Rush Limbaugh

For a better experience,
download and use our app!

The Rush Limbaugh Show Main Menu

RUSH: In the New York Times today is an interestingly detailed story about the announced new Afghanistan strategery this morning. The headline: ‘In New Afghan Strategy: Obama Will Add Troops.’ Now, get this: ‘In imposing conditions on the Afghans and Pakistanis, Mr. Obama is replicating a strategy used in Iraq two years ago both to justify a deeper American commitment and prod governments in the region to take more responsibility for quelling the insurgency…’ So what do we have here? We have Obama on television this morning announcing that he’s ramping up the troop presence and the civilian presence in Afghanistan. The Afghanistan government is corrupt. We gotta go in there and we gotta rebuild the state. We gotta go in there. Now, there were two factions on this vying for Obama’s favor. On one side you had Hillary Clinton and Richard Holbrooke who are… Believe me (chuckles) did nothing to recommend anything they suggest.

However, joining them was David Petraeus, the architect of the surge and the success in Iraq. On the other side vying for Obama’s attention was the vice president, Joe Biden, and others. Biden didn’t want any military presence. He wants to pull out of there! Well, he doesn’t want to pull out. He just doesn’t want to ramp up. He wants to use the military in a perhaps never-ending involvement just to keep the Taliban and Al-Qaeda in Pakistan to keep them from reforming in Afghanistan. The Obama plan basically says, ‘Okay, we want to send some troops in there, some civilians in there, and rebuild Afghanistan like we did Iraq.’ I’ve been to Afghanistan. I went there on a trip some years ago. And I have some insight on this. There are things about this that I find fascinating. I’ll share them with you after the break coming up here. But all of this, despite my in-depth analysis upcoming, is just a fake, a feint.


RUSH: Obama is ordering more troops to Afghanistan. Now, this is something he said he was going to do during the campaign. But don’t be fooled by this. He’s doing this on the cheap. He’s not committing nearly enough troops, nor enough civilians to do what he wants to do. He’s trying to do as little as possible so as to not to offend the rest of the world with our foreign policy. More on that in a second. But I want to tell you about Afghanistan. Again, these two options, at least as it’s reported, that were presented to Obama. Don’t ramp up troops, just keep the troops that are there, there, rotate them in and out; and have a constant, never-ending battle with Al-Qaeda and the mullahs of the Taliban — which are going back and forth between the border of Pakistan and Afghanistan just to keep them from establishing a new base in Afghanistan.

Now, one of the questions is, ‘Why did Osama Bin Laden go to Afghanistan in the first place?’ This is key to understand. Our big mistake was after helping to rout the Soviets in Afghanistan in the eighties, the big mistake was pulling out. Because the Mujahedeen, at their base, they were Islamists, and some of them were militant, terrorist-type Islamists. This led to a civil war in Afghanistan which destroyed the country. There was no government. There was no state, per se. If you wanted to talk to the head of state in Afghanistan, there wasn’t one. Bin Laden seized on the stateless nature of Afghanistan to move in there. So Al-Qaeda and the Taliban were set up as in-effect the government, and they did not…

You know, Hitler and Mussolini and Saddam Hussein needed active, functioning nations and governments to pull off what they pulled off. Bin Laden didn’t care about that. He needed a stateless regime so he could bring his terrorists in to rule by terror and keep the population scared to death as a result of terror acts and so forth. That’s how the Taliban ended up running Afghanistan. So this plan of David Petraeus, essentially, is to prevent Afghanistan from becoming another stateless regime. If it does, then Bin Laden or whoever is running the show can move back in and take the country over and everything we’ve done there would be a lost cause. That’s why the Biden plan was rejected. So we’re going to send some troops in there to make sure that Afghanistan remains a government, a functioning government.

So many problems there, like the poppy fields that are patrolled by warlords that earn just countless amounts of dollars. There is no other natural resource in that country that can come close to producing any kind of a national income or a wealth of a nation. So it’s a big, big problem. The people there do live in squalor. You think we’ve got poverty here? You have no idea, even in the capital city of Kabul. There are people in this country who would not put up with the living conditions there. There are living conditions that people haven’t seen. It’s not just the seventh century. I mean it’s that plus more. There have been vast improvements since we went in back in 2002. Now, what the administration is doing is developing specific ‘benchmarks’ for Afghanistan and Pakistan that would be the most explicit demands ever presented to the governments in Kabul and Islamabad, which is a mistake.

