RUSH: ‘Michael Chertoff, the director of homeland security yesterday, told the editorial board of the Chicago Tribune he had a ‘gut feeling’ about a new period of increased risk.’ I do, too! If I were Chertoff or anybody in the administration, I wouldn’t blame ’em for having a ‘gut feeling’ about a new period of risk. You have the Democrats and a bunch of weak-kneed Republicans talking defeat. The media glorifies every bomb going off over in Iraq as some sort of devastating defeat for the United States. Al-Qaeda videos get massive airplay here. Zawahiri and all these people get any kind of airtime and exposure they want, and terrorists watch CNN, too — although they may not have to anymore with the new Iranian news agency, which is apparently a copy of CNN. Yeah, good! We have terrorist bombs going off in London. Somebody has a gut feeling about a new period of increased risk.
By the way, ABC, Brian Ross, something’s wrong.
RUSH: All right, last night, late yesterday afternoon, ABC flashed an urgent bulletin: ‘The White House has called an urgent multiagency meeting for [today] to discuss a potential new al-Qaeda threat on U.S. soil, ABC News reported yesterday. Top intelligence and law enforcement officials have been told to meet in the White House Situation Room to report on steps to minimize or counter the threat and what steps are being taken to tighten security at government buildings, ABC reported. The meeting would be one of a number that have been convened in light of intelligence and information learned from recent failed car bomb attempts in London.’ Well, okay all well and good, everybody got all hopped up. ‘Wow, wow, wow, something is happening,’ and then the Bush administration said today that there was no specific credible terrorism threat against the United States and they denied that an emergency meeting had been called. ABC News reported yesterday that the White House had called this urgent meeting. White House officials said, nope. It’s a regularly scheduled meeting, not attended by the most senior national security officials. One of the spokesmen up there, Tony Fratto, says, ‘There continues to be no credible specific intelligence to suggest that there is an imminent threat to the homeland.’
Now, I don’t think that Brian Ross made it up. Brian Ross and this investigative unit at ABC gets all kinds of news and runs out with it, and there are all kinds of people in this administration, and I don’t mean directly in it, but in little coves and cubbyholes in various agencies over there that obviously would like to bring the administration down, and they leak all kinds of stuff. Somebody’s not telling the truth here, either the White House or ABC. I’ll tell you what the biggest threat is here, folks. The biggest threat that we face right now — the ongoing threat of course of another attack — but the biggest threat that we face is the collapse, the continuing collapse of any kind of manhood in the United States Senate. The Democrats are who they are, and they are already invested in defeat, as we have discussed many times. But now more and more Republicans are starting to get all wobbly and go weak-kneed in the period of time here where things actually appear to be working. Senator Lieberman yesterday was on the Situation Room on CNN with Wolf Blitzer. Blitzer said to him, ‘When I played the sound bite of you saying the US has the enemy on the run and the US is winning to Senator Jim Webb of Virginia in the last hour, he suggested it’s sort of these tactical victories that he personally saw happen in Vietnam when he was a Marine during the Vietnam War. But big picture, it by no means is looking very good right now, senator.’
LIEBERMAN: What I’m saying is it’s moving in the right direction, and that’s why this is such an unfair and inappropriate time to be mandating a retreat. I mean that would be basically legislating defeat when we still have a chance to win — and I think you only want to do that if you don’t think it’s worth winning. I think it’s worth winning and fighting to win because if we don’t, Iran and Al-Qaeda win. Iraq falls apart. The Middle East is in chaos, and they come after us back here at home. I think we have a chance to turn this around, and shame on us if Congress, from here, legislates a defeat that our military will never allow to happen over there.
RUSH: So Blitzer then said, ‘You caused a stir in recent days by suggesting,’ and I’m paraphrasing, ‘that the US should consider, if necessary, bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities. A lot of people were alarmed by that. Tell us precisely what you had in mind, senator.’
LIEBERMAN: In this case what I was saying is that American military has given us evidence that the Iranians are training Iraqi terrorists, up to 60 at a time, at three bases outside of Tehran, and we know where they are, and we present it — to come back into Iraq. And those terrorists have killed hundreds. And I stress that: hundreds of American soldiers. We simply cannot sit back and allow Iran to do that. So my point is: we gotta send them a clear message that they gotta stop it, and if they don’t, they have to believe that we will take military action against those training bases.
