« Iran Vows To Help Iraq With Security | Main | Bush Says U.S. Won't Withdraw From Iraq »
November 28, 2006
What Happened To Let's WIN
No One Is Focusing on Winning in Iraq;
It's "Get Out, and Turn It Over to Our Enemies"
by Rush Limbaugh
RUSH: They continue to leak data from the upcoming Baker Report (it's being called): the Iraq Study Group. It's fascinating what's happening on this. Nobody any longer is talking about winning. Everybody is now talking about how to "get out." These leaks obviously are having their intended purpose. The intended purpose is to set the stage for when the real report comes out. The real report is probably going to exactly or equal what the leaks have been, and that is, we gotta get out of there, and we gotta let Syria and Iran go ahead and assume control over this and get their assistance with all this. Meanwhile, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is, once again now, saying that the United States, Israel, and the UK are doomed, that it's only a matter of time. Hugo Chavez in Venezuela says he's going to take us down. Nobody seems to notice or care.
It's amazing.
I left here on Tuesday, get back now, and not much has changed. The tenor of the news is still pretty much the same. I've got the requisite number of stories on what the Democrats are and aren't going to do, and how they're going to be liberal and not liberal, and how they're going to investigate and how they're not going to investigate. The pope is in Turkey. We have bombing threats, bomb attacks on Wal-Mart now, and there's probably an explanation for this, but everybody is all hepped up now about the situation in Iraq with the Baker report. Here's a little blurb on it from the Associated Press:
"The Bush administration is stepping up diplomatic efforts to stabilize Iraq, even as key congressional figures say their confidence in Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's government is waning." You know, I would love if the Baker report said: "Just put Saddam Hussein back in charge." I know there's a columnist in the LA Times, a guy who wrote the "Why I Hate Bush" column named Jonathan Chait. Do it, he says. Do it now. Yeah, he mass murders people, but the guy kept order. The guy knew how to keep order. Maybe that's the thing we should do. (Laughing.) It's getting so absurd that I wouldn't be surprised if somebody besides a columnist makes that suggestion. "The New York Times reported today that a draft report by the Iraq study group led by James Baker recommends aggressive regional diplomacy, including talks with Iran and Syria."
This is no different than what has been leaked on prior occasions. "Anonymous officials who have seen the draft report..." I wonder who they are. Could they be members of the commission, I wonder? By the way, Vernon Jordan is on the commission (I wonder what he thinks we ought to do about Iraq) and Sandra Day O'Connor, great Supreme Court justice, she's on the commission. I wonder what she thinks we ought to do about Iraq. Why are these people any better than anybody else on this commission? Ed Meese is on the commission. He makes a lot of sense, a lot of times, but Vernon Jordan is a rainmaker. Sandra Day O'Connor was a justice who doesn't think the judiciary should be criticized. The best and the brightest in these "blue ribbon" commissions, they get appointed -- and I'm looking at all this, and nowhere is anybody suggesting that we win it.
Nobody is! We could do the Limbaugh Plan. The Limbaugh Plan is win in Iraq and get out. The Limbaugh Plan would consist of many things which many say are impossible. Stop the politics. Have both parties line up for US victory. Of course, it's a pipe dream because the fact of the matter is, as I said. Have you heard all the calls over the weekend, "We've gotta send troops into Darfur!" That started before we left on Tuesday and that's there now. What the case is as I mentioned brilliantly to a caller last week, the left in this country will send our military anywhere where we do not have our own national interests at stake. They'll send 'em on Meals on Wheels programs. They'll send them to stop a bloody civil war in Africa.
They'll do it to feed people or what have you, but where our interests are at stake, no way! They're not going to send our troops and our military anywhere where our interests are at stake, because it's not fair, and they don't like the military being used. All of this is a setup. This whole policy on Iraq is a setup now to see to it that we don't have the guts or courage to deploy forces anywhere around the world the next time we need to defend ourselves. That's the danger that lurks behind all of this. With the kind of political leaders we're breeding, who's going to have the guts to do it if it's necessary to do anyway, given what no doubt will happen to him as has happened to George W. Bush?
