RUSH: The big news today, though, folks, the big news today is the treasure trove of documents. You’ve seen this, Mr. Snerdley? (Laughing.) My friends, I’ll tell you what, we document that has been released, a blueprint for trying to start a war between the United States and Iran. But also the text of a document discovered in Abu Musab al-Zarqawi’s “hideout.” Now it’s a hideout! It used to be a “safe house.” Now it’s a hideout. The document has been provided in English by Iraqi national security advisor Mouwafak al-Rubaie. Now, AP in later dispatches is using the word “purported” when they say “text of document purportedly discovered in terror leader,” blah, blah — and, of course, we have to be guarded about this.
After all, this is al-AP, and, of course, al-AP is not benefited by the information contained in this document, but at the same time we really don’t know the source of this. There’s a one or 2% chance here; we just have to cover our bets. We’ll report what it says, but until it gets independent confirmation elsewhere, we have (interruption). I know it’s the genuine article but I’m covering my bases. I’m learning about this in the Drive-By Media, and I (interruption). So I just, I’m covering my bases here. I know it’s a genuine article. It’s too good to be true. Part of it is just too good to be true. That’s one of the (interruption). Wait a minute! This is almost like I sat down and wrote this with the Democratic Party and the Drive-By Media in mind, because it kills them. It decimates them.
Oops, there went the cigar. I hope it’s not burning, because we’re going to have a fire here in just a second. I can’t bend down here and pick it up, because it wouldn’t look good in the Dittocam. It’s not burning. Everything is cool. If you start seeing smoke, just come in here and grab it. The cigar, I knocked it out of the ashtray there in my exuberance and wild gesticulations. At any rate, this thing reads in such a way that the Democrats are just — it blows them out of the water and the Drive-By Media. Let me just read you some of the salient points thus far. The text of this document found in the Zarqawi safe house blasted by the Air Force called for a review of “the current bleak situation” in Iraq from Zarqawi’s point of view.
Al-Qaeda in Iraq views “the continued presence of American forces as harmful to the resistance.” As an overall picture when you go through this, “time has been an element in effecting negatively the forces of the occupying countries due to the losses they sustained economically and human lives which are increasing with time. However, here in Iraq, time is now beginning to be of service to the American forces and harmful to the resistance.” He calls himself and the Al-Qaeda people “the resistance” in this document. So what does that mean? The fact that we have not cut and run, the fact that we have not followed Democratic Party directives and policies, policies they are still advocating to this day, this very morning, the fact that we have not cut and run has dealt a severe blow to Al-Qaeda in Iraq and its plans there.
Let’s look at the document itself. “Why is the American presence harmful to the resistance [quote, unquote]? One, by allowing the American forces to form the forces of the [Iraqi] National Guard, to reinforce them and enable them to undertake military operations against the resistance.” Okay. Democrats have been demanding, “You gotta train those security forces, Bush! You gotta train ’em! You gotta get ’em up so our guys can leave.” Zarqawi’s document indicates not only have we been doing it, we are doing it and they are succeeding! Number two: “By undertaking massive arrest operations, invading regions that have an impact on the resistance and hence causing the resistance to lose many of its elements.”
In other words, we’re capturing a lot of these SOBs. We are arresting them — and who knows where we’re taking them, and who knows what we’re doing to them when we get them there. We can all dream. Number three: “By undertaking a media campaign against the resistance resulting in weakening its influence inside the country and presenting its work as harmful to the population rather than being beneficial to the population.” Now, this is another element. When we found out that this was going on, when we found out that we were running a “PR campaign,” some called it “psyops.” Some called it “propaganda.” But we were trying to inform the Iraqi people of the good guys, who the good guys were, what the good guys were doing.
Here Zarqawi is saying: It’s working, damn it!
“They’ve undertaken a media campaign against the resistance. It has resulted in weakening the resistance influence inside the country. Number four: By tightening the resistance’s financial outlets, restricting its moral options and by confiscating its ammunition and weapons.” So we’ve successfully frozen some of their assets. We’ve cut off inflows of dollars to the Al-Qaeda and the insurgents in Iraq, and we have reduced their options. I don’t know what they mean so much by “moral options,” but all of these points here are in this document. “Why is the American presence harmful to the resistance?” Meaning the insurgents. “Number five: By creating a big division among the ranks of the resistance…” Ooooh! We’re destroying their morale!