They think ‘benchmarks’ made the difference in Iraq, and they’re wrong. It was Petraeus and the best military from the best country on the planet that made the difference. It wasn’t benchmarks. The benchmarks, in Iraq, were set up by members of Congress. They were impossible benchmarks to meet, and when the benchmarks were not met, Congress and the Democrats were able to say, ‘See! See! Iraq’s failing! This war is lost.’ Now, the political component to this. I’m wondering what the American left thinks when the president they elected is ramping up troop levels. By the way, it’s not the War on Terror anymore, even though we’re fighting terrorists. What is it being called? International contingency or some such BS. So here’s the bottom line about all this.

Oh, one more line from the New York Times. ‘The goals that Mr. Obama has settled on may be elusive and, according to some critics, even naive. Among other things, officials said [that Obama] planned to recast the Afghan war as a regional issue involving not only Pakistan but also India, Russia, China, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia and the Central Asian states.’ Well, good luck with that. Nobody wants any part of this! Our allies in NATO don’t want any part of this. If it weren’t for the Turks, the Turkish military, we wouldn’t have a staunch military allied presence there throughout the period of time from 2002 to now. So the victories in Iraq were ‘naive.’ This is the New York Times. They can’t let go of it. Now, here’s the truth about all this, sadly, ladies and gentlemen.

While Obama is doing this in his mile-an-hour wind, everything he does, he does with a global vision. And by that I mean the analysis I just gave you about Afghanistan is not his and it’s not the reason why he’s doing this. He’s doing this for two reasons. One, he’s keeping a campaign promise. He promised to elevate troop levels. The second thing he’s doing, when he looks at the Afghanistan problem through his global prism, he looks at his policies from the standpoint of: ‘What will the world think of my policies?’ That is key to understand, and when you understand that, you realize that Obama, while ramping up — ostensibly. Four thousand troops is not ramping up, not in that country. Civilians? We’ve got civilians there. US AID, A-I-D, the Agency for International Development, they are there.

They have built buildings, schools for women to elevate their status in this country, and it’s worked! There have been tremendous cultural improvements in Afghanistan. Now, I know what’s happened since I was there, all this corruption he’s talking about, but I can tell you that whatever number of civilians and troops that he’s adding, he’s doing it on the cheap ’cause while he’s doing all this he’s cutting defense spending! I’m telling you, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are disasters. Russia, China, Third World communist countries are all on the move — and we’re doing nothing other than begging them to talk to us by telling them it’s a new era of diplomacy. Obama’s agenda, his ideology, requires him to look at things globally: How we can constrain ourselves so as not to offend others or threaten others.

See, Obama’s goal is to be part of the whole. That’s why Geithner goes out there and says, ‘Oh, yeah! Worldwide currency? Yeah, we’re open to that. Oh, yeah! The UN wants us to get involved in a new Kyoto that will break our bank even more on the global warming hoax? Oh, yeah! We’ll get involved in that!’ Obama looks at things globally. His goal is to be part of the whole. Barack Obama’s goal is not to preserve our capitalist system or our republic. He’s destroying it. He’s in the process of tearing it apart from within. We don’t need the communists to do it anymore. We don’t need to worry about infiltration from foreign enemies. It’s being done from the White House. The very strictures, the blocks of the foundation that built this country are being dismantled. The United States of America’s library of freedom, if you will, is being dismantled doorjamb by doorjamb, door by door, brick by brick, floorboard by floorboard.

He wants to be part of The World, and he thinks that the world resents us. We’re too big. He’s going to take care of that. So while announcing this big head fake of the brand new ramp-it-up policy in Afghanistan, he cuts the defense budget and continues to deconstruct the United States of America from within. If you watch Hillary, she’s traveling the world, and she is those apologize for our country in the guise of apologizing for Bush policies. She goes to Mexico. ‘It’s our fault you got violence down here. Blame us!’ Obama’s speech to the Muslim world in that video, another apology for America. Obama has envoys traveling to the worst regimes in the world telling them it’s a new day for diplomacy. I want you to listen to something. This is striking. Last night On the record, Greta Van Susteren, the Fox News Channel, she interviewed the secretary of state Hillary Clinton, and Greta said, ‘What are we going to do about North Korea?’

