‘President George W. Bush’s administration has crippled Al-Qaeda’s ability to carry out major attacks on US soil…’ This is from Reuters. Let me read this to you. You don’t read this much in the Drive-By Media. You don’t. If it stopped there, ‘Whoa! (clapping) Hot damn! Hubba hubba. The Drive-By Media reporting success in the global war on…’ Sorry, we can’t say ‘global war on terror’ anymore. The Democrats say so, because there really isn’t one. ‘President George W. Bush’s administration has crippled Al-Qaeda’s ability to carry out major attacks on US soil…’ The sentence doesn’t end there. The next word is: BUT. ‘[B]ut at a political and economic cost that could leave the country more vulnerable in years to come, experts say.’ Yes, you heard right. Bush has done such a bang-up, great job of crippling Al-Qaeda’s ability to carry out major attacks on America, that we could be more vulnerable than ever before in years to come.
‘Even as al Qaeda tries to rebuild operations in Pakistan, experts including current and former intelligence officials believe the group would have a hard time staging another September 11 because of U.S. success at killing or capturing senior members whose skills and experience have not been replaced. ‘If the question is why al Qaeda hasn’t carried out another 9/11 attack, the answer I think is that if they could have, they would have,’ said a former senior U.S. intelligence official who spoke on condition of anonymity. Tighter U.S. airport security, greater scrutiny of people entering the United States and better coordination between the CIA, FBI and Department of Homeland Security also have made it harder for extremists to enter the country, experts said. Home-grown extremists in the United States are believed to be isolated and lacking the will or ability to carry out large-scale operations. ‘Make no mistake about it, however, our enemy is resilient and determined to strike us again,’ said Charles Allen, chief intelligence officer at the Department of Homeland Security.
‘Some experts warn that the successes of Bush’s war on terrorism have been undercut by huge security costs, strains on the U.S. military from wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and resentment of the United States abroad. ‘Look at al Qaeda’s plans,’ said Michael Scheuer, who once led the CIA team devoted to finding al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. ‘They’re very simply defined in two phrases: spread out America’s forces and bleed the United States to bankruptcy. I’d argue America has been under attack successfully every day since 9/11 from that perspective. ‘If you’re looking at it from the cave, or wherever al Qaeda is hiding at the moment, you have to be pretty happy with the way the world is moving,’ he said.’ However, this success has depleted us! This success has broken our bank! This success has spread our forces too thinly throughout the world, and as such, we are more vulnerable than we have ever been, ladies and gentlemen, more vulnerable than ever because of the success! Let me read this first sentence to you again.
‘President George W. Bush’s administration has crippled Al-Qaeda’s ability to carry out major attacks on US soil, but at a political and economic cost that could leave the country more vulnerable in years to come, experts say.’ The headline of this story is ‘Bush Success Versus Al-Qaeda Breeds Long-Term Worries.’ Okay, so we got the concern. We have the people worrying, and we’ve got the people who want to keep us in a constant state of chaos, but the bottom line is, according to these experts, it wasn’t worth it! Yeah, we may have crippled Al-Qaeda. Yeah, we may have really dinged them up pretty good here, but it’s just going to make it worse in the future. So what’s the point, folks? What’s the point in opposing any enemy? You only make them madder or you weaken yourself in victory. You leave yourself more vulnerable. What’s the point? Let’s all just throw our hands up in frustration and recognize that if it weren’t for the fact that there are such compassionate and kind men in the world as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, we would be at great risk. Did you see what Ahmadinejad said? He told Tony Blair, ‘Please, do not interrogate these captives because of their confession. Don’t harm them because they confessed.’ This is like a Saturday Night Live skit, this Ahmadinejad thing, and this story, which according to the Drive-By Media, says it’s pointless to try to defends ourselves because even when we succeed we ultimately fail.
RUSH: You hear this ever so silently, ever so softly. But if you look in the right places, you’ll find numerous stories that use the word ‘success’ involving the surge in Iraq such as this from the Washington Times. American and Iraqi soldiers yesterday killed six terrorists, captured another 41 insurgents and death squad suspects in operations in Baghdad and outside Fallujah. The raids were password ongoing enormous effort by US and Iraqi security forces to break the backs of the various armed groups warring in Iraq. Iraqi government cited the success of that operation yesterday in announcing that the nightly curfew will be pushed back by two hours.’ Throughout the — it’s not so much penetrated the Drive-By Media yet, but that doesn’t mean they don’t know about it. The surge is not even at full strength, and it is beginning to work.
Folks, this story I just shared with you from Reuters, where wildly successful operations against Iraq are actually going to makes us more vulnerable, wildly successful operations against Iraq are going to makes us even more dangerous or place us at greater risk? These things don’t just happen by accident in the Drive-By Media. That’s not just something that happened to pop out of the woodwork. It wasn’t as though the Drive-By Media was sitting there at Reuters and minding their own business and all of a sudden some experts started calling them. The way this works is, the Drive-By Media gets a storyline. They get a template. ‘Hey, what if it works? Gosh, the worst thing we want is the surge to work! How can we combat the surge?’ So they go out and they have a story in mind. ‘Could our success against Al-Qaeda be so successful, it could actually harm us?’ Then you go out and find anybody that’s willing to be proclaimed an ‘expert’ to answer the question the way you want it, and you write a story about it. This, my friends, is what I think has happened. Look at this.
