RUSH: Folks, I've been trying to -- as you know by virtue of yesterday's program -- I've been trying to veer off of the Bin Laden, Pakistan story, but I tell you, they just keep releasing stuff here that draws me, and thus you, back to it. For example, according to the UK Guardian -- this a leftist newspaper -- President Bush struck a deal with Pakistan's President Musharraf ten years ago that allows America to go into Pakistan to kill terrorists like Bin Laden without the Pakistanis knowing about it. This is a ten-year-old deal. So this is another thing that Obama has inherited from Bush. The deal allows Pakistan to wail and cry and moan and everything, but they are committed to letting these attacks happen unopposed. A ten-year-old deal that Bush struck with Musharraf.
Now, the AP has not reported this. Domestic State-Controlled Media has not reported this. They had not reported one word about the Bush-Musharraf agreement. Instead, what the AP has done, they have rushed out a report that says Musharraf is now denying there's any kind of a deal. So rather than report the deal, AP's gonna say, "By the way, you know, that thing that The Guardian says happened, the ten-year-old deal we have reported on. Well, Musharraf's denying it." That's right. Which is to be expected, I mean from AP. And Musharraf, by the way. These people have played double game over there. Can you imagine, Musharraf's the ex-president, but still, if the word got out that he had actually agreed to let Bush, the hated Bush and the Americans to just waltz into the country any time they want under the pretext of nailing a terrorist, yeah, he would be in trouble.
But also what's happening here is the AP does not want to undercut Obama's heroism. See, this story challenges this whole image that they've crafted of the heroism of Barack Obama, the unique talents and abilities that no one else in the White House had. Only Obama had the ability, the capability to come up with the details of the plan that were utilized. They've gotta protect that. They have to protect that investment they've made in creating the Obama image. But we have been killing terrorists in Pakistan for years with drones and who knows what else. We've been successfully killing terrorists in Pakistan before Obama came along. And yet the New York Times, the media, is trying to make it out as though it never happened, and certainly not this brilliantly until Obama came along.
Now, if the United States and Pakistan agreement is true, and I think that it probably is, it completely undercuts -- there's a story in the New York Times this morning, they're doubling down on this. The New York Times story chronicles Obama's gutsy call to double the size of the Bin Laden raid. Did you know that? Yes. Obama's gutsy call to double the size of the raid. Especially his gutsy call giving the SEALs permission to fire back if Pakistani forces attacked 'em. Now, I'm wondering could it be that Mr. Obama was totally unaware of this ten-year-old agreement with Pakistan? Could his regime really be that incompetent? Could they have been unaware of this and are now sorta caught flat foot, "Okay, we gotta cover this up. We didn't know about it," or did they know about it but thought they could get by with nobody else knowing about it 'til the guys at the UK Guardian decided to blow the lid off of it? In any case, the New York Times article about Obama's military genius is hilarious.
It's just like we said the day after the raid right here on this program behind this very Golden EIB Microphone. It turns out that the New York Times story, turns out only Obama had the foresight to call for backup helicopters and backup troops in case anything went wrong. Did you know that? New York Times says that today. Only Obama. (interruption) Yeah, well, if you read the New York Times you're supposed to believe it. Only Obama had the foresight to recognize something could go wrong. Only Obama had the foresight to send in backup helicopters and backup troops. None of the others involved would have thought of that. Of course, the reason is Obama calling on his vast experience in these matters of calling out the troops on the street corners in Chicago during his community organizer days. He has no experience doing this. This is like riding a bicycle for the first time.
Here's the story: "US Braced for Fights With Pakistanis in Bin Laden Raid," by David Sanger and Thom Shanker. "President Obama insisted that the assault force hunting down Osama Bin Laden last week be large enough to fight its way out of Pakistan if confronted by hostile local police officers and troops, senior administration and military officials said Monday." Obama alone insisted. Is there nothing that Obama left to chance? He had the foresight to anticipate anything could go wrong? Do you realize, ladies and gentlemen, how profound it is that Obama even allowed that something he could be involved in could go wrong? What a major, major step that is for a narcissist. 'Cause as far as he's concerned nothing ever goes wrong. But yet in this instance, he and he alone was able to see hours and hours into the future what might go wrong, and he and he alone had the foresight and the brains combined with experience -- ahem -- to demand that backups in every phase be used and be available.
So on top of being a genius about the law, on top of being a genius about economics, on top of being a genius on green energy and race relations and some other subjects, we now learn that Obama is a singular genius on military planning to the point that people who have been doing it their entire lives were unable to foresee circumstances that Mr. Obama alone foresaw and demanded the need to plan for. "In revealing additional details about planning for the mission, senior officials also said that two teams of specialists were on standby: One to bury Bin Laden if he was killed, and a second composed of lawyers, interrogators and translators in case he was captured alive." There was a team of lawyers, apparently. (laughing) That's what the New York Times said. Kid you not.