The insurgents’ morale is in trouble, and we know this is true because it was one of Zarqawi’s own guys who spilled the beans on him to our security forces and intel operatives that allowed us to nuke him. “Number five: By creating a big division among the ranks of the resistance and jeopardizing its attack operations, it has weakened its influence and internal support of its elements, thus resulting in a decline of the resistance’s assaults,” meaning they’re less able to mount military operations. “Number six: By allowing an increase in the number of countries and elements supporting the occupation or at least allowing to become neutral in their stand towards us in contrast to their previous stand, the refusal of the operation,” meaning United States has an increasing number of allies in the operation, and this is not helping the Al-Qaeda insurgency, and, “Number seven: By taking advantage of the resistance’s mistakes and magnifying them in order to misinform.”
Now, when I was just reading this for the first time today and I got to Number two, well, here’s number one again: “By allowing the American forces to form the forces of the National Guard,” I said, “Democrats are dead right there. They’re dead!” Everything that they’re demanding that they say Bush hasn’t been doing — has not been going well, Rumsfeld, lousy planning, all this stuff — is working to a T. Number two: “By undertaking massive arrest operations, invading regions that have an impact on the resistance, and hence causing the resistance to lose many of its elements. We’re taking prisoners. We’re arresting them. We’re on offense, and the Democrats’ only option here is to claim it’s a forgery or, as I suspect will be the case, “Well, this is even more reason why we need to withdraw, more reason why we need to pull the troops out of there. The Iraqis are taking good measure of responsibility.” They’ll have to admit the Bush policy has worked, but what are they going to do, folks, except continue to flap their gums and make absolute fools of themselves, and I’m just going to sit here and watch and revel in it and share the sound bites with you.
RUSH: It’s going to be interesting now to watch all this. You know, the House is going to have this debate about the war on terror. The Democrats are just fit to be tied about that in the first place. They wanted a debate on the war in Iraq, and the Republicans, “Ah, if you guys want a debate,” it’s a Democrat idea, “if you guys want a debate, we’ll debate on the whole war on terror,” and the Democrats realize they may have been sucked in here, ladies and gentlemen, into getting more anti-American, anti-war talk on the record as uttered by Democrats from the floor of the House of Representatives. This document also talks about how Zarqawi feels he needs to use the media to put out a positive message of the work and successes of the “insurgency,” the “resistance,” the terrorists, Al-Qaeda terrorists in Iraq.
I think he’s well aware of how to do that. The US media, the Drive-By Media, is one of his greatest allies in this, as the president has pointed out to the Drive-By Media a couple press conferences ago. The document also contains a blueprint for trying to start a war between the United States and Iran, and let me just give you some of the details of this: “The question remains. How do we draw the American troops into fighting a war against Iran? It is not known whether America is serious in its animosity towards Iran because of the big support Iran is offering to America in its war in Afghanistan and Iraq. Hence it’s necessary first to exaggerate the Iranian danger and to convince America and the west in general of the real danger coming from Iran, and this would be done by the following,” and among these is, “by disseminating bogus messages about confessions, showing that Iran is in possession of weapons of mass destruction or that there are attempts by the Iranian intelligence to undertake terrorist operations in America and the west against western interests.”
So the strategery is clear here, try to distract the American military from Iraq into Iran, and then using the US military or the media, rather, the Drive-By Media to help spread propaganda about the successes of the insurgency, or the resistance, whatever it is he was calling it. But the bottom line is that they’re in trouble. They admit they’re in trouble. Just among many number of documents that came out of his hideout, his safe house. Folks, I can’t tell you how this just decimates the Democrats and every point they’ve been talking about how we failed. You heard John Murtha. “Our troops don’t have what it takes! We don’t have any leadership! Rumsfeld’s horrible! Rice is horrible! They both need to resign! It’s a terrible plan for the peace,” blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, and guess what?
From the enemy’s own pen, his own keyboard or however this guy wrote all this down, the success that we’re having over there is profound, so much so that these guys are rattled. Now that Zarqawi’s dead, 450 raids, 109 dead terrorists just in the last 48 hours. It’s been overwhelming. This is quite a blow. In hindsight you say, “Well, why didn’t we do this long ago?” We sent a wave of people through Baghdad, and take-no-prisoners time, and I think one of the answers to my own question: We obviously found out locations. We found out where these people are, we found out where they’re hiding, who they’re hiding behind and so forth, and it was an easier operation than to go, you know, haphazardly with not so good intelligence and run into possible civilian casualties and so forth which we studiously avoid. Mike in Erie, Pennsylvania, you are up first. Welcome to the EIB Network, sir.
CALLER: Good afternoon, Rush.
CALLER: All right. I know you understand Dems like the back of your hand. But I think you’re giving them too much credit here. I don’t think they need to acknowledge that the Bush plan is working for them to further their opposition. They could argue that the Iraqi army is doing so well despite Bush that we need to get out of the way and get out of Iraq.
RUSH: Wait. I’m not following you here because your phone is breaking up. Who are you talking about when you say they could argue the Iraqi army doing so well that Bush needs to get out of their way?