RUSH: I can’t tell you how refreshing and uplifting it is to hear this, from anybody, even a single voice. I don’t care if he is an independent/Democrat: Joe Lieberman is right about this. There are several questions to ask. Tony Blankley in his Washington Times piece today (entitled ‘The Senate: Chamber of Shame’) asks a couple of really good and relevant questions. ‘What in the world do such misgivings of U.S. senators have to do with whether we should continue to advance our vital national security interests?’ Has anybody who’s (sigh) retreating on this got any of that on their mind? Is US national security on anybody’s mind, or is all that’s on their mind up there the next election, and fear — fear of being associated with this effort because of polls? I still maintain to you, ladies and gentlemen, the United States population — the American people, particularly the voters — do not want to lose this war. They do not want the US military humiliated because what happens to our national security then? Are we safer? If we pull out of Iraq like these senators are suggesting that we do, are we going to be safer after that? Where is this thinking? Where is it rooted? What kind of reality or realism are these people who hold this view living in?
Where are they centered? How in the world does getting us out of there make us safer? How does losing this war make us safer? Nobody is asking them that, and they’re probably not even asking themselves that question. Look at what happened in Vietnam when we pulled out of there: mass murder on a grand scale. The same thing will happen over there in Iraq if we pull out, and nobody seems to care. In addition to the mass murder that will occur over there, can you imagine the flexed muscles that Al-Qaeda around the world will feel at having defeated the Great Satan? What do these people think, that oceans are going to stop ’em? The idea that 9/11 is so far ago and so extraordinary that it’s unique; it’s never going to happen like this again, is perplexing. And as more and more of these people decide to cave, particularly the Republicans, if they think they’re enhancing their electability and reelectability the next time they’re up, they have another thing coming.
I think too many of these people believe Drive-By Media polls. They’ve been managing the news on two fronts here in which they’ve been totally lying and using propaganda to convince the American people to believe things that aren’t true. One subject is the economy, and the other is the overall war on terror and the war in Iraq, and they have browbeat the American people with news and then so-called polls that they do. After managing a month’s worth of news, the polls reflect how rotten it is — and people who live and die by polls end up thinking the American people want out of there. Yet, every resolution to get us out of there has had to be purchased with pork! If the American people were really a bunch of Cindy Sheehans, they would have been in the streets demanding we get outta here long ago. It isn’t the case, and the gutlessness of people in the United States Senate to not see reality for what is and instead react to the media and polls and Democrats, is maddening.
RUSH: All right, now, I want you to listen to some sheer idiocy. I want you to listen to sheer naïveté and ignorance, bordering on just plain stupidity. It happened today on Joe Scarborough’s show at PMSNBC. He was talking to John Kerry (who served in Vietnam). This is Scarborough’s question: ‘How do you explain to the American people — who want to hear about Paris Hilton, who get their news in sound bites, how do you explain to them — that what’s happening in al-Anbar province is different that’s what’s happening in Baghdad, what’s happening in Sadr City, where you’ve got, you know, Shi’a killing Sunnis; you’ve got the Sunnis killing Shi’a, then you got the Shi’a killing Shi’a. It seems like a great challenge for any leader in America today to explain this to Americans in sound bites.’
KERRY: The president, who has the bully pulpit of the nation — who has the greatest, you know, eh, err, eh, ep — podium there is, keeps talking about Al-Qaeda and keeps bringing it down to the, sorta, we gotta fight ’em over — over there so we don’t fight ’em over here argument which doesn’t stand the test because, in fact, if you even take away Afghanistan and take away Iraq, the incidence of foreign terrorism in other parts of the world is up. So, you know, this is something that started before Iraq; it’s been exacerbated by Iraq, and the president needs to explain the nature of this struggle, eh, frankly, a little more directly and honestly to the American people.
RUSH: (sigh) I think the president went out and made a speech yesterday about it. I wish he would talk more about some of the atrocities that are being committed. I wish he would talk more about the sheer barbarism of the enemy and who they are and some of the things that they are doing innocent Iraqis. But, Senator Kerry, for you to sit there and to suggest the president needs to get out there and explain what is going on? He’s done that. He may have the bully pulpit, and he may be on the front page of the newspapers every day, but your party and the Drive-By Media are doing everything they can to call him a liar. Well, they’re not doing everything they can. They are calling him a liar! They’re claiming there is no threat. What is this, senator? Terrorism was happening before Iraq? Did you clear that with Cindy Sheehan? Did you clear that with Pelosi and Reid? You’re off the page here, senator. You’re off the party page. There was no terrorism before George Bush took us to Iraq! That’s the Democrat Party line. That’s the Drive-By Media line. All of a sudden, you’ve gone off the playbook now, and you’ve acknowledged that there’s terrorism over there, and around the world.