HILLARY: I sent word that we would like to have our special envoy for North Korean policy go to Pyongyang. They didn’t want him to come. So we’re working hard — and if they’re watching you, I’m sure that, uh, since you were there, you made a big impression, went to a karaoke bar in Pyongyang.

VAN SUSTEREN: (laughs)

HILLARY: They probably still remember you. If they’re watching, if anybody from North Korea is watching this, eh, program, you — with you, Greta —

VAN SUSTEREN: I do a mean Elvis karaoke.

HILLARY: I’ll bet. You know, we’d love for them to, uh, begin to talk about what we can do together to fulfill the framework of the Six-Party Talks.

RUSH: This is just unbelievable. This is beyond tacky! Here is the secretary of state on the Fox News Channel at ten o’clock on Thursday night, and she says: If anybody is watching in North Korea, would you please call us? We’d really love to talk to you and get the Six-Party talks back on. And, by the way, we wanted to send our envoy over there to ping-pong and talk to you about this, but you wouldn’t let our envoy into ping-pong. Pyongyang, whatever. (laughing) Now, if the North Koreans reply, it’s great news for Greta. She’s got an audience there in a nation with no electricity. It means they’re making special effort, but to have to say, ‘Hey, hey, hey! Hey, you pot-bellied little pig, what, Kim Jong-il? If you’re watching me here on Greta, we really want to talk to you!’ Now, that happened last night before we announced the big Afghanistan policy. This is after Hillary Clinton goes to Mexico and blames the United States for the violence that is taking place there. Here’s another statement from Mrs. Clinton in Mexico. She’s in Monterrey. This before returning to the United States. She held a press conference.

HILLARY: This partnership that you have created here between the public and the private sector is a model that we and others will look towards.

RUSH: What?

HILLARY: Mexico’s goal for emission reduction and for meeting a sizable portion of your electricity needs through renewable energy is another model of how nations can move toward a low-carbon energy future, clean energy jobs as well.

RUSH: Just unbelievable, the secretary of state of the United States goes to Mexico and says we have a lot to learn from you environmentally, after blaming her own country. So the Obama foreign policy, blame America first, a global vision, come up with policies that will not advance US interests but rather will please the world, including our enemies. Hey, if you’re in North Korea and you’re watching me here on Greta, give me a call! You know how to reach me. We want to send our envoy in there, get the Six-Party Talks going.’ And then go to Mexico and praise them on their environmental progress and their public-private sector partnership. What private sector-public sector? (snorts) It’s like every other country with an authoritarian public sector. The private sector doesn’t have much choice in what they’re doing there.


RUSH: I’ll tell you what’s really scary about US foreign policy right now is that Hillary Clinton is incompetent. I mean incompetent, going to Mexico, joking about don’t drink the water and then praising them about their environmental advancements and then on Greta begging the North Korea communists to call her? The scary thing is she’s twice the man Obama is, and that illustrates just how precarious our circumstance is. And how about this guy from down in Brazil? People love Brazil, Rio de Janeiro and so forth. President Lulu says that white people with blue eyes caused the financial crisis. Lets me off the hook, my eyes are hazel. White people with blue eyes is a racist comment, ladies and gentlemen. White people with blue eyes caused the financial crisis. Here’s Obama, this is his explanation why he’s doing what he’s doing in Afghanistan.

OBAMA: Al-Qaeda and its allies, the terrorists who planned and supported the 9/11 attacks are in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Multiple intelligence estimates have warned that Al-Qaeda is actively planning attacks on the United States homeland from a safe haven in Pakistan.

RUSH: I knew it.

OBAMA: And if the Afghan government falls to the Taliban or allows Al-Qaeda to go unchallenged, that country will again be a base for terrorists who want to kill as many of our people as they possibly can.

