RUSH: Remember another thing we were always told while we were in Iraq, that we shouldn't be doing any of this because all it was doing was creating more terrorists. Remember that? Everything George W. Bush did, it was just a recruiting tool. Abu Ghraib, recruiting tool. Club Gitmo, recruiting tool. Torture, waterboarding, recruiting tool for the bad guys. That's right, my friends, everything we did, everything we did militarily, either in defense of our allies or our own policy was considered a recruiting tool.
Yeah, everything that we were doing was just going to create more terrorists. This is the argument that Obama and Kerry and Biden and all the rest of these bubs issued to try to convince the American people there was no way we could win militarily. Our military had no business being over there. It was out of place, it was not called for, there was no hope, there was no way. Remember Harry Reid (imitating Reid), "This war is lost. This war is over."
They were trying to secure defeat so they could hang that around George W. Bush's neck. So everything that we did, "Oh, man it's just making the terrorists madder, angrier, conflict resolution 101." And now what? Here's Obama bombing. Oh, yeah, indiscriminate bombing attacks on ISIS. Isn't that going to recruit more terrorists, I could ask? Isn't that gonna just make the terrorists angrier? Isn't that just gonna quicken their resolve and firm up their resolve and make them want to get even angrier at us? Isn't that going to make the terrorists really, really ticked off? Are we not actually recruiting more terrorists by doing all this?
I mean that's the kind of drivel that we had to put up with for five years from these people. Damn right it ticks me off, folks. It ought to make everybody mad. We are living an absolute mess because of this stuff. Washington Post editorial. It was August the 8th, Friday. "Obama’s Authorization of Iraq Airstrikes Isn’t Connected to a Coherent Strategy." (gasping) The Washington Post is saying this? Really? I don't even need to read the editorial to you. The headline says it all.
Remember John Kerry, any time bad guys do anything (imitating Kerry), "When are they going to realize that this is the twenty-first century and this is not the way things are done now," blah, blah, blah, blah. "I'm secretary of state. We don't do things this way," bang, goes a bullet whizzing by his head.
Washington Post: "Obama’s Authorization of Iraq Airstrikes Isn’t Connected to a Coherent Strategy." Here's another one. This is the New York Times: "Fear of 'Another Benghazi' Drove White House to Airstrikes in Iraq." This is choice. "On Wednesday evening, moments after finishing a summit meeting with African leaders at the State Department, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff delivered a stark message to President Obama as they rode back to the White House in Mr. Obama’s limousine."
Oh, by the way, did you hear that's how this happened? Obama was convinced to launch air strikes by the chairman of the Joint Chiefs in a limo ride. And it was, if we don't do this, we could end up with another Benghazi. That's exactly right. Now, this has to be hard for the New York Times to report this, because, to them, Benghazi is a phony Republican scandal. What do you mean, another Benghazi?
This is another thing. How many months have we had to listen to the Drive-By Media characterize Benghazi as a phony Tea Party scandal, folks? Nothing to see there. There wasn't any scandal there. Four Americans died. What do you think happens in a war? Get over it. It was that video. We've got the guy in jail. Screw it. Been there. Done that. It's over. But these Republicans, they want to keep it alive for congressional hearings. It's just a phony scandal.
And here comes the New York Times saying, "Well, no, the reason that we're dropping bombs on ISIS is to make sure there's not another phony Republican scandal," this time in Iraq? (interruption) They're shutting up. These loudmouth liberals are gonna shut up. They understand unity. They're not gonna undermine. Hillary is the only one undermining Obama, and that's 'cause she's got grandiose political designs. Elizabeth Warren does, too. But she's so stupid, somebody's gonna have to tell her when to go do what, and she'll get in gear. Somebody will call her from Harvard, the faculty lounge, give her a heads-up.
Hell, I don't know. But they're not gonna undercut Obama. (interruption) This whole party is all about unity, acquiring power, and holding it. They do not throw each other overboard. You think because we will throw one of our people overboard at the drop of a hat that they'll do the same thing. No, and remember, Obama's race is still his race, and it still is a limiting factor, even for Democrats. But the unity thing is the biggest thing. But, I mean, the New York Times hates using force to maintain peace or stability in the Middle East. They love Obama. They said that Benghazi, there's nothing to see here, it's a phony Republican scandal, and now, in the New York Times: "Fear of another Benghazi drove the White House."