CALLER: Well, you said earlier that the Dems either have to acknowledge that Bush’s plan is working —
CALLER: — or be on the losing side. Well, I’m arguing that they don’t necessarily need to that. They can argue that the Iraqi army is doing so well despite Bush’s plan, that the US Army needs to get out of Iraq.
RUSH: Well, you must have missed me saying that. That was the second option I gave. I don’t know what happened to you out there, but you people that are going to call the program are going to have to promise me you’re also listening to it, because I said, “Well, they got two options,” and I said, “The option they’re most likely to choose is: ‘See? See! We should withdraw. We should come home now. The plan is working.'” I said, “The problem is they have to admit the plan is working.” I said, “It’s a dilemma for them.” Okay, do they acknowledge this or do they say this is a forgery. There’s a third option; “Why this is document a forgery. Why, this is too convenient! Why, we know this isn’t true. Why, we’ve seen the media reports of how bad it is. We’ve seen the IEDs. We’ve seen the burning cars. How about the 24 in Haditha?”
This is going to panic them. They’re not going to know what to do, and they’re going to have to go out and do polls. They’re going to have to do focus groups, folks, and that’s what the Democrats do. It’s what the libs do in a tight squeeze like this. They’ll go out and ask the opinion of these focus groups, their constituents, what their reaction should be, and may not even wait for that. They may just go straight for the kook websites, the blogs out there, to find out what their reaction to all this is. I can predict to you that nine out of ten of them or six out of ten are going to say, “It’s a forgery,” that Bush and Rumsfeld wrote it.
“It’s a Rove idea! It’s just too pat. It’s just too good. It’s just too good to be true! Zarqawi would never have written this down if it were true,” blah, blah, blah. “Who was he writing it too?” He was writing it to superiors elsewhere, other terrorist leaders inside and outside the country of Iraq. So what are their options? Their options are to claim it’s a forgery. The option is to claim it’s much ado about nothing, to lie about it. “It doesn’t mean anything. Nothing new here. We knew all this was going on,” and say, “See? Well, the success rate is better than we thought. Time to pull the troops out.” I’m going to watch and see what they decide. (interruption) Ah, they’re not going to be able to ignore it. That is another option, though.
RUSH: Steven in Raleigh, North Carolina. Welcome to the program, sir.
CALLER: What an honor. Thanks for having me on.
RUSH: You bet, sir.
CALLER: You’ve changed my life. I used to be one of those people that lived my life in the gray areas, there were no absolutes, and that’s so completely wrong. Take a stand. Take a stand as you do. Thank you for that.
RUSH: Welcome home, sir.
CALLER: Commenting on what you’re saying about the way that the Democrats may frame this documentation that’s been found, you’re so far ahead of the curve. It’s already been done. I was reading in the AP report on that this morning, and I guess it was roughly eight paragraphs. About six paragraphs down they’re making the editorial comment that the documentation: “The verbiage in the documentation didn’t match previous al-Zarqawi communications,” therefore without actually saying it, I think there’s an inference there that hey, wait a minute, this may not be real.
RUSH: Yes, forgery. I’m not surprised that al-AP would do this. You know, they were first publishing just the text of document today, and, of course, there’s been, in many sectors, an incredible, profound reaction to it. So now it’s time to go back and research. So what you’re saying is that the captured documents from al-Zarqawi don’t match the way he spoke in his video messages.
RUSH: And they don’t match his speech patterns.
CALLER: That’s exactly right. There’s a different temperament, there’s a different verbiage, so therefore there may be some question about it. Again, this is the seeds of what you’re talking, the way this will ultimately play out, these are the seeds, these are the little seeds that are planted. And then of course somebody else is gonna grab on. It will eventually mushroom, it’ll be — you know, and you’re always right about how these things will play out. The other thing that I noticed about that is they seem to take particular pleasure in reporting that there was a difference in General Casey’s summation of how they came by that documentation and the prime minister’s. These two were at odds so therefore, again, there’s something askew here in this entire story.
RUSH: Yeah. Well, this is going to make it even better. I must confess to you, though, Steven, I opened the program to the chagrin of Mr. Snerdley who thought that I was being a little bit too guarded about this, but until there is some independent confirmation of it, it does read in some cases like it’s too good to be true. Just points one and point two. But it is awfully detailed. I haven’t shared with you but 20% of this. It is so detailed on the operations, how to screw up the Kurds and the Shi’a and the Sunnis. There’s a lot in this that is historically accurate that we know has happened. As to whether you’re going to measure this about its veracity by comparing it to Zarqawi’s speech patterns in his videos, for crying out loud.