Yet one of your leading presidential candidates, the Breck Girl, your former vice presidential nominee, is running around saying it’s just a ‘slogan,’ it’s just a ‘bumper sticker.’ Your party, sir, and your media has done everything it could to divide this country on the issue of national security. You call it Iraq and you call it ‘Bush lied’ and all this. We’ve made heroes out of absolute worthless dolts like Joe Wilson because your party and your Senator Schumer prop him up and his wife. You have done everything you can to destroy this nation’s effort to defend itself, to protect itself against future attacks like this, and now you come out and say the president isn’t doing a good enough job of explaining what’s at stake? How about September 11th, 2001? Does that remind anybody of what’s at stake and what’s possible? The two bombs, four bombs, whatever it was, recently in London. How about Madrid? How about the subway bomb in London? What more does anybody need here? We are so affluent that we’ve gotta half of the people, a large number of people who don’t even have to pay attention to this stuff because it doesn’t impact them directly yet. But there are people who are paying attention to it and devoted to the cause and so forth.
This business, too, of fight ’em over there so we don’t have to fight ’em here? Damn right! What the hell is so stupid about that? There’s nothing stupid about it. Go back to Zawahiri’s tape, Senator Kerry, of last week. Zawahiri made it plain they are losing, and he made it plain that Iraq is the central focus of the war against us. They are the enemy and they are telling us exactly who they are, what they are going to do, what their intentions and designs are, and you want to sit here and quibble over whether the president lied or the president is not being vocal or articulate enough about this? (sigh) This argument that Iraq is worthless and need to bring the troops home? The guy running the opposition says it’s the central front. Why do we choose not to believe what he says, and when our president says things, we call him a liar? You ignore Zawahiri! Zawahiri makes it tough for you guys, the Democrat Party and the Drive-By Media, to continue this charade of yours that we’re under no threat and we have no danger that faces us. Let’s grant every bit of your argument, Senator Kerry, that there was no terrorism in Iraq before we went there. Let’s just say that. Al-Qaeda as you just admitted was all over the world, everywhere.
They were in Florida. They were in Minneapolis. They were in Phoenix. They were everywhere but Iraq. Okay, let’s grant your silly premise that they weren’t there. Now they are. That’s the reality. It is what it is, and we are at war with them over there, and whether or not they weren’t there doesn’t matter. It is now the war and they’re trying to defeat us and they’re saying so, and their intention is to take over that country and make it a militant Islamist radical country and government. Think Afghanistan under the Taliban. And that’s exactly what’s going to happen if we pull out. How are we safer if we do this? None of the reality of this is being dealt with by any of these people who are making all these public noises about it from Republican senators to everybody practically except Lieberman in the Democrat Party. These are supposedly the best and brightest among us. These are the people we elect to represent us and make these important decisions and now you’ve got these senators running around like they’re all president of the United States and they’re all secretary of state or they’re all secretary of defense, and they’re wringing their hands. ‘Oh, this is so terrible! I can’t support this. There’s no direction. We can’t wait for the Petraeus report and so forth.’ They’re a bunch of cowards undermining the effort in the process, and for what? I don’t know what, but whatever it is, it’s something totally personal like their election or, whatever, fundraising. I haven’t the slightest idea, but it sure as hell isn’t statesmanship.
RUSH: Let’s go to the phones. Hendersonville, North Carolina. This is Tag. Tag, welcome to the EIB Network. Nice to have you with us.
CALLER: Thanks, Rush. Rush, my question is, I’d really like for you to define for me what it means to have victory there. I mean, I keep hearing you say that the American people don’t want to leave in defeat, but I don’t understand what victory is. About a month and a half ago I think it was, I heard you quote a poll taken of Muslims here in the states and they were less inclined towards democracy after living here. I mean, if victory is defined as the Iraqis embracing democracy, do you really think that’s going to happen?
RUSH: Well, they already have. Where have you been? What network newscast are you watching? They already have! They’ve got a president. They’ve got a parliament. They have legislation. They’ve already embraced democracy. Victory is really not that hard to define, but before I define it for you, can I ask you a question?
RUSH: Why do you seem so…? I might be falsely assuming this, so correct me if I’m wrong, but why are you so willing to embrace defeat?
CALLER: Well, I’m not sure what defeat would be. I mean, from what I’m hearing now, even from the Republicans, is that, you know, the democratic government is falling apart. They can’t — they’re not meeting any of the deadlines.