Oh, by the way, "anonymous officials who have seen the report say it does not specify any timetables for the withdrawal of US troops in Iraq although the commissioners are expected to debate the feasibility of such timetables. Appearing Monday on Good Morning America, Jimmy..." I think we've got the audio of this at some point. I'm not sure I want to listen to it. Carter thinks that Bush "will take their advice as much as he possibly can. Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, potential presidential contender," Ha-ha! Don't make me laugh, "in 2008 said, 'It's not too late for the United States to extricate itself honorably from an impending disaster in Iraq, and as for Bush some of the harshest criticism is coming from his own party, we have misunderstood we have misread we have mismanaged our honorable intentions in Iraq with an arrogant self-delusion reminiscent of Vietnam,' said Hagel."
Honorable intentions are not policies and plans. "Senator Dick Durban of Illinois, now the number two Senate Democrat called Iraq 'the worst US foreign policy decision since Vietnam.' He said Democrats do not have a quick answer, and any solution might be bipartisan." They don't have an answer? They don't? All of a sudden now they don't have an answer! Well, they did have an answer prior to the election! That was cut-and-run, redeploy, whatever. You know, redeploy is another one of these twisting and turning of words that just means quit, but it softens the message of cut-and-run or quit and leave. We'll "redeploy." We'll put our troops somewhere where there's really no need for them to be under the pretense if something really bad happens we can mobilize them quickly and get 'em back in there.
Let me try to explain it. The Iraq war, to the vast majority of people in this country, is no more than a 20-second or 30-second television show every night on the Nightly News -- and they're uncomfortable. They're fed up. They don't want to watch it anymore. "Just end it. Figure it out! Just end it, because I don't want to see it anymore." To them it's not about the country being threatened. It is not about a worldwide conflict in which we find ourselves. It's just something inconvenient. The American people don't want to be inconvenienced; they don't want to see that stuff. We got a story out there now: We've been in Iraq longer than we were in World War II. So what? When did World War II become the official timeline of wars? It doesn't matter. The objective doesn't matter. "However long it takes to win this," that's no longer the objective. Get out, because the American people don't want to see it anymore. They're going to continue to watch the news, and they don't want to see this. It's no more complicated than that.
CALLER: I was calling because, to be honest, I'm actually starting to get afraid of what's going to happen with the new direction we're going in, pulling out and speaking to the terrorist countries? It honestly makes me afraid.
RUSH: Be very afraid, sir.
CALLER: You know, I know people that died in the World Trade, and I really don't -- you know, I love my country, and I love all my fellow Americans, and for another tragic thing like that to happen again, I feel it's coming in the direction that we're going.
RUSH: Yeah. I think you're right. I think it's going to take at least one or more of those kind of events to get people revved up. They've forgotten about it because they want to forget about it and because you live in America you can forget about it because there are enough diversions, there's tranquility and there's peace for the most part. Everybody has their problems, but there's economic opportunity, economic performance. Why do we want to jeopardize all that with a war on terror when there hasn't been another attack here? Plus with the political divisions on this, the whole subject has become a sort of a negative for people. They don't even want to hear about it, much less support it.
RUSH: We went in there on the basis of intelligence reports there were weapons of mass destruction plus Saddam. Let's not refight that. Yeah, that's why we went.
RUSH: Well, look, the president built this stuff up for a year and a half, two years talking about this in speech after speech after speech, and he did often reference the horrors committed against the population of Iraq by Saddam Hussein. He talked about the rape rooms and the torture rooms and so forth, and the mass murders. You can't rewind life like a TiVo, but I look back on it. If we'd have just gone in there after the Gulf War, we had 500,000 troops over there. Do you people remember this? We had 500,000 troops just to kick the Iraqis out of Kuwait, and it took, what, three days? Then the highway to hell, the road to Baghdad was paved with so much death and mayhem and the pictures on the nightly newscasts were upsetting and so we stopped. If we'd gotten rid of Saddam back then, but you can't play the IFgame. I know where you're going with this.
You heard me say earlier today nobody is talking about winning, and you want to know what winning it is. At this stage of the game, I'm going to be accused of playing 20/20 hindsight, but it's not too late to change this. Our objective right now is establishing and building a government and a democracy. That's all fine and dandy, and it's all well and good.