By the way, there is a line in this document about buying new weapons from Iran, and, of course, we know that Iran was supplying the IEDs to Zarqawi. So he needed a re-supply, needed some new weapons and so forth. We know that several elements asserted in this document are true. We know that they’re on the run. We know that they’re having trouble; we know that the security forces are doing well. We know that the success rate in Iraq has done a turnaround and it’s not that recently. It’s some time ago that the momentum shifted. You just haven’t heard about it in the Drive-By Media here. Two things about drawing a comparison between the way somebody speaks in a video and the way they write. I know a lot of writers, and I know you put a lot of writers in front of a microphone or a camera, and they are not who they are when they write.
People are entirely different when they write. It’s just the opposite for me. My two books, I had to dictate them, because my whole life I have spent speaking. To sit down and start typing, I am not kidding you, my vocabulary shrinks by about 20 or 30%. My mind slows down when I’m sitting down trying to write. A bunch of things happen. I cannot keep up with my brain on the keyboard, and when I see errors, I am compelled to stop and fix them and I lose my train of thought, and I say, “Screw this!” So I got out the tape recorder and I started dictating the stuff, and transcribed it and changed it and edited for the printed page, for the written word. Conversely, I have met so many people who I just envy their writing ability.
They can’t say a word in public that reminds you of their writing at all, because writers have all the time — well, when they’re not on a deadline — but they have all the time in the world to sit down and play with sentence by sentence, word by word, and buff it and shine it up and tone it however they wish. You get in the habit of communicating that way, and all of a sudden they throw you out there in front of a microphone with a limited amount of time, maybe a camera and an audience thrown in, and it’s deer-in-the-headlight eyes time. It’s not a criticism. It’s just the way it is. Some people are better at expressing themselves in one form or another than others. When it comes to Zarqawi, I don’t know how this thing got written. I don’t know if he sat down and typed it.
But, I’ll tell you what, we have seen other letters purportedly written by other Al-Qaeda clowns in Iraq that have been sent to others. Zarqawi sent one to bin Laden saying they were losing, and it read pretty much like this one does. There’s also gotta be some translation characteristics here. The Iraqis translated this from whatever lingo Zarqawi was using, gets translated to English and there’s some changes that have to take place. For example, I don’t know when I read the phrase about trying to foment war between Iran and United States; the term of “weapons of mass destruction” was used. Now, I don’t know that Zarqawi uses that term, but I know he knows we know what it means, and that it is a firecracker phrase in this country.
It lights the keg, and so who knows if he used it or if the Iraqis said, “Okay, how will Americans understand weapons of mass destruction?” He could have been talking about nukes. Who knows what he said. You have to allow for various things like that. But so soon after the document is revealed, al-AP wanting to cast aspersions on it, on the basis of comparing the way Zarqawi speaks in a video… In fact, I never heard him speak much in a video. I just saw him using machetes and cutting people’s heads off. I haven’t heard him speak all that much, to tell you the truth. He doesn’t know how to use an AK-47 or whatever the gun was, he had to have some help in doing that. Who’s next on this program? Brett in Atlanta, you’re next on the EIB Network. Hello.
CALLER: Rush, hello, how you doing?
RUSH: Fine, sir, thank you.
CALLER: Great. Thank you for everything that you do for us.
RUSH: You’re more than welcome, sir. Thank you for recognizing it.
CALLER: To speak to all the naysayers about the legitimacy of those documents and the information that was found in Zarqawi’s place, you know, the 400 plus raids and 109 kills and with minimum civilian casualties that speaks alone to how accurate and how legitimate those documents were.
RUSH: Yeah, it’s a good point. It’s one of the reasons why this has been so successful, because the intel in those documents gave us precise locations of these SOBs, we were able to go in there and rout them out without much resistance, by the way. How many raids were there, 400-plus raids and over a hundred insurgents room temperature on their way to — Yeah, over 700 captured. And yes, my friends, captured detainees. Ha-ha. Think Abu Ghraib. Think Club Gitmo, where I have a thriving merchandise business. So, you know, we’re not going to close Club Gitmo, although the Department of Defense has ordered the current crop of Drive-By Media people out of there. I think it’s a great day.
RUSH: One more thing about this business of the authenticity of the Zarq document, whose to say that Zarq is the author anyway? I mean, Zarq is not a one-man operation. Zarq had staff. Who knows. I mean, it’s entirely possible he’s not the author of it, it’s possible that somebody else is, that he himself may be dictating it or ordering it done. Another thing, this document was never intended for public consumption. All these public statements on these tapes and these beheadings, that was for public consumption. This wasn’t. This was internal use only. He probably had a for-your-eyes-only stamp on it somewhere, in whatever lingo he speaks.
*Note: Links to content outside RushLimbaugh.com usually become inactive over time.