RUSH: You know, let me tell you something. I’m glad you called, there’s something I need to say again. This war in Iraq is not about the stability of that country alone. It is about US national security, and we are fighting the enemy who has vowed to destroy us, and they did so on 9/11. It’s a reality you can’t ignore. The two-pronged effort here is simply to stabilize that country and try to establish a beachhead that would provide an opportunity for something other than a cauldron of hatred to keep boiling over in that part of the world. The second prong of this is to vanquish Al-Qaeda, dispirit them, send them scattering, and let them know that they cannot defeat us. Dispirit them and demoralize them! Everything else that is being talked about here secures defeat. You don’t know what’s so wrong about defeat. Look at Cambodia, and look at Vietnam afterwards. That’s a good comparison in one sense, but we were never attacked about the North Vietnamese on our soil. Al-Qaeda has. They’ll follow us. They’re probably here already anyway. We know they’re in Great Britain and all over Europe. The idea here that we can just leave there, pull out, admit defeat, and say we’re safer? You’re looking at this in the wrong way, if, A, defeat doesn’t bother you,and you can’t define victory, then you gotta stop watching the Drive-By Media. Stay here exclusively. We’ll fix you up. It may take a couple weeks, but give us the chance.
RUSH: So while we are in a crucial moment in turning the corner in the war in Iraq, Democrats in the Senate have done something purely symbolic that will never happen, and they’re doing absolutely nothing of any substance whatsoever — which, by the way, is okay when it comes to legislation. They are doing plenty of things that are harmful substance-wise in terms of their attitude and words and rhetoric about US troops about the mission, about the war in Iraq and the president and, you know, aiding and abetting the enemy and so forth. ‘Senate Democrats moved yesterday to cut off funding for Vice President Cheney’s office in a continuing battle over whether he must comply with national security disclosure rules. A Senate appropriations panel chaired by Senator Durbin, a Democrat of Illinois, refused to fund $4.8 million in the vice president’s budget until Mr. Cheney’s office complies with parts of an executive order governing its handling of classified information.’
They can’t do this. This is not an agency. This is part of the executive branch. This is purely symbolic, and the Drive-By Media says, ‘Ooh! Wow! Cheney is going to be de-funded.’ These people would like to see Cheney executed. That’s why when we learned that the ChiComs executed their version of the FDA guy, I know these Democrats were salivating over the possibilities that loom ahead should they regain power. Cheney ought to just tell his staff to go on a two-month vacation and shut down his office. This is a perfect example of how lacking in any real substance the Democrats are, that they would — in a time of war, ladies and gentlemen — threaten to shut down the vice president’s office, even on a meaningless, symbolic effort. It is illustrious of how unserious they are. There is a reason why congressional poll numbers are in the tank and lower than President Bush’s, and if these clowns don’t start paying attention to why, there’s going to be a bunch of them as surprised on Election Day ’08 as John McCain is surprised today over what has happened to him.
RUSH: One more thing here about the Senate and the war. I still say that one of the things that’s most puzzling to me about this — and there’s a lot to be puzzled by, but one of the things that’s most puzzling to me — is why not wait for the Petraeus report in September? You have Lieberman and some others saying it’s working; there’s a turnaround; the guys are on the run. Zawahiri, in his tape last week, pretty much said the same thing, and admitting that things are not going swimmingly for them over there. It was a call to arms. It was a recruiting tool and everything else. Things are working; there is a turnaround, but why not wait until September when Petraeus’ report is due? What is so magical about now? Well, for the Democrats, the answer is obvious, and that is: they can’t afford for good news to come out of there because they’ve already proclaimed us defeated. They waved the white flag of surrender. Anything that suggests other than that is just going to put a monkey wrench in their plans. For the Republicans, maybe it’s impatience, futility. These guys in the Senate are just as bombarded by Drive-By Media reports and news as anybody else is, and it may just be that they don’t have the backbone for it. There could also be something. One thing you know that Al-Qaeda is going to do — and this is something that I’m sure the military knows and is preparing themselves for. Right before this report comes out… I think September 15th is the release date of the report.
You can make book on the fact that Al-Qaeda is going to raise hell. Bombs are going to go off. They’re going to do everything they can to counter whatever good news is in that report — and of course there will be the Drive-By Media and their cameras, and they’ll record the carnage, and we’ll have the report, and let’s just hypothetically say the report is good news and progress is being made. The pictures that the Drive-Bys are going to show will show something just the opposite. Now, people, what are they going to believe: what’s in the report and what they’re told is in the report, or the pictures and the associated commentary that will accompany those pictures, the Drive-By Media? It could well be that they guys in the Senate are just afraid that all hell’s going to break loose in September, whatever. It’s a silly reason. It’s the only thing I can come up with on the Republican side.