But to me, the focus needs to be on achieving a military victory whatever it takes. If that means wiping out these leaders of the resistance and the insurgents, the terrorists wherever they are... The other day there was a story about some guy in Iraq who was disguised as a woman nursing a baby who was launching attacks against our troops. Wipe 'em out. This is war. If you have to blow up some buildings, blow 'em up. If you have to level some infrastructure, do it. Of course, we've really built the country up in a marvelous way, and nobody is reporting that very much. Anyway, that's military victory as it's always been defined.
Wild Thing's comment.......
I know it is long, but it is well worth the read.Yes I like Rush and listen to him as often as I can. I also think for myself and don't just follow lock step with what he says on every single topic. But when he is right on target he can be awesome. This transcript from Nov. 27th, 2006 is excellent and I wanted to share it with you.
Our troops are wiinning and the left can't stand it. They never can when they see positive things happening. But our troops also need to know they can fight this war in a military way and not in a PC way. Not with having to get permission for every shot fired, every building taken out. This is wrong in more then words can say. I beleive in supporting our military NOT in weakening it, attacking it and making it folllow some kind of mish mosh PC agenda bent on disabeling it at every turn.
Posted by Wild Thing at November 28, 2006 12:55 PM
Comments
Our troops won the war in Vietnam as well, and the victory was undone by anti-American commie utopians in this country, i.e. the Democrats. That was the highlight of the lives of most of the scumbag Democrats and Liberals around today. What a mess!
Posted by: D. Ox at November 28, 2006 01:21 PM
D. Ox, I agree, our troops sure did win in Vietnam and I too am sick and tired of this propaganda from the left in saying it is not so. They are trying to do the same thing to our fantastic troops today and it angers me beyond words.
Thanks for commenting.
Posted by: Wild Thing at November 28, 2006 01:56 PM
You've touched a nerve. We won both wars, with honor, the difference was the Communists didn't come to our shores and openly attack the citizenry before or after Vietnam.
Not so with the Islamists, I hope the pacifists can sleep well at night because they are next to die at the hands of the cult of death.
As a Viet Vet fresh back from LBJ's wonderful vacation land, back in school, some of my gutless wonder fellow students asked how I as a soldier could kill or harm another person.
They naturally assumed I was one of Kerry's and Fonda's infamous baby killers. That connotation still pisses me off.
My reply was "it's kill or be killed in the real world, and you'll do anything necessary to survive". My experiences in Vietnam are between me and God as to what I did or didn't do over there and no one elses.
We need to relearn that simple survival lesson on a national scale because the very few of us have protected the worthless non producers far too long, so they can slander and malign our presence amongst them.
Let them take up arms to protect themselves in the street if need be.
I wouldn't trade the life of one soldier for an entire campus of the Communist sycophants.
Harsh?
Yes, but that is the same bitter harshness that is visited upon each and every patriot who stands in the way of tyranny, who sacrifices of themselves and family to protect those who are unworthy and don't want to win any battle.
Maybe they want to see public beheadings every Friday in the city square or listen to the beatings and torture of their fellow citizens under Sharia law. Ask anyone who has spent time in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain or the Arab Emirates what life is like there.
Anyone who has been involved in an accident has thought 'that will never happen to me" likewise most soldiers feel they'll never become a casualty, life isn't like that.
That's why the no-win protected weasels feel so safe, they've never had to earn their passage in this country.
Posted by: Jack at November 28, 2006 05:49 PM
Jack Amen, Ditto and thank you. I agree and you said it perfectly!
The left has a let's loose desire and we can't let them any longer. Or at least we should and President should just say shut up we are letting our military run and fight this war....stay out of it.
Thanks again Jack!!
Posted by: Wild Thing at November 28, 2006 06:00 PM
I'm with Jack; I'm with Rush up to a point, and I'm with everyone here who wants to "win" in Iraq, even though Iraq isn't the point. Killing as many of these bastards is the point, but here's the "but", which you knew was coming.
What would victory look like? The underlying goal of the Bush Doctrine, put together by the neoconservatives, is nation building, bringing "freedom and decency" as Bush put it today, to the peoples of the Middle East. There's much more to it, of course, but nation building precedes everything else, and the job of the military was to clear the field of armed opponents.
But we haven't the capabilities to nation build in Iraq, only the Iraqis do, and they seem either beyond or beneath the capability to do it themselves. And as long as we sustain the illusion, as Bush does, that "democracy and decency" is possible there, we won't be killing our enemies in substantial numbers, because our official policy is something else.
Posted by: Rhod at November 28, 2006 06:21 PM
Rhod thank you so much.
I don't like Bush's illusion it bothers me a lot.And it is hurting our troops too. Darn I am so sick of them not leaving our military alone. They are the pros and know what to do.
Posted by: Wild Thing at November 28, 2006 06:53 PM
What have we done different in 60 years. We nation build(ed) in Germany and Japan after the second world war. They had plenty of terrorists, aka the Warewolves, The Japanese had some too, it was a spinoff of the SS and the Boshido.(sp)
The big difference is, then, when these Warewolves were caught they were promptly executed. Now, we give them a pat on the ass and send them on their way.
During the World War we leveled their cities and firebombed the shit out of them, Today, if we look at a civilian the wrong way the Soldier is brought up on charges and Courtmartialed.
We have never fought a war like the past two in our history where the rules of engagement always favor the enemy. Over the past 40 years the only thing these young soldiers have better than we did is they are all volunteers. There is no more 'Hell no we won't go', becasue the truth be told, we don't want those 'Sonsabitches' over there. And this is the truth behind why, Rangle wants the draft back.
We had Hanoi Jane and John, so do they, except the young hippies protesting their country then, are now, the same balding fat slob jerks protesting today. Like that waste of a human being Cindy Sheehan.
Johnson was afraid of pissing off the Chinese, well hell they were already involved, and so were the Russians.
Then when the going got tough Johnson quit on us, we didn't quit on him. Today, Bush said he was going to stay until the job is finished, lets hope so, he had better not quit on these young troops because like us, they too have given their all.
Now that the democrats have control of both houses we will see what he is made of. I think the next two years will truly define his presidency.
Posted by: Mark at November 28, 2006 08:07 PM
This crap of winning their hearts and minds is Bovine Scatology...it was during Vietnam and it is now. Unleash the dogs and let them do what their trained to do and when their done, send in the diplomats to put things back together. That's how we beat Japan and Nazi Germany. Sacrificing American lives to play Mr. Nice Guy has got to stop.
Shoot, there hasn't been an above ground nuclear explosion for decades. Maybe it's time to touch one off someplace just to let folks know just how much power the US really does possess. Nothing like a mushroom cloud to get them five times a day, butt in the air types to really bow down.
Posted by: BobF at November 28, 2006 09:02 PM
Bush 41 promised "no new taxes". So, new taxes
Bush 43 promised, "no nation building". So -----
Bush 41 told us of a "New World Order" which he never explained well.
Bush 43 told us he was "a compassionate Conservative" which he has practiced too well.
None of this contributes to winning wars. I thought we could have toppled Saddam in the First Gulf War by destroying his Republican Guards. Another 24 to 48 hours would have done that.
I guess my point is that we have to have a Patton type when dealing with the Mid-East and muslims. They only respect power. We need a leader who does not speak in riddles, or cute confusing slogans, or compromising excuses.
Posted by: TomR at November 28, 2006 09:36 PM
Mark well said and thank you.
Posted by: Wild Thing at November 29, 2006 10:07 AM
Bob that would be great.
Posted by: Wild Thing at November 29, 2006 10:08 AM
Tom we sure do, strength from the top.
Posted by: Wild Thing at November 29, 2006 10:10 AM
I think Col Ralph Peters said it best,You don't
take a terrorist and make him part of the new
goverment, you kill him... Our Military are not
policemen their job is killing and thats what
they should do... If they were allowed to do
their job this crap would long be over...
Posted by: Tincan Sailor at November 29, 2006 12:30 PM
Tincan Sailor, I agree oh Lord please just let them do their job.
Posted by: Wild Thing at November 29, 2006 02:00 PM
Jack, that was one heck of a bit of commentary there, thank you. I couldn't agree more.
Those "Communist sycophants" aren't fit to wipe your shoes.
Thank you for all you do!
Posted by: LindaSoG at November 29, 2006 08:14 PM