You have a military supplemental bill that could reestablish and re-cement the Democrats as soft on security à la Vietnam. The supplemental bill for money to fund the surge has been passed by the Democrats, but it contains language in it the president won’t go for, such as a mandatory pullout date: March 31st of next year, of 2008, and he’s eager to veto this thing, and then the real negotiations begin. ‘Okay, how are you going to solve this?’ One bill promotes victory. One bill promotes defeat. Where is the ‘common ground’? So you’ve got that, and the Democrats in the back of their minds, can’t really want to be thought of as a bunch of linguini-spined limp-wrists when it comes to national security. You have signs of early success with the surge. There are journalists reporting from Baghdad about bombings and killings outside of Baghdad where the terrorists have been chased from their neighborhoods inside where they were wreaking havoc. The Drive-Bys are having to leave Baghdad and travel to see stuff.
It used to be the Drive-Bys could just look out the hotel window, point the camera out there, and in a matter of time a car would blow up. You’d have the requisite flames and smoke, and you could then send that to the network office and, bammo! You have ‘more unrest and chaos in Iraq.’ But they’re having to leave the hotel now! They’re having to go outside Baghdad because we’re chasing the bad guys out of there. The surge is working, and isn’t even half implemented now. Now, my point is, you never even heard the word ‘success’ before. We made this point yesterday. I asked a caller, ‘Five years of this battle, tell me one story you remember in five years of success in Iraq. Tell me one story you recall of valor or heroism on the part of American troops,’ and you can’t, because there have been so few of them that you have forgotten them, if they existed at all — and you never heard the word success obviously. So now we’re starting to hear about some success in Iraq, and now all of a sudden comes in Reuters story that suggests success over Al-Qaeda will lead to greater danger?
Success against Al-Qaeda is going to place the US at greater risk? You think that story is just happenstance? You think it’s just coincidence it shows up today? No, folks. The Drive-Bys are terrified that this is going to work. They are terrified that General Petraeus, and Bush, are going to be successful. So it’s time to undermine success now, again, and the way you undermine success is to tell the dolts in this country that access media via the Drive-Bys, that success is going to make it even more dangerous for them to get out of their houses! Make no mistake. The Democrats, the Drive-Bys own defeat. They are invested in it. They cannot permit victory regardless. In the event that victory happens, they have to position it as an ultimate defeat. ‘Yeah, we may have beaten these guys. We may have broken ’em up. We may have sent ’em running, but it’s just going to make us even more vulnerable in the future,’ and in the process of doing it, and it’s not coincidental.
RUSH: James Taranto writing at the BestoftheWeb.com, talks about this Reuters story that says Bush is doing so great against Al-Qaeda, that we’ve never been at greater risk. He quotes a guy in story, IntelCenter chief executive Ben Venzke. He said, ‘Our leading thinking is that we are closer now to an attempt at a major attack in the United States than at any point since 9/11.’ Now, that comes at the end of a story in which we’ve been so successful wiping out Al-Qaeda that we face greater risk, and this guy says, ”Our leading thinking is that we are closer now to an attempt at a major attack in the United States than at any point since 9/11.” Well, there’s no denying he’s right, folks. If an Al-Qaeda attack is in the future, then it is closer now than at any point since 9/11.’ 9/11, we’re coming up on six years ago. So if an attack happens in ’07 you are much closer today than you were in 2001 or 2002. But, see, that is logic, and that is ‘using the linear and sequential nature of time.’ But if somebody comes out and says a bunch of sponges out there reading it. If an Al-Qaeda attack is in the future, then it’s closer now than at any point since 9/11.
‘Oh, no, no, no! (sobbing) The attack is closer than it’s been 9/11!’
It can’t be any other way because 9/11 is six years ago. There are other implications. I don’t want to try to scare you people here.
Look at the picture. See the way they’re dragging the coyote out of there? ‘It’s just a dog, Mr. Limbaugh. It’s just a poor little dog! It was fine. It just wanted some juice.’ They’re all upset about this. You gotta see the picture of the coyote almost asleep in the Quizno’s store. If people weren’t worried about it, why call animal control? Just put a little food and water dish out for it and adopt it.
At any rate, for those of you sponges out there, I don’t mean to scare you, but there are other disturbing implications as well in this Reuters story. For example: ‘If you survived 9/11 — and this is true no matter who you are — you are more than five years closer to death now than you were then.’ Do you realize this? Even if you survived 9/11, you are five years, almost six years closer to death today than you were then — and this aspect Reuters never even looked into! ‘No doubt they can find some experts to explain that it’s President Bush’s fault.’ Well, look, the point is when this guy says that if an Al-Qaeda attack is in the future, it’s closer now than at any point since 9/11, of course it is, 9/11 is six years ago. But the point is to scare you into thinking Bush has made things so dangerous by being so successful, it’s like saying, ‘I hate to scare you, but you’re five years closer to your death today than you were 9/11? Five and a half, six years closer.’
This is how people end up buying all this stuff and get scared.