It must be really bad if that's the best they can come up with to justify this. Can you imagine your typical New York Times reader, "Benghazi, what's Benghazi?" They're in Zabar's on Upper West Side, they got the New York Times, they read: "Fear of 'Another Benghazi' Drove White House to Airstrikes in Iraq." And all these libs in New York, "Benghazi, where is that? What is that?" They don't know about Benghazi. The New York Times never reported about Benghazi except as a phony Republican scandal. So a typical New York Times liberal reader in Manhattan says, "Wait a minute, fear of another Benghazi scandal --" and they're probably in Zabar's cursing Republicans for this today.
I can just see it now. Jeff Greenfield and the gang in Zabar's blaming the Republicans for this, because as far as they're concerned the New York Times said that Benghazi's a phony Republican scandal. So now we're dropping bombs on Benghazi to prevent another Benghazi? So Obama has to do this? Obama has to bomb Iraq to make sure the Republicans don't do another scandal? Damn Republicans, they're horrible, terrible, responsible for everything. New York Times, typical reader. (interruption) What? (interruption) Will our bombs hurt civilians? Well, ISIS is like Hamas in that regard. They hide with civilians. They hide with them before they kill them. Will our bombs hurt civilians? Probably so.
David Gregory, obviously trying to keep his job on Meet the Press, said yesterday -- this is in The Daily Caller -- David Gregory slammed Obama on Meet the Press yesterday, claiming that a big, expansive terrorist threat grew on Obama's watch. Meaning, during his presidency. Not on his Timex. They're out there. David Gregory, maybe for the first time in his life as a journalist, criticized Obama on a day he no doubt heard the rumors that he's out and F. Chuck is in. So he decided to give the heartland some of what they want to hear: blame Obama. And he did. He slammed Obama. He said terrorism has expanded out the wazoo during Obama's presidency. But the New York Times readers, "No, no, no. No, no, no. It's Republicans. Obama had to bomb Iraq to make sure they don't do another phony scandal like Benghazi was."
RUSH: Here's Darrell in Leesport, Pennsylvania. Hi, Darrell, I'm glad you waited. Great to have you on the program. Hi.
CALLER: Hi, Rush. Great to talk to you. Real quick: I think we need to pull out that picture of McCain over there in Syria and figure out who those guys were that he was standing with. But my point is that in Iraq, no boots on the ground, but somebody's there. The administration told us they're dropping laser-guided bombings, so somebody's lasing these targets, so I guess there already are boots on the ground.
RUSH: Well, but see, they're not really "boots on the ground." Those are forces" defending the embassy." Those are forces defending the Green Zone. These are not combat troops, and don't anybody think they are! They're not combat troops. Obama said so. We're not gonna have any boots on the ground. This isn't really a war. Although he did say this might take longer than we thought, on Saturday.
Sherry, Winston-Salem, North Carolina. I have one minute but I wanted to get to you, nevertheless. Hi.
CALLER: Hey, Rush, good to talk to you again.
RUSH: Thank you.
CALLER: I heard Obama's comments. The way he couched the bombing in Iraq was to protect American personnel in the consulate there. That was his primary driver. That's why it's temporary. I think that that's a backhanded way of his acknowledging and taking responsibility for what happened in Benghazi.
RUSH: Noooo. (chuckles)
CALLER: He can't afford another Benghazi.
RUSH: Well, that... Obama... Look, there are Regime people saying that to the media. Obama hasn't. There's a story. I forget now where. I think it's the Washington Post, but it might be something else, and they reported that the reason they're doing this is to make sure there's not another Benghazi. But, Sherry, the proper reaction there is, "Benghazi? What happened in Benghazi? Nothing happened in Benghazi.
"That was just a Republican scandal! Nothing happened in Benghazi. The New York Times said so." That's where it was! It was the New York Times that reported that they're trying to prevent "another Benghazi," but the New York Times said Benghazi wasn't anything. "Republicans made that up, just exaggerated that for a scandal and for some hearings. Nothing happened in Benghazi worth anything!"