the information.
So we're bombing food and food workers.
Where is the outrage?
Okay, so Bill Clinton.
The Clinton Global Initiative is timed to occur the same week in New York as the United Nations week-long 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 United Nations.
And during the week at the Clinton Global Initiative, Clinton said the American economy 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 2008, the last year of Bush and all of Obama's administration, median household income has fallen about 8%.
And then Clinton said, and I'm going to 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 a big problem.
And the second thing is we have not raised the minimum wage as we should.
I mean, if you want to get median real, you got to raise that minimum wage out there.
And 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, a combination of jobs 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 those things happen independent of market forces 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 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 median wage is a drag.
If you want to bring the median wage into the conversation, the medium wage would be raising it would be, well, 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.
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, 2005 through 2009, trying to convince the American people that we were headed for a recession.
It was all part of the 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 never going to get everybody who wants a job in a job.
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, 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 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.
In 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, you just don't feel it.
So what he's essentially telling you is you're too stupid to know how great the economy is going.
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 evident enough to know.
So that's the really difficult thing to do.
And here comes Clinton coming along undercutting Obama.
Obama says economy is 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 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.
There's a great piece.
I have it here in the stack.
It's a long piece about 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 interesting in a couple of ways.
Now, 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.
So the tax code 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 friends.
Sit tight.
Much more right after this.
You know, back during the 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 its 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 suggest the United States needs to clean up its act.
Don't target innocent civilians like this.
I know he won't.
I'm making a point in and of itself.
To the phones we go.
We're going to 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 and their troops in there, but he knows he's going to have to.
So he's got the defense secretary and the generals claiming that we're going to probably need them.
We're going to need them.
This will give them a fake leaf of cover.
And also, if there are casualties, they'll blame it on the military because they said they wanted...
Wait a minute.
How does it give him Martin Dempsey, other military people saying, hey, we're not going to 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 drum beat from Republicans in Congress, plus many military people and some people in the press.
And it'll say, I reluctantly have had to put military in on the ground.
And he'll try to blame the military for any casualties that way.
What?
Waiting decisions on the military.
Just like decisions.
No, no, hang 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 being silent about that.
They've been very upfront about it.
And Tesso, 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 going to need boots.
Obama has been saying all along that he doesn't want to put military in ground troops.
Right.
So when he puts boots on the ground, 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 going to 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 going to say, well, yeah, this is why I didn't want to do it.
Because I knew this was going to happen.
The military made me do it.
The military forced me to put these boots on the ground so the military is 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 going to be automatically reported in a way that Obama would like.
This is, it's not as though the military has been silent 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