The first team of specialists had to be expert in all the rituals for a Muslim burial. The second team had to be expert on all the rituals of the ACLU. Not that the Obama administration have any problems with either of those. But they still wanted outside help. "That team was set to meet aboard a Navy ship, most likely the aircraft carrier Carl Vinson in the North Arabian Sea." It is clear -- I say this again -- they did not want to interrogate Bin Laden in any nation's territory. Bin Laden would need the lawyers. If we captured him, gonna interrogate him, the lawyers would be there to act on behalf of Bin Laden and maybe the SEALs, whoever it was, gonna interrogate him. You remember all the lawyers at the Battle of the Bulge, don't you? You remember the lawyers at the Normandy invasion? Oh, you've never read the book Great Lawyers Who Died on Omaha Beach? I'm shocked, Snerdley. Have you read the book The Lawyers and the Boys at Pointe du Hoc? Well, damn. Well, they were on this mission. (laughing) Have you heard about the lawyers on John Kerry's swift boat? Well, see, that's another reason why I'm so far ahead of the game.
RUSH: I've had an inordinate number of military people communicate to me that they don't believe Bin Laden is dead, and I've said to them, "I really don't like getting sucked into that because look at all the people that have to be compromised in that lie. You'd have the whole SEAL team. You'd have all those lawyers that Obama had over there. Everybody on the USS Vinson. Look at the numbers of people that would know, and all it would take is one of them to spill the beans on this," but it does lead to an interesting conspiracy theory. In this New York Times story, they make it plain that if they captured Osama -- which of course was never part of the mission.
That's another one of the misleading aspects of the story: They never were gonna capture the guy. They did not want to subject Bin Laden to the sissified policies they've established here. They didn't want him at Gitmo with lawyers and all that. This New York Times story is to cover bases. There are some leftists who are upset. It's all because of this great interview that Chris Wallace did on Sunday on Fox News Sunday. He had one of the national security guys from the regime on there, and he really tripped the guy up. I had the sound bite yesterday and I just didn't get to it, but I can tell you what happened.
Chris Wallace basically said, "I don't understand something. You won't waterboard anybody -- it's inhumane and it's against American values -- but you've got no problem putting two bullet holes above Bin Laden's left eye."
"Well, that's right. We want to protect American values."
"So killing somebody who's unarmed in cold blood is fine, but waterboarding 'em, that's just American?"
"Duh, bahbdadaba buh, buh..." (stammering)
The national security guy was sent out to take the arrows on this, and he took 'em. So here we have this New York Times story, and part of the reason for this story is to proffer the notion that there was a plan to take him alive...when there wasn't. There's no way. This was a kill mission from the get-go. This story talks lawyers and the possibilities of on-site interrogations. One of the things this New York Times story over and over mentions is "in planning for the possible capture of Bin Laden officials decided they would take him aboard a Navy ship to preclude battles over jurisdiction."
Why not just take him to Club Gitmo? Why not just take him to Guantanamo? That's what it's there for. It's there specifically to handle problems over "jurisdiction." That alone tells the story. They were never gonna capture the guy, they were never going to leave him alive, and now all the sympathetic stories about only Obama realizing they needed four helicopters instead of two -- only Obama realizing we needed 40 SEALs instead of 20 -- only Obama realizing that we need lawyers in there in case we capture him -- all of this. What do they think? Were we supposed to sit here and believe that they thought Bin Laden would just give up whatever information under interrogation without any inducements whatsoever?
It was gonna be that easy? This is all so silly. So I've got a new conspiracy theory based on, really, a lot of e-mails I'm getting from military people. Look, they've got experience. "I know, Rush," they've told me, "I can read stitches on these fastballs. I know this language. I'm telling you: He's alive." Military people that I know. I'm not talking about strangers. Well, there have been some from people I don't know, but it includes people I do know. I just don't know how you keep that secret from all the people who would know it. Somebody would have to leak. You can't... Ours is a culture of leaks. News is entirely made up of leaks and lies and so forth. But how about this. Snerdley, listen to this.
How about we get behind this conspiracy theory? You know, one thing I've never done in my whole career: I've never had it said that I started a conspiracy theory. I've never been the author of one. Everybody else gets to write these things and I sit here and I always react to 'em. I want to start one! I've got my own conspiracy theory. The SEALs actually captured Bin Laden alive and they took him back to the USS Vinson. (I can say, I've been partied by all these military people that have spoken to me about this.) We did capture him alive, we took him back to the USS Vinson, then it all went wrong. He died while being waterboarded, which is why the regime had to take position it took Sunday afternoon on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace.
We actually killed Bin Laden with waterboarding and the regime is profoundly embarrassed over this.