RUSH: I told you. This is why on paper it’s a good plan. You can’t let Afghanistan fall. It will become a base again, as it once was. Somebody asked me, ‘Is this a political decision he’s going to make tomorrow, announcement, or is it something else? What’s the politics of it?’ I don’t know that this is so much political. This is intel. The last thing he needs is an attack on Americans by terrorists right now. That kind of chaos he does not want while he’s tearing down capitalism. He doesn’t want that kind of chaos. So I’m sure there’s some intel here that they believe that’s pretty serious. So he just talked about terrorists, did he not? Listen to this next bite.

OBAMA: We have a clear and focused goal: to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat Al-Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan and to prevent their return to either country in the future. That’s the goal that must be achieved. That is a cause that could not be more just. And to the terrorists who oppose us, my message is the same: We will defeat you. A campaign against extremism will not succeed with bullets or bombs alone. Al-Qaeda’s offers the people of Pakistan —

RUSH: So he’s talking about terrorists in these two bites, and then he calls this a campaign against extremism, not the war on terror, a campaign against extremism. I’ve got one more bite, but because of the constraints of the programming format, I haven’t time. So let me tease you with what it is. It’s from February of — now, wait a minute. I thought it was February 2008, but my cue sheet says 2007. Regardless, it was during the campaign. We have aired this before, and it is Obama speaking to a group called Caucus for Priorities, the campaign that set out to recruit 10,000 Iowa caucus attendees to pledge support for Obama, and in this bite that you will hear soon, he details how he’s going to dismantle United States defense structure, and he’s doing it!


RUSH: Say, look, if Hillary can go on Greta and ask the North Koreans in ping-pong to call her, I can do it, too. Somebody in the White House listening? If you’re listening to me right now in the White House, would you please call? 800-282-2882, I want to talk to you about the budget, how you’re destroying the country and ripping apart the foundation building blocks. We’re trying to reach you, but you won’t talk to us. Would you please call me here? Anybody at all in the White House.


RUSH: Here is Obama. I want to repeat this, given what we just analyzed in the previous hour on this Afghanistan policy, which is not what it seems. His Afghanistan policy, all the objective goals are right: make sure that it remains a state, a government so that Al-Qaeda Taliban can’t retake the country. But he’s not sending enough troop or civilians in there to get the job done. He looks globally: ‘How could we do this without offending the rest of the world, without them having get mad at me?’ Let’s go back to October 22nd of 2007, Obama getting ready to gin up attendance at the Hawkeye Cauci.

OBAMA: As president, I will end misguided defense policies and stand with Caucus for Priorities in fighting special interests in Washington. First, I’ll stop spending $9 billion a month in Iraq. I’m the only major candidate who opposed this war from the beginning — and as president, I will end it. Second, I will cut tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending. I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems. I will not weaponize space. I will slow our development of future combat systems, and I will institute an independent defense priorities board to ensure that the Quadrennial Defense Review is not used to justify unnecessary spending. Third, I will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons. To seek that goal, I will not develop new nuclear weapons; I will seek a global ban on the production of fissile material, and I will negotiate with Russia to take our ICBMs off hair-trigger alert and to achieve deep cuts in our nuclear arsenals. You know where I stand.

RUSH: That’s his remarks to a bunch of people, he’s trying to get ’em interested in his candidacy prior to the Hawkeye Cauci. That goes back to 2007. He’s implementing these things. He’s cutting the defense budget, while ostensibly ramping the situation up in Afghanistan. He’s using the same lingo and executing ostensibly the same policy that we did in Iraq that worked, the surge — a policy which he also opposed from the get-go. I’m telling you, he said it himself today when he made the announcement. They’ve got intelligence reports that there are big terrorist attacks planned. Ah! Ah! Contingency plans. There’s no longer a War on Terror. They’re man-made contingencies, or international contingencies — extremist contingencies, exactly. Somebody, as I said, asked me last night, ‘What’s the politics of this?’ I don’t know about the politics of it, but there’s gotta be some intel. He likes chaos, but he doesn’t want the chaos of another attack on this country, a devastating attack like the World Trade Center. That would derail all of his plans to destroy capitalism.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This