RUSH: Snerdley, did you know that there is an Associated Press of Pakistan? There is. It’s APP.com.pk. ‘Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has pledged continued pressure on militants along Pakistan Afghanistan border and noted that the United States bears some responsibility for helping to create terrorists that threaten America and its allies.’ So it’s our fault, administration contends. ‘Clinton also said in an interview that she is convinced of Pakistan’s strong commitment to get rid of terrorists as she recognized that the South Asian nation is responding forcefully to the Taliban threat in areas bordering Afghanistan.
‘The chief US diplomat told popular Charlie Rose TV Show that she listened to Pakistani concerns during her recent visit and in her meetings with the civil society representatives also aired US concerns on some issues including the whereabouts of al-Qaeda leaders. ‘Well, I did raise that question because I was very willing to hear all the questions and the concerns from the people and the Government of Pakistan. And there are reasons for their concerns. I mean, we haven’t always been the most consistent or understanding partner and ally over the course of our relationship. And we do bear some of the responsibility, frankly, for helping to create the very terrorists that we are now all threatened by,’ she stated.’ Our secretary of state, in Pakistan, making that statement. So that’s who we are, that’s who we have running our country. They’re all Alinskyites.
Have you ever heard, by the way, we got this debate raging here over whether or not to send any more troops to Afghanistan, McChrystal, the general on the ground, wants 40,000 troops. And it looks like they’re going to send 34,000. Media reports today that we’re going to have a troika of Gates, Hillary Clinton, and Obama or somebody, they’re going to decide on sending 34,000 troops. Let me ask you a question, folks. Have you ever heard Barack Obama explain why we are in Afghanistan? Have you heard him tell us what the mission is under his command? He is the commander-in-chief. Have you heard him say what the policy is? Do any of you know why we are there? What do you know beyond the fact that he has said he is uncomfortable with the concept of victory? Why are we there? What are we doing? What is the purpose? We can’t say war on terror anymore, officially, as people that work for the government can’t. Although I guess Hillary violated that by referring to these people as terrorists, but my point is, I’m watching video of the president at Arlington National Cemetery today, I just had the impression that Afghanistan and Iraq, and having to go to Arlington, they’re just political inconveniences.
It’s just things he has to make a show of caring about but really doesn’t, and I firmly believe that. He has many, many other higher priorities. Well, Afghanistan, it’s quite obvious. That’s not even arguable. You know, I think back to my wonderful and earth-shattering, shocking appearance on Fox News Sunday in which I said in response to questions from Chris Wallace I think he’s wrecking the economy on purpose. I don’t think he cares about Afghanistan. I recall that in all of the administration reaction, they didn’t address the substance of one charge that I made, folks. They came back, ‘Well, you know Limbaugh, just an entertainer. I mean it’s surreal to be lectured to on humility by Rush Limbaugh,’ blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
But let me ask you something, if you happened to be the president of the United States and a highly acclaimed and extremely proper media figure goes on television or on the radio every day and says you are purposely wrecking the economy — (laughing) they have yet to respond to that. They have yet to respond to, ‘He doesn’t care about Afghanistan.’ Look, the reason they don’t respond to he doesn’t care about Afghanistan is because they’re going to have to say what their purpose is, and they haven’t done that. I mean, back during the Iraq war when Bush was in power, the only reason to go to Afghanistan was to find Bin Laden. Remember? Once we got Bin Laden, the war on terror would be over. Bush had failed because we didn’t have Bin Laden. But now we don’t care, all those people that said we had to get Bin Laden, it doesn’t matter.
Now, for those of you who are disappointed that Barack Obama doesn’t seem willing to connect the dots as they relate to domestic jihad and terrorism. In his speech yesterday at Fort Hood, I mean if you listen to that, it was mind-numbing to listen to him describe that in terms that nobody accepts or believes. What I want to do here is an exercise of giving Obama the benefit of the doubt. He tells us that we should not jump to conclusions. Have you heard, by the way, about what happened at the Columbia University bar, the black professor, 59, punched out a white employee of the university? Theater department. They were talking about race in the bar, and the subject of white privilege came up, and tempers flared and this 59-year-old black guy, Professor McIntyre decked this theater department employee. I mean it was so loud, people in the kitchen could hear the fist hit the face. Let’s not jump to conclusions, folks, about what was behind that. Just because they were talking about white privilege doesn’t give us any indication at all why the guy decked the girl. We can’t jump to conclusions on that. Just like we can’t jump to conclusions with some lunatic shouting ‘Allahu Akbar’ and opening fire on military personnel at Fort Hood.
So this is an exercise in giving Obama the benefit of the doubt, pretending that he doesn’t know exactly what he’s doing in every one of these instances, which I don’t believe, frankly. But, you know, whether Obama is a bright guy who knows what he’s doing or is a naive fool that doesn’t, the result’s still the same, so the reason doesn’t matter. Whether he’s a bright guy who knows what he’s doing or is a naive fool that doesn’t know what he’s doing doesn’t matter; the result is the same. In reality, Obama connects dots as well as anybody, it’s just that the dots he connects create a picture that Americans don’t want, like or need. For example, Obama has not connected the dots that Iran’s present nuclear plans and activities will result in Iran obtaining a nuclear arsenal to go along with their promise to wipe Israel off the map. He’s not connecting those dots. Is it because he’s naive or is it because he knows what he’s doing? Doesn’t matter. The fact is he’s not connecting the dots!
He hasn’t connected the dots that siding with Central and South American thug dictators, what that will do to undermine the future of freedom and democracy in the region. It doesn’t matter whether he knows what he’s doing or doesn’t know what he’s doing; the result is the same: We are in trouble. He hasn’t connected the dots on abandoning our allies in Eastern Europe and what that will trigger in Russia. So I don’t care whether he’s a bright guy that knows what he’s doing or a naive fool that doesn’t know what he’s doing, the result is the same, we in heap big doo-doo. He hasn’t connected the dots with regard to where following political advice leads as opposed to military advice in matters of war, i.e., Afghanistan and putting health care first, it’s a political inconvenience is what it is. That’s the truth. The result’s the same. He has not connected the dots on bankrupting the country and resulting inability to fund the military and defend ourselves. In fact, it may be one of the purposes, to defund the military. But whether it is or isn’t, it will happen.
He hasn’t connected the dots with domestic jihad and terrorism. Whether he’s a bright guy and knows what he’s doing or is a naive fool and doesn’t, it doesn’t matter, it’s still the same, the result. He hasn’t connected the dots on completing the private sector of capital and the resulting inability to create jobs and thus provide adequate revenues to pay for what the government is supposed to do. Whether he is purposely destroying the economy or whether he’s a naive fool that doesn’t know what he’s doing doesn’t matter; the result is the same: The economy is being destroyed. I mean Obama, he’s probably one of the better dot connectors in American history. The only problem is that his dots are not our dots and the same thing with Pelosi and Harry Reid. They’re connecting a whole different set of dots and their dots are all about them, first and foremost. So, to oppose Obama and Pelosi and Reid is political and economic self-defense. Whether the attacker coming after you knows what he’s doing or is insane doesn’t matter, you still have to protect yourself, right? To sit passively and hope for the best will result in — well, you connect the dots. I’m sure you can.