RUSH: Here is the sound bite from Sunday's Fox News Sunday Chris Wallace interviewing the National Security Advisor Tom Donilon. They were talking about enhanced interrogation techniques and the raid that killed Bin Laden, and Chris Wallace said, "Why can't you do waterboarding? Why can't you do enhanced interrogation of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed who is just as bad an operator as Bin Laden was?"
DONILON: Because it... Well, our -- our judgment is that it's not -- not consistent with our values, not consistent and, duhhh, not necessary, uh, in terms of getting the kinds of intelligence that we need.
WALLACE: But shooting Bin Laden in the head is consistent with our values?
DONILON: We are the war with Osama Bin Laden. It was -- he was a military target!
WALLACE: We're the war with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the same way. Why is it inappropriate to get information from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed?
DONILON: I didn't say it was inappropriate to get information from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.
WALLACE: You said it was against our values.
DONILON: (stammbering) I think the techniques are something that's been a policy debate and our administration have made our views known on that.
RUSH: What this is is this poor schlub has gotta stay wedded to this crap that the Democrats put out all during the campaign of 2008 and the preceding two years as they were trying to nail Bush and all this stuff is against American values. Meanwhile, Chris Wallace is exactly right. While we want to put the CIA interrogators who came up with this information in jail -- they're still investigating them! We wanted Dick Cheney in jail. They wanted to "frog march" Scooter Libby and Karl Rove out of the White House. They wanted to put them in jail -- and they wanted to find out what actually done the waterboarding and put them in jail, all because it just ruined America's image.
Then Obama, in the New York Times, is credited as a military genius for a double tap on Bin Laden! We murdered Bin Laden. He wasn't armed. He was "reaching" for an AK-47, but he wasn't armed. We now know he's living in a rat hole -- crackhouse, whatever it is. He was living in this slum, and it's perfectly fine to go in there, "Pow! Pow! You're dead, buddy," but don't dare waterboard him. This poor guy, you shoulda seen this. He was blinking. His eyes were blinking and he was clearly thinking, "Well, God, what happened to me? Why am I here?" I'm sure he left that studio thinking, "Is this job worth it?" because Wallace just nailed him, just nailed him.
The Mediaite has a story here. It seems that leftists are really ticked off over the guest lineup of the Sunday morning shows. Well, I'll explain it. Let me read to you. This is a post at Mediaite by Colby Hall: "The capture and killing of Osama bin Laden is unarguably the biggest foreign policy news to occur during the Obama [regime], and arguably the biggest foreign policy development of the last ten years. So how did the Sunday morning talk shows treat this huge news? By booking a bunch of former officials from the Bush administration. Or as Rachel Maddow asked last night, 'Is the biggest story in American politics right now "retiree's from the Bush administration and how they feel about stuff?"'"
She's upset because: Where are the Obama people -- how come it's only Cheney and Rumsfeld and all these ex-Bush people on the Sunday morning shows? I can explain this. There's nobody on the Bam side to get the story straight. How many versions have there been? There's nobody that they trust to send out there to get it right because they've told so many different versions of this, they don't dare send anybody on the Sunday shows. So they send this poor schlub out there, Donilon, and now you know why they didn't send anybody else. You see how this guy got nailed, over murder versus waterboarding.
RUSH: I have tried to get away from this Bin Laden story. But they won't let us, and some of this stuff that's being written I cannot let go uncommented upon, the effort here to build Obama up into something that he's not. You know, they're devastated. He only got a three-point bounce in a poll that they really put a lot of stock in. Now, they knew that whatever bounce Obama got wasn't gonna last, but they certainly expected more than three points. It's just not that big a deal because it didn't change the circumstances that make people's lives. You can't put Osama's blood in your gas tank. It has nothing to do with the value of your house. It's a feel-good story for a while, yeah, but doesn't change anybody's life, nor does it change their future. But it has changed a lot of things in the media.
This is incredible. This is how far they are willing to go to build this no experience, least qualified guy in whatever room he walks into, Barack Obama, up into something larger than Patton and MacArthur and Lincoln combined. Gallup is reporting that consumer confidence is up, a new high because of the killing of Bin Laden. What kind of fools do they think we are? Believe me, they think we are fools. To try to pass this off as actual news, that economic confidence is up because we got Osama? That is patently ridiculous. But if you stop to think about it, it might inspire Obama to start tracking down and killing more terrorists if that's what will drive up his poll numbers on the economy. Remember when Dick Gephardt was saying for every hundred point drop in the stock market we pick up a seat in the House? Well, for every terrorist killed with a double tap we pick up two points in our approval numbers.
Obama might end up having to protect the country after all just to help himself in the polls. That's what he might glean from the Gallup results. Can you imagine the conflicted view they'd have in the White House. What a tradeoff. (imitating Obama) "You mean I actually have to protect the country now? I gotta go kill terrorists, that's how I get my economic news up?" Can